It is a fairly well-known piece of trivia that Esther (minus the apocryphal chapters) is the only book of the bible that does not directly mention God. Which of the accepted schools of Hermeneutics consider this to be meaningful information for the interpretation of the text?
I don't think any "school of Hermeneutics" worth its salt would discount the importance of that characteristic of the book. While I don't believe it changes the interpretation of the book, it certainly underscores one of the central messages of the book: viz., The sovereignty of God is manifest even when it is hidden. Karen Jobes put it extremely well:
The book of Esther is perhaps the most striking biblical statement of what systematic theologians call the providence of God. When we speak of God's providence, we mean that God, in some invisible and inscrutable way, governs all creatures, actions, and circumstances through the normal and the ordinary course of human life, without the intervention of the miraculous. The book of Esther is the most true-to-life biblical example of God's providence precisely because God seems absent. - Esther (The NIV Application Commentary), p. 43.
Iain Duguid echoes this same thought:
In the Book of Esther we see God working invisibly and behind the scenes. Here there are neither dramatic miracles nor great heroes, just apparently ordinary providence moving flawed and otherwise undistinguished people into exactly the right place at the right time to bring the empire into line and to establish God's purposes for his people. - Esther and Ruth (Reformed Expository Commentary)
Personally, I take great comfort from the reminder that some of God's most thrilling work is done from "behind the curtain", so to speak. Often, it is when He seems most distant and invisible that I find He is most vitally active in my life and circumstances.