Frank Townsend wrote:
You're arguing for what has been termed the "intentional fallacy," an approach first criticized by proponents of the New Criticism (advocating an objective theory of art), in the 1940s. See http://www.cumber.edu/litcritweb/theory/wimsatt.htm Michael Mahon's statement still represents fairly mainstream literary critical thinking (although the issue is hotly debated at the extremes).
Be that as it may, that doesn't make it right. Or wrong. But, alas, we wander still further from the topic.
Roy
"Exegete" <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message 3C5ED07B.40408@noneofyourbusiness.com">news:3C5ED07B.40408@noneofyourbusiness.com...I'm not so sure that I'd agree with "seldom", and I certainly couldn't agree with that the author isn't the best judge of "wonderful hidden meanings" that he had not deliberated created. J.R.R. Tolkien, in his introduction (or was it the preface?) to Lord of the Rings attacked exactly the same point - he hated allegory as a genre, and LOTR was consciously not an allegory, nor was it a fictionalization of the Second World War, though he did acknowledge that his experiences in the war could have colored his writing.