Any specific examples?

>The author may have simply written a strong character who happens to be female. The author may never have intended the character's gender to be a focal point but a feminist would praise the book as though the author intended to strengthen a female character. That would be false praise for the author.

The author is actually deserving of more praise in that example, because he wrote a strong female character subconsciously, and so he's naturally a feminist and his work is not contrived.

>Maybe my example doesn't make sense but the point I'm making is that for me to praise a book for presenting a concept or a perspective that was not the author's intent is unearned praise for the author.

You might've had this experience with a few books and are trying to extrapolate a universal theory. I can't think of any good examples of this, though.

>If I have a profound experience with a book but I have no idea if my understanding of the text is what the author intended, how can I praise the author for leading me to this profound experience?

You have to be more specific than that. Are you saying you found the meaning of life in a cupcake recipe? Or did you interpret Animal Farm slightly differently than most people. Because if an author aims to write something thought-provoking and it provokes your thoughts, I don't see how you wouldn't credit them.

>For example, a feminist reader may praise a book for its portrayal of strong female characters. If the author never really intended to highlight strong female characters, isn't that unearned praise for the author?

That example doesn't really make sense. The author still wrote strong female characters, whether a feminist praises it or not.

>It may be an objectively well written piece of work, but it's real value lies in the unique meaning each individual reader takes.

Yes, but authors can intentionally take you to specific places of perception you haven't been or didn't know about, even if it's slightly different for everyone. It takes a perceptive reader, but it also takes skill and talent on the author's part.

That's like saying a musician doesn't deserve praise for making you cry with a melody, because they didn't "intend" to make you reflect on your specific grief, a dead parent, for example. But that's missing the point. Think of it this way: they took you to that place through skill and talent, and you found something personal there. It's a collaboration right? Because words don't just exist on the page, they're brought to life through your perception, but it takes talent or skill to get you there.

On the cynical side, you could elicit "deep meaning" from a chocolate chip cookie recipe if you really wanted to. The cookie dough is my soul and each dark chip is mark on it, etc. But, that's more or less projecting your own interpretation completely outside of what the author intended. Maybe that's what you're talking about. But, that isn't how most literature works. Most authors intend to take you to a certain place, where you can elicit a specific type of meaning.

But, it really does take a genius level of talent to bring you to certain places. To say the deep meaning in Blood Meridian is just a coincidence or not intended by the author is naïve. Every single word is intentional. You might read something you think is inconsequential, but it's actually a reference or a revision to the literary canon. A new idea or a new way of looking at an old idea, symbolism, or metaphors with layers of meaning. That isn't an accident, that's talent.