No specific examples come to mind right now.

I'm speaking more generally of how people will often associate their own unique interpretation of a book with the book itself, as though that was the intended purpose of the book.

If it wasn't intended, isn't that more a reflection of the reader's own mind rather than the author's? To me it just seems wrong to praise the book or the author for helping me achieve that perspective when it was more a result of my own critical analysis.

>But when the interpretation follows a methodical and systematic analysis thorough the book (or all of the books from an author), it could be attributed to the writer even if it wasn't consciously intended.

But was it the book that got you to that particular interpretation or was it the systematic analysis? If the author simply meant to write a fun read with no expectation of deep analysis, then I would say it's your analysis that is creating that meaning for you from the text, not necessarily the text itself.

That makes sense. I agree that well written works are more likely to elicit deeper meanings and a deeper connection than poorly written works.

What I don't get is why a particular book should be praised for some unique insight I got when that wasn't the intent of the author. The book was simply the means of getting me to that insight. Another book or movie or song lyric could also just as well have gotten me to that insight. So if that was not the intent of the author, then that particular book cannot be uniquely credited for helping me reach that particular insight.

Is it not possible for people to read unique meanings in a particular text, beyond the general message?

Of course the general understanding of a book that everyone takes away is praiseworthy because that was the intent of the author. But that doesn't mean that every perspective I take away is the author's intent. If it wasn't the author's intent, I cannot solely credit them or the book for helping me reach that perspective.

The book was simply a means for me to bring to mind something that was already within me. Another book could also have done that. It's not a unique praiseworthy quality of that particular book.

Nothing wrong with praising the book, but for you to praise a book for some particular insight that you achieved is not necessarily a virtue of the book. The book may be excellent, but if the author never intended for you to achieve that particular insight that's more from you the reader than the author, regardless of how great the book is.

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.

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.

>Yes, but authors can intentionally take you to specific places of perception you haven't been or didn't know about

Yes, they can. But doesn't necessarily mean that every feeling or perspective you take away from a book was the author's doing.

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?

I don't mean that the skill and talent of the musician or the writer should not be praised. They may very well be excellent in their craft.

What I mean is that often people will praise a piece of work for eliciting a certain feeling or making them think a certain way. They will talk about that feeling or perspective as an intentional choice that the author made, for which they ought to be praised. But if that was never the intent of the author, isn't that more from the reader's interpretation than from the author? It doesn't mean that the author is any less skilled as a writer but that particular feeling came from the reader, not the book.

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?

Yes. Similar concepts and themes will elicit similar feelings, irrespective of the specific words that are used.

Of course the quality of the writing between two works may differ but the feelings that I feel would be the same. That's more about me and my perspectives and beliefs as a reader, and not necessarily that the author intended to elicit that feeling.

The Golden Compass.

Lyra was such a great, strong character in the first book.

>Would you have been able to feel that deep connection to some element of the story if the author didn't write it well or choose to include it in their story?

Yes, I think you could read deeper meanings in a poorly written book, based on your own personal perspectives and beliefs. You could read a kids book and find a deep personal connection there, while the author intended to write a simple kids book.

The writing of a work may be objectively bad but you could still feel a strong connection with the message that is presented. If that feeling was something the author never intended, then that feeling is more a reflection on you than the author.

That's a good point. I like the idea of a mutual process of meaning-making between the book and the reader.

It's like the writing has unique value to each reader based on what each reader takes from it. It may be an objectively well written piece of work, but it's real value lies in the unique meaning each individual reader takes.

>Words organized in a different order wouldn't have caused you to feel or think about that revelation

Why not?

For example, if I am a staunch atheist and I have a tendency to notice and connect with anti-religious messages in books, isn't it likely that any such writing would elicit the same feelings regardless of how the words were organized? The book could be well written or poorly written, but either way I might connect with the anti-religious message because of my personal beliefs.

I completely agree with giving due credit for good writing, but if you took some deep meaning from the words which was not the intent of the writer then that doesn't necessarily make it good writing. If you had a profound epiphany as a result of reading the book, that doesn't necessarily make the book profound.