Overinterpretation in the Literary World Part I

I have always excelled in English and literature classes. Contrary to my mother's theories of a prodigious intellect, I offer a more humble explanation. I am good at interpreting literature for a simple reason: I am exceptionally adept at, for lack of a less vulgar phrase which conveys my talent more succinctly, bulls***ting.

I once engaged in an argument with a literature teacher (a kind, but often harsh taskmaster) about intentional placement of literary devices into works by authors. She adamantly believed that authors consciously insert most of the symbols and imagery into their works for the readers to interpret/discover. I took the view that, while a great deal of symbols and literary devices may be purposefully placed, it is just as likely that literary scholars throughout time have merely given meaning to otherwise innocuous images.

This is not bad mind you. By forming new symbols and meanings, the ability to appreciate a story transcends just superficial levels of thought. However, all too often the literary scholars take the more sanctioned interpretations of literature and teach them to students as dogma. These zealous literary scholars take their interpretations and, often, over-interpretations far too seriously and penalize those who do not agree with the accepted symbolic value of a work.

Tonight, I will demonstrate how the absurdity of over-interpretation can be stretched. While I will certainly receive criticism for using a non traditional medium as an example of over-interpretation, I believe it will underscore the absurdity I am hoping to demonstrate.