James Joyce

>>8662223
Most of the critical interpretations of Joyce's works are based on things that Joyce himself said about them.

To your second question.
"Meaning" is always the creation of the reader. It is impossible to completely reconstruct the authors intentions from the book alone, and furthermore why would you want to? Literature is not a discipline in search of single answers, books are the soil for our ideas. From the loam of a book you can extract and evince an infinite number of interpretations, the only thing that matters is that your analysis is compelling and thoroughly substantiated. It is all just a big game. The same goes for criticism, people like Harold Bloom know that objective quality doesn't exist in any perceivable form within literature. But he seeks it out anyways as an exercise, because it's fun. That is why you read, because it's fun to consider possibilities, to explore foreign ideas, and experience fictional narratives.

>>8662223
Sometimes the author doesn't know why he writes what he writes. That's the lit-crit line, at least. It's like interpreting a dream, sometimes somebody other than the dreamer is the better interpreter. Sure, very often artists have programs and say things deliberately, but they also say things not deliberately, without knowing they're saying them. That's what it means to interpret the work and not the author's intentions.

You can read just to find out what Joyce said.
Or you can read to find out how what Joyce said relates to your life and experiences.

If reading is just data transference then it is a pretty poor business. It is much more valuable to find more meaning than the author supplied.

>>8662261
This is a way better way of expressing what I was trying to say.