That's different. Of course a work of art should evoke feelings, memories, thoughts, etc to you that are personal to you, it's a big part of what art is supposed to be.
What I have a problem with is ascribing these to the author without any evidence that they actually meant it that way.
Why must there be evidence and explicit intent expressed outside the text?
E.M. Forster said "How can I know what I think until I see what I say?" Poker players have unconscious tells that reveal intent that is not verifiable by simply asking what their hand is, and they certainly wouldn't intentionally reveal what the subconscious reveals for them.
I've written fiction and while there's certainly intent in much of the crafting of a story or novel, there are also emergent themes, feelings, evoked emotions, and connections that go beyond anything I could concretely articulate as explicit intent. It's not surprising that when those emergent properties are interpreted by others that similar feelings are produced, connections made.
Can those evocations of emotion be "ascribed" to me independent of evidence? Well, they wouldn't have been evoked had the work not been created, so yes, they can be.
I suspect, as others point out, that your problem is more with academic conformance imposed by a lit instructor. But your tone seems to conflate those issues with the merit and value of literature, and the discussion of hypotheses about meaning.
You can form hypotheses about the intent of writing, and support it with evidence inside the text. It's not that far afield of rhetoric and debate. It's okay not to spend your time on that (just as I decided my analytical skills were better spent on investing, with a return, than fantasy sports). But I also don't begrudge those who decide they want to spend their time on endless mock drafts and fantasy sports leagues.
I'm glad you (and it sounds like davidw) had a great experience with other instructors though.
It's frankly disgusting and terrifying in equal measure. When I say something, I want to tell you that thing. I don't want my words to be misunderstood as your feelings. It's already extremely hard to communicate with people. It gets exponentially harder when you have to predict how they'll interpret what you say.
It's not the same, because this is a layer under the communication. It's like how you can understand perfectly well what a few lines on a sketch show, but a complete painting is something other than pure communication. So is creative writing, so I don't think that criticism is valid.
Its purpose is not to just communicate, and that's fine.
> Why must there be evidence and explicit intent expressed outside the text?
There mustn't. They can also be expressed inside the text, or at least hinted at.
> It's not surprising that when those emergent properties are interpreted by others that similar feelings are produced, connections made.
Sure, and saying "this work evokes in me these feelings" is fine. Saying "the author here is symbolizing X with Y" is not.
> But I also don't begrudge those who decide they want to spend their time on endless mock drafts and fantasy sports leagues.
I don't have a problem with people saying "I think that this may be symbolism for X", because then I can just say "well, I don't think it is, but sure". I have a problem with people expressing their hypothesis as fact, basically.
>What I have a problem with is ascribing these to the author without any evidence that they actually meant it that way.
I'll try to find the artist - but they wrote a song and the fanbase didn't "get their message".
The lyrics were supposed to be face-value but people found metaphors where no metaphors were meant to be and devised an entire story around the song that didn't exist. How it related to his childhood growing up and the struggles of his teenage years, overcoming an addiction, etc.
The artist said in an interview (Paraphrased) "That's not at all what I meant when I wrote this song - but it does sound better. So I'll take the credit."
I was unable to find it. Although I did find a number of songs where the artist had to tell people what it was about because they were misinterpreted. :) Same thing, slightly different scenarios.
What I have a problem with is ascribing these to the author without any evidence that they actually meant it that way.