Intention vs. Interpretation

In Corey's post titled "That's not what I meant," he questioned the necessity of authorial intent for a metaphor. He also discussed the virtue of interpreting an author's work in other ways from their intention.

I do not think that Corey's views on interpretation of metaphors are incompatible with my claim that metaphors are intentional. Just as an author may capture certain concepts in his work which were not intended, a metaphor may expand beyond the intended purpose of the author to include other concepts as well. This is a matter of interpretation. Interpretation allows the audience to read a story or a metaphor and speculate as to what different aspects of either mean. I think that interpretation is a valuable exercise and there are many aspects of literature that may be more fulfilling with interpretations of concepts outside of the author's intention. However, I do believe that a diligent reader will use the context of the story or metaphor in order to make a reasonable assessment of their interpretations. Also, while I noted that interpretation could, and perhaps should, go beyond the intention of the author, I firmly hold that the author's intention is an inherent part of all of their work, including their metaphors. Also, while metaphors can be interpreted in a multitude of reasonable ways, there is an intended purpose or message inherent to each metaphor.