As I do more speaking engagements and meet more of my readers, I'm learning how the same piece of work is understood differently by different readers. The interpretations of my characters, of the meaning of the story -- its lessons -- often has a lot more to do with the reader's priors than what's written on the page or what I had in mind when I wrote it.

For example, some readers are convinced that my novel, The Oracle of Spring Garden Road, is an anti-religious novel and that all of the lead character's troubles stem from his religious outlook. Other readers, however, have told me they believe the opposite is true -- that the novel is a deeply religious novel, which chronicles the consequences of distorting religious teachings. Still others have viewed religion as ancillary to the point of the novel, which they believe has more to do with with mental illness than religion.

Another key disagreement amongst readers is how they judge the Cathy, a central character in the novel. Some view her rather harshly, as manipulative and cruel. Others, however, view her as well-intentioned and very human. In their view, the nastiness she exhibited was simply a response to the immense pressure she was under and ought to be forgiven. Just last week, however, a reader told me that she viewed Cathy as the real victim, and that the lead character had introduced discord into their family by treating her shabbily earlier in the book.

I find this fascinating! And I think it means that art has no inherent meaning, nor does the artist have a monopoly on its interpretation. Instead, while I can discuss my original intentions, I think the individual, subjective understandings are immensely valuable and add layers to the 'meaning' of the work. We should interpret art through our own lenses, provided our interpretations are consistent with what's on the page.

Vive la difference!