A thought about thought crime.

[Mudhammam]

I think it's more that, given the sheer number of different and mutually exclusive interpretations, and in the absence of any source that clarifies the true intent of the text, the only truly reliable thing that we have is the words on the page. If it's metaphorical language, how would we know? And further, how would we know which metaphor we're supposed to apply?

I see that as more the fault of our analytical minds--which interpret and inevitably subject everything into terms consistent with our prior percepts and concepts--rather than with any particular text in-of-itself. I mean, in all works of poetry and fiction, there is no single character that is going to resemble anyone else's conception; interpretations will differ with as many different minds cognizant of the story. To blame an author for taking artistic license in his or her use of metaphors, without seeking to understand the historical context, or how the audience of that time period would have likely understood it, or to ignore the very nature of mind and subjectivity (why must only one interpretation be "the correct one"?), seems to me lazy and disingenuous.