Objectives and Interpretation

In reference to the whole of the Introduction: “How'd He Do That?” of Thomas C. Foster's book How To Read Literature Like A Professor.
I think there is something to be said about the lack of attention spent on individuality and subjectivity. Of course I would say that “Memory. Symbol. Pattern.” is a great mantra when confronting a text, because writers ponder all such things when creating. However, Foster simply ignores the role of individual interpretation and experience in literature for the majority of his book, which I find to be an inexcusable faux pas. Part of what makes literature vastly successful in the first place is this consideration on the part of the writer. A writer wants his/her work to be personal for each member of his audience. The writer wants the audience to be able to derive special meaning from a text, while also retaining a larger theme. Through the medium of the human mind a work can be dissected differently depending on the person, thus giving a text infinite meaning, which is why authors fight so hard to have their work proliferated. However some elements of a text were indeed crafted to have universal symbolism. So an advanced writer composes with two objectives: making a work intimate for the individual, while leaving some components consistent for all. Most writers strive for multiple meanings in their writing, and I don't think any of them would condone a 'blank will always represent blank' mentality. Most writers want certain aspects of their work to be subjective, but a text is always written for a specific reason. So whether the main purpose of a work is expressed in the tone, figurative language, or syntax, not all the ingredients that make up a piece of literature have to be resolute. Keeping that in mind, the clues and suggestions Foster speaks of, can be used to discover the ultimate motives of a writer if they so happen to elude a reader. Nevertheless one must acknowledge the influence of the singular, subjective understanding of literature.