ITT: trite ways to interpret works of fiction

ITT: trite ways to interpret works of fiction
I'll start:

>character X is the alter ego of the author
>characters X and Y are different sides of the same person

The curtains were fucking blue.

There's literally nothing wrong with either of these.

>anticipates

>X is the greedy capitalist
>Y is the exploited working class

>the moral of the story is...
I swear this is a fucking embarrassing mindset to have past age 8

>it's an allegory for—
No it fucking isn't, stop paring it down to thin twigs.

>X really acting on libidinal drive to do Y

is Robinson alter-ego of Bardamu?

But what if alter-egoiness is so fucking visible after reading authors bio (i.e. Steppenwolf)?

>I didn't like to see him go
>I didn't like him, he was so mean

This is literal pleb-tier. This thread is for pseudy things only sorry.

Hardly an 'interpretation'.

>the human condition

>character X is actually an ideal human being, but their ultimate, unfortunate circumstances are the result of flaw Y in the world

>protagonist X and antagonist Y are the thesis and antithesis of a dialectic, their interactions are the dialectic in motion, and the work concludes with the author's proposed synthesis

>the work is merely a way for the author to preach ideology X

>this work is [ideology] bullshit
>this work is a greatest proof to join [ideology]

> They were dead all along and in purgatory

Literal meme analysis

literal tvtropes meme

>physical manifestation of pure evil

Are you calling persona a bad film

>The increasingly chaotic events represent the protagonists descent into insanity

>an exploration of what it means to be X

>Character represents the author's dad

It makes sense if the author is female. Women literally never get over their dads.

>it was about man's inner struggle with X

>Gregor Samsa didn't reeeeeeeaaaaaaaaalllllly turn into a roach

what if the work is literally a dialectic ?

It doesn't matter, you still have to deny this obvious interpretation for the sake of Veeky Forums contrarian rubbish, which is all that matters.

Who cares if it's trite if it's true? Are we supposed to invent wacky new ways to look at literature upside down just because you're bored?

> Stop saying you had a good time at the party, James, it's so trite.

being quiet is an option too you know

>mfw hesse's poetic bio at the end was the best part of steppenwolf

>but what if they did X
>why didn't they just do X
>I hate this character
>I like this character
I fucking hated book discussions in high school

o'connor is full of this

>i'm rating this book 1 star because I hated the character so much. He was such an evil person and I just couldn't get over how bad he was.

But Hamlet was insane :^))))

>I found it enjoyable
>it is good
>it is a beautiful work of literature and contains intimations of a higher reality

When will plebs realize that the earnest appreciation of things has no place in the 21st century dialectic?

Then you recognized authorial intent. Anyone can do this. It's trite, or at the very least trivial.

>this part represents this freudian idea that the author never knew about and that has been shown to be bullshit

This. The most pseud thing you can do is say things that don't add to the conversation just so you feel like a part of it.

>really spoke to me

Nothing is true, you pleb.

There's nothing wrong with these proposition itself, they just sometimes sound lazily, like

>dude Raskolnikov and Razumikhin are the same person LMAO

>x means y

It does have a place but you have to communicate it ironically.

>the curtains are fucking blue

...

read the thread before you post