Thats not what I meant

An interesting comment that Brett made today in class was about whether or not a metaphor has to be intentional or whether accidental ones could be created. Brett believes for the sake of his paper that metaphor is intentional and is used to communicate something specific from author to reader. While I do agree with him that is is a communicative device, I am unsure whether they are always intentional. The two essays we have read on Melville thus far, to some degree interpret his works far beyond what he might have at all intended them to represent. This projection of certain themes or ideas onto a work may not be congruent with the author's intentions..but doesnt it make for a good read? Lets say Melville didnt anticipate existensialism, but the fact that his works point in that direction is still an intersting way to approach the text. It seems we keep mentioning interpretation as if various interpretations are wrong, while the text may have specific content and metaphoric elements, but to what harm does it cause fans of literature to have several different ways to analyze the work? While some things people will look for in the text are not there, viewers of art often find something pleasing about the work aside from its literal meaning or the intention of the creator.