Authors Intentions

I have to say that I too enjoy these discussions. I enjoy being made to think! Despite your reponse above, I am yet to be convinced. You're gonna have to work a lot harder! Here's why. The author, somewhere in the novel, tells us that Mike is despondent. There will be various intepretations of that, but I expect there wouldn't be too many arguments about what it is to be despondent. The author has told us quite explicitly something about Mike's mood. But in doing that and other things throughout the story, the author does not tell us about the novel itself. Mike's mood is no clue to the author's intent for the novel. So when I read, say, "Little Red Riding Hood", I understand that there are characters in it who are designated (as we learn from within the text) as good and evil, and, in the end, that good triumphs over evil. I infer, from the way the story is written, that is written with the intent of entertaining children. The author hasn't told me this explicitly, either in person, through some direction on the cover, like "a story to entertain children", or maybe in an interview with a third person: Interviewer: "Your latest book, 'Little Red Riding Hood', has been very succesful. Why do you think that is the case?" Author: "I think its success is due to its appeal with children. After all, I wrote it with them in mind. See, it says here on the cover, 'a story to entertain children'". Without explicit statements from the writer, we can only guess at what the writer may have intended. Sometimes our guesses won't be too far off. Sometimes they won't be anywhere near the mark. I've attended concerts where the performer introduces a song: "I wrote this next song following the grasshopper plague of 98, and it describes the inherent cruelty of Mother Nature . . ." The performer gives directions to the audience about the song and how to understand it. Without this, what would we make of a line such as, "your green-legged rapaciousness/your death-inducing kiss"? And I believe this is the situation for playwrights. They can and do give directions on how to interpret the content. Of course, as you note, these directions are not necessarily visible to the audience. But they are to the cast, crew and director. The audience will have to interpret the play as best as they can, the same as a novel. The production team is privy to information the audience doesn't have, and can use it to inform or confound the audience. Now . . . about 'sharing'. I expect this is another semantic difference. The word 'sharing' connotes for me a sense of voluntary, mutually agreeable give-and-take. For this to happen, there needs to be a dialogue between the protagonists. After all, who cut the cake? And who planned the house-building and engaged the construction crew? Like, how come you get to do the brickwork, and I get the painting (I hate painting!)? If we shared building a house, there would be a discussion and negotiation, and if we were caring and sharing about it, we could settle amicably on a mutually agreeable allocation of tasks. But there is no such discussion between author and audience, nor between playwright, production team and audience. The writing or staging of a play isn't the result of a plenary session of the parties. It is a linear process, like the brick, plaster and paint analogy, but it is not, in my view, 'sharing' in the same way the contruction of the house would be.