Why must there be evidence and explicit intent expressed outside the text? E.M. Forster said "How can I know what I think until I see what I say?" Poker player

Why must there be evidence and explicit intent expressed outside the text? E.M. Forster said "How can I know what I think until I see what I say?" Poker players have unconscious tells that reveal intent that is not verifiable by simply asking what their hand is, and they certainly wouldn't intentionally reveal what the subconscious reveals for them. I've written fiction and while there's certainly intent in much of the crafting of a story or novel, there are also emergent themes, feelings, evoked emotions, and connections that go beyond anything I could concretely articulate as explicit intent. It's not surprising that when those emergent properties are interpreted by others that similar feelings are produced, connections made. Can those evocations of emotion be "ascribed" to me independent of evidence? Well, they wouldn't have been evoked had the work not been created, so yes, they can be. I suspect, as others point out, that your problem is more with academic conformance imposed by a lit instructor. But your tone seems to conflate those issues with the merit and value of literature, and the discussion of hypotheses about meaning. You can form hypotheses about the intent of writing, and support it with evidence inside the text. It's not that far afield of rhetoric and debate. It's okay not to spend your time on that (just as I decided my analytical skills were better spent on investing, with a return, than fantasy sports). But I also don't begrudge those who decide they want to spend their time on endless mock drafts and fantasy sports leagues. I'm glad you (and it sounds like davidw) had a great experience with other instructors though.