The trouble with deconstructing story in this way is the lack of a clear stopping point. How many degrees of abstraction can you go before anything can be inter

The trouble with deconstructing story in this way is the lack of a clear stopping point. How many degrees of abstraction can you go before anything can be interpreted to mean anything else? What conditions are necessary to ascribe to a concept the meaning its author intended? What if the author meant to use ambiguity skillfully, so as to convey multiple meanings with a seemingly singular statement? What is right and correct thinking, and if there are exceptions, does that tie into some sort of meta-rule about rightness, and how should it inform our own internal storytelling as we manifest our lives? I'm always left at the zen koan: Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. Reality is that which remains after you stop believing in it. Interpretations and narratives with subjective contexts need to tie into the "chop wood, carry water" reality of the author, or your interpretation is invalid.