As a writer I want the reader to find what they can for themselves in my work, rather than attempting to find me. I want to read criticism that relinquishes any concern as to what the author may or may not have intended. This isn’t a silencing of the author; rather it allows the possibility for the reader to respond to the work in the most unique way possible. 

Why should the author dictate the interpretation of their own work? Why should any critic assume only a single interpretation of a work is possible? For me, such dictation comes too close to a dictatorial sensibility. The belief that there is an authoritative interpretation seems authoritarian. I don’t want to own someone else’s response. The reader’s reaction to the work does not belong to the writer, and it certainly doesn’t belong to the critic.