> C.S. Lewis did not intend for his books to be read through a Hindu worldview. I can't imagine he would intentionally create a pantheistic world. Does that make this interpretation meaningless?
This argument could be extended to any work of literature written more than, say, a century ago. Nobody writing before World War I would expect their writings to be read by people well-versed in postmodern[0] or postcolonial philosophy, even though any sophomore English major in college is more than familiar with these schools of thought.
It is not meaningless, because works of literature can serve a purpose beyond that which the author originally intended. (Taken to the extreme, once can say that "the author is dead" - once the work has been put out into the world, the person who wrote it figuratively ceases to exist as an agent[1].)
[0] By definition, the Modern era was still in full swing at the time
[1] This assumes a discretized model of literature, which is decreasingly applicable today[2], but the general line of thinking is still useful[3].
[2] This phrase was first used by a post-structuralist - the post-structuralism movement is still technically going on, but most of its original thinkers are now dead (most recently Umberto Eco), so it's being superseded by other ways of thinking.
[3] Which, incidentally, proves the original point - a work of literature can be useful when viewed from a lens that would have been anachronistic (or anatopistic) for the original author.
This argument could be extended to any work of literature written more than, say, a century ago. Nobody writing before World War I would expect their writings to be read by people well-versed in postmodern[0] or postcolonial philosophy, even though any sophomore English major in college is more than familiar with these schools of thought.
It is not meaningless, because works of literature can serve a purpose beyond that which the author originally intended. (Taken to the extreme, once can say that "the author is dead" - once the work has been put out into the world, the person who wrote it figuratively ceases to exist as an agent[1].)
[0] By definition, the Modern era was still in full swing at the time
[1] This assumes a discretized model of literature, which is decreasingly applicable today[2], but the general line of thinking is still useful[3].
[2] This phrase was first used by a post-structuralist - the post-structuralism movement is still technically going on, but most of its original thinkers are now dead (most recently Umberto Eco), so it's being superseded by other ways of thinking.
[3] Which, incidentally, proves the original point - a work of literature can be useful when viewed from a lens that would have been anachronistic (or anatopistic) for the original author.