Critical Monism

Critical Monism is "the view that there is a single, comprehensive, true (correct) interpretation for each work of art. (A true, comprehensive, interpretation of  work is one that is true, conjoins all true interpretations of the work, and one that comprehends the whole work.)" (273-274) I think that overall this is a very good way to approach literature. I do believe that there is only one correct way to interpret a work, and that is the author's interpretation. That interpretation may have many elements to it that the audience can see and agree with, but ultimately it doesn't matter if the audience agrees or not. In literature, it all comes back to the author and what meanings he or she ascribed to the literary work. Critical monism looks at a work as a whole and realizes it in its entirety, and yet I still feel as though it might be missing something. Although the author's interpretation of a work is technically the only one that is really "true", there are usually many other insightful interpretations out there. When one comes across an interpretation that is insightful, uplifting, inspiring, and helps you gain from the text, why should that interpretation be discounted? I think that Stecker was right in adding in the distinction that some interpretations can still be acceptable, even if they are not fully correct. There is a lot to gain from multiple interpretations of a text, and Critical Monism should allow that.