My new assumption about literature is that there every work of literature has a set of interpretations which are the best interpretations. Interpretations in this set are defined by the fact that they have a satisfactory amount of textual evidence. This evidence proves the interpretations validity as a proper interpretation of the work. There is no number of interpretations that can be in the set, all that matter is if they have enough evidence. There is however other interpretations to a work that does not fall within the set. Other possible interpretations that are not a part of this set are invalid, as they lack the necessary evidence and are thus too obscure to believe that they are really a possible interpretation of the work. Thus, the assumption holds that there is set of best interpretations, while interpretations outside of this set are
My new assumption about literature is that there every work of literature has a set of interpretations which are the best interpretations. Interpretations in this set are defined by the fact that they have a satisfactory amount of textual evidence. This evidence proves the interpretations validity as a proper interpretation of the work. There is no number of interpretations that can be in the set, all that matter is if they have enough evidence. There is however other interpretations to a work that does not fall within the set. Other possible interpretations that are not a part of this set are invalid, as they lack the necessary evidence and are thus too obscure to believe that they are really a possible interpretation of the work. Thus, the assumption holds that there is set of best interpretations, while interpretations outside of this set are