Now that's what I call paradoxical. Out of respect for the author in his text, you refuse to acknowledge his own view of the text? Who on earth said authorial intent had to be "based on the consensus of the masses"? I certainly didn't, and Tom is far too elitist to even dream of suggesting such a thing. Obviously authorial intent has to be based on the author's own comments or commentary, and if that isn't sufficient, academic study of the work, the circumstances of its creation, the author's biography perhaps, whatever. I am more than willing to allow all kinds of evidence in the process, all kinds of academic research if needed, and "the masses" have nothing to do with it. What I am not willing to do is accept this blanket ban of yours on authorial intent being taken into consideration.

And your example is arguing my case for me and seriously undermining yours. If you reject authorial intent as you do, the author is powerless to influence how his text is received, powerless to stop the majority from massively misunderstanding what he wanted to say. He can shout all he likes about what it was he meant, but no, you're not interested in what he meant. I would certainly be horrified if that happened to me. This 90% of people "getting it wrong" in your example, they only get it wrong because they ignore - or are ignorant of - the author's intent. You're the one who advocates that, not me.