@Masada:
OMG REALLY? You win, everything you believe in your heart is objective fact, now please shut up. Bovine manure gives me a headache.
The problem I think you are having with that joke, by the way, is that you thought when I said that there was a book about which people get worked up about authorial intent you thought for some reason I meant that it was a book that described a plot where people get worked up about authorial intent (which was a wierd interpretation of my 'authorial intent,' but whatever). Why do you think there are so many different Christian churches though? Each one has their own interpretation of the bible based on what they believe the authorial intent was. In fact, many people have taken the resoluteness of their belief in their interpretation of the authorial intent of the Bible so far that people have in fact died by the millions.
But, at least you can rest assured of one thing Masada, if you're in one of those churches then everything that that particular church believes in is unquestionable objective fact and if I were you I would never again worry about uncertainty or alternative models of thought structure. Narrow minded is plenty good enough if you're always right.
For the rest of the world though, models of literary interpretation that are heavy on authorial intent are not really that mainstream anymore. If you desperately need to continue this conversation please send me a PM after you've read Margins of Philosophy, the things you call authorial intent, I think Derrida just referred to that sort of stuff as self aggrandizing lies.