I think we can agree I am not your friend.
No. That is not at all what I am saying. I say the words should FIRST be read, then it should be decided whether or not they are literal, fictional, mythical, lies, rhetoric, etc., etc. You insist upon a literal reading. I consider that to be a foolish approach.
I think we're struggling with semantics.
I know what it is to literally read the word "the". I don't know what it means to read it literally, objectively, subjectively, metaphorically, or allegorically.
When we read "Noah built an ark", or "Huck stole a raft", or "Tom went up to the house", we can begin to assess meaning.
(I'll reassert that the words objective and subjective are useless for this discussion. Let's just understanding what and how we understand what the author wrote.)
In the three sentences above, every one can/could agree that the sentences are to be read literally. That is, a person named Noah put some effort into transforming materials into something we'd call an ark; Huck took a raft without permission of the presumed owner; Tom went to
a house whatever
the and
up means.
It's almost certain the authors meant us to understand the sentences literally. But, what to we take with us? Who was Noah? Huck? Tom?
Well, if we were raised in a culture steeped in the Abrahamic religions, we automatically assume Noah of the Bible. If we are American, we probably get Huck Finn. None of us probably can guess who Tom might be (cuz I made it up, without a conscious reference to anything.)
So now we discover that the reader brings something to the table. (Here, I find the phrase "death of the author" deliciously ironic, but let that go.) Our culture deeply influences our interpretation.
So, did the author want us to understand that Noah
actually built an actual ark? What did the author believe about what he wrote? Just a story? An allegory? History? Why did he include the story at all? Whatever he thought he was writing, there was a reason to tell the story. Perhaps all he wanted to say was that it happened. I'd say then that that would be a useless thing for a religious text. Perhaps he wanted to convey something about the nature of the relationship between God and man.
If the latter, that meaning is conveyed regardless of the historicity of the story.
In contrast, Twain both meant you to understand his sentence literally and as fiction.
And Tom? Well, we'd need more context before we'd be able to assess that sentence.
To circle back, it's not clear that there is a correct default way to read anything. You get clues from where and how you came across the text (e.g., what section of the library). And you bring yourself to the text; that is, you interpret the text from your own cultural accumulations.
(This is a long way of saying that I agree with
@Ophiolite .)
