I have been wondering about this question because I am stuck on either side as a creative writer and independent academic. In graduate school I wrote a paper analyzing Nagisa Oshima’s Gohatto and I had fixated on this one road that I found the theory interesting and I had found no definitive evidence from the Oshima contradicting me. Then a few days before my paper was due I stumbled on a footnote that was extraneously thrown into someone’s dissertation I was using. That footnote provided evidence that I was wrong (in the ballpark), but Oshima had explained what his film was about (beyond the plot). I had to start from scratch.
On the other hand, game developer Hidetaka Miyazaki who made Demons Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne stated in an interview that he preferred to not reveal the meanings behind the large number of mysteries in his games. He will talk about everything else, but he prefers to hear what his games are about from his fans (and interpreting lore is now a major portion of the community).
As a creative writer, most of my stories are simply the clothing for some message or something that I want to communicate. Kind of like a reverse analysis or something. I write with how I would interpret what I am writing in mind, rather than simply the story. When I think about others reading my work I really want them to “get” what I am trying to say and in my mind that analysis, like Oshima’s, is fixed (so only one right interpretation or analysis). However, I also see how that eliminates readers’ creative thinking, as well as comes off as pure pretension on the author’s part. At the same time though, if I create something, don’t I get to say what it is about?
I kind of feel like there is no right answer, or the only answer is “no comment.” In my situation, though, I feel I am too geared to digging and analyzing. So what does everyone else think?