I don’t want my argument to undercut communication. It is absolutely true that much writing–and much art in general–has something to say (though that may not be the same as a “message,” exactly). But even leaving aside the fact that clearly authors aren’t always aware of every aspect of every choice they make, sometimes communication is undercut by simple mistakes (grammatical errors that reverse meaning; misstatements of fact, etc.)

So the first part of your statement , “she has a specific message in it,” is true: the attempt in the note was to communicate a message (though note that not all art shares this goal); the second part doesn’t follow, though: having an intended meaning doesn’t control meaning. It merely influences it. To argue otherwise would be to accept a particularly hard-line version of the authorial intent argument, and would require one to accept that something can only be in a text if the author intended them to be there.

I think this may win the coveted “most circular argument ever” title!

Thanks for your comment. Please respond to the actual substance of the discussion here. “I know this politician” does not refute the claim that the politician makes nonsensical and bigotted claims.