That was pretty much where I was going with my post. Any number of works of art can be interpreted to mean any number of things by individuals.
Now, whether that is a positive or a negative goes to the standard question of where is the art, in the process or the product? I believe it's both, in the process for the artists, but just as much in the product for the individual (reader in the case of King's work). Like I said earlier, unless the artist specifically confirms somewhere that "this piece of art is about ________" then that blank doesn't necessarily represent anything. We can fill in the blank however we want, but we can't reasonably expect everyone else will see it precisely the same way, and we definitely can't state these interpretations as facts. Making the comparisons can be a fun intellectual challenge, but I don't think any of us knows what any artist really "means" with their work unless they state it outright.
For me it's hard not to read things into everything, but I also remind myself that it's not much more than an intellectual exercise than it is getting at the supposed 'reality' of something so subjective, which is to say, I agree with Lisa.
So how far off topic am I now?
"Won't somebody please think of the children!?!" - Helen Lovejoy