I have a different perspective. I'll try to interject my comments.
O'Connnor: Your interpretation "is fantastic and about as far from my intentions as it could get
As anyone who has studied psychology knows, people don't intend everything that they end up doing. Or end up writing. There is no way of determining what O'Connor really meant in her work. She shouldn't criticize alternative interpretations of her work just because they are in variance with her own understanding. For an author's claim that there is only one legitimate interpretation of her work, hers, is rather ignorant, isn't it? In fact, it tends to remind one of tyranny in that it attempts to stifle discourse as to alternative interpretations.
O'Connnor: "I am not interested in abnormal psychology"
Strange. Anyone who thinks would seem to be rather involved in psychology. As to whether her psychology is abnormal, are we to take her at her word?
O'Connnor: "Too much interpretation is certainly worse than too little, and where feeling for a story is absent, theory will not supply it."
I guess her point is something like "Why do we spend so much time on interpretation? Why don't we just enjoy the story?" The rational justification behind her suggestion is simple. Why be critical? Just sit back, relax, and enjoy the world. Quit complaining. Quit whining. Quit thinking. Just bend over and take your medicine. Real simple.
Crashnbur: There can be no wrong interpretation!
I absolutely agree with Crashnbur, but why is Crashnbur defending O'Connor's attack on alternative interprations?
Crashnbur: [that] supports my theory that most authors (poetry aside) tend to write for the story, not the underlying meanings, but also that English and Literature teachers make the stuff up!
An interesting statement. But why would Crashnbur exclude poetry from literature meant to tell a story? All good poems have stories. A few examples include The Illiad, The Odyssey, Beowulf, Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Ozymandias, and Longfellow's Midnight Ride of Paul Revere.
Crashnbur's theory does have merit. I agree that most (good) authors, and poets, tend to write for the story, not the underlying meanings. Nevertheless, it is also true that most good literature is read by the author out of his subconscious mind, and transmitted to the written page with little conscious intention as to anything. As the concepts begin to gel together, the author can see the connections form in his conscious mind, sew up any broken links into the whole, and at last create a finished product that in a sense is a whole work.
Taking the above as true, why should we limit ourselves to scraping the surface of the author's conscious motivations? It seems that we must dig deeper, much deeper. For that is where the gold and silver lie.