2017 年高考浙江卷阅读理解《一种美味》引发「诡异的光」热潮。类似问题其实每年都有，看起来似乎是语文阅读理解一直以来的魔咒：学生需要去猜测出题者对文章的理解，而这甚至连作者都理解不能。

那么此魔咒有没可能破除呢，来看一下《哈佛商业评论》2006 年 10 月戴安娜·库都（Diane Coutu）对管理思想大师、诗人詹姆斯·马奇（James G. March）的访谈。（Ideas as Art）

Q: Does it concern you that people sometimes misunderstand your ideas?

A: In a real sense, there is no such thing as “my” ideas. Scholarship and notions of intellectual property are poor bedmates. I have often read things, both by critics and by enthusiasts, that seem to me to be based on a less than precise reading of what I have written; but once you publish something, you lose special access to it. The interpretations of others have as much legitimacy, if they can be defended, as yours do. In the best of all worlds, others will generate interpretations that are more interesting than the ones you had in your mind. In fact, a basic goal in writing is to choose words that can evoke beautiful and useful meanings that were not explicit in your own mind. Some very good writers resist that idea. They want to be their own interpreters. I think that is a mistake. The evocative ambiguities of language are sources of creativity.

中文翻译引自丁丹的翻译《想法就是艺术品》。

库都：人们有时误解你的想法，你为此苦恼吗？

马奇：实际上，没有什么所谓的「我的」想法。学问和知识产权的概念是难以相容的。我经常读些东西，既读批评者的东西，又读追捧者的东西，在我看来，这些批评和赞扬并非完全立足于对我的东西的精确理解。但是，一旦你发表某样东西，这样东西就不再是你独有的。别人的解释也同样合法，如果别人能够为之辩护的话，就像你一样。最好的情况是，别人的解释比你头脑中的解释更有趣。实际上，写文章、写书的一个基本目标是，所用的话语能够激发读者想到一些美丽的、有用的意义，这些意义是你没有明确想到过的。有些非常好的作家抵制这一想法，他们想给自己做注释者。我认为他们这样做是不对的。模糊的语言如果能激发读者的联想，那不失为一种创造力源泉。

所以对阅读理解题目除了标准答案之外，何妨像作文那样设一个公开的评分标准，只要基调、框架没有差一百八十度那么远，就由着读者自己发挥好了，本来读者的感受、理解就不尽相同嘛。