Hyung Chul Shin advised that interpreting a text should not be exclusively based on “the intention of the writer.” At the same time, he added, a reader needs to be aware of the temptation to invent an original text owing to “the intention of a reader,” referring to a paragraph by Umberto Eco:                                                          
 
“An open text is always a text, and a text can elicit infinite readings without allowing any possible reading. It is impossible to say what is the best interpretation of a text, but it is possible to say which ones are wrong....” Umberto Eco, The Limits of Interpretation, 2009
 
Eco presumes that the “intention of a text” lies between the “intention of the writer” and the “intention of the reader.” This does not necessarily imply that diverse and limitless approaches to a text’s interpretation permit uncontrolled interpretation, and it indicates that the text’s original intention should not be disturbed. However, the majority of readers who are new to textual interpretation as well as writing may find themselves caught in hesitation between infinite and unique interpretation and undefined and absurd interpretation. Hyung Chul Shin suggests that readers can proceed through three levels (Annotation Level -> Interpretation Level -> Arrangement Level) when interpreting a text. Initially, the Annotation Level is where the reader examines the meaning of the words in the given text and accurately organizes the relationships between the facts within the events. Then, the reader analyzes the meaning based on the confirmed facts, which occurs on the Interpretation Level. It is crucial here to extract a rhetorical logic that is intrinsically consistent. Lastly, the Arrangement Level is where the reader arranges the text against the grid of connected ideologies and patterns related to its time period. This indicates that each level has its own role of, respectively, “confirming the facts,” “analyzing the meaning,” and “arranging the meaning” of the text. Ultimately, they can be considered as stages that allow the possibility of multiple interpretations without moving away from the original intention of the text.     
 
“During a recent conversation, I was asked what kind of critic I'd like to be, and I answered: a critic who accurately complements (the author/writing).”
 
At the end of the seminar, Hyung Chul Shin returned to the original question of “what is criticism?” He did not suggest clear-cut answers, nor did he provide any special strategies. However, the serene tone of his discussion throughout the entire seminar naturally revealed his affection for writers and their works. His outlook offered to the participants an exemplary mindset of how to write, beyond the question of what criticism is. In conventional art criticism, one may find a piece or two that nearly butchers an artwork, as well as a text that is ridiculed for its misguided acclaim for a work. However, considering art as a part of life, it is hard not to agree with him that “the act of criticism is practice for not speaking thoughtlessly.” If so, is it not true that the mission of criticism is not limited to critiquing a literary work, but also encompasses guiding us to genuinely reflect on our lives through it?