I'm dismayed that no one so far has brought up a point that's begging to be made in these sorts of things.
While the point of the article has _some_ merit, there's also another equally valid contrary argument to be made.
Just because a book - however storied & fabled - exists out there, does not mean that you should strive to find some meaning, import or significant cogitable thought when one is not clearly and immediately present.
There's a whole industry of writers that exist to exclusively furnish meaning to the lofty thoughts of some distinguished authors, that that was simply never meant or not present in the authors own words. Sometimes the authors themselves invite and regale in this kind of festive chicanery. Sometimes not. But this sort of thing - far more than useful or warranted - does exist.
In other words some works of writing often fiction but not necessarily are just elaborate exercises in getting away with balderdash.
It pays to remember the enterprise of getting published in the past has not always been equitable as is the case today.
A virtual nobody off the street couldn't expect to even get his manuscript read by a publishing house, much less get published even for a limited run. So if you were already reputed or privileged or had the blessings of a wealthy house of patrons who bankrolled your previous works, you were more widely published and translated.
In other words far too many mediocre works of the past still get top billing, than they rightly deserve largely because no one called out their bullshit.
Yes, sometimes if you don't understand the author that is because the author never had the intentions of being understood in the first place or did not have much to say of value or import, however fleeting or ethereal or unyielding to lucid language, the authors thoughts were.
HN should buck this trend and not join in adulation.