I think I mentioned this? I don't like the emphasis on AiD and "personal interpretations". I think it teaches student to be lazy in their analysis and that "all interpretations are valid" is simply not true, depending on how you define "valid". "Interesting" might be a better choice of word.

The example you give of the student who analysed everything through a veil of Star Trek, for example. That kind of thing makes great pub chat, but I don't think it's meaningful to anyone else. I don't think it sheds any true light on the source material.

When I interact with a work of art, I'm trying to figure out what the artist is trying to communicate with me. That's pretty much all I'm interested in. I can get personal inspiration from a work even if I'm not tuned into the author's intent, but I wouldn't expect that to be interesting to anyone else.

I basically believe that the the AiD style of analysis and styles that ignore authorial intent are inherently flawed, illogical and very self-indulgent, and yet they seem to be the status quo in universities these days.

And in fandom, specifically, I see people using it as an excuse to claim some really warped, blinkered and even offensive readings of canon and then to claim that their interpretations are valid because all interpretations are valid.