Analysis vs. interpretation

'Analysing' essentially means taking an object and breaking it down in its constituent parts, naming those parts and assigning them (or identifying) a function.

In literary studies, analysing is popular since it seems to make everything visible - the implication being that once it is visible and you have named the parts, everything will be clear. It is also easier to make list of elements (easier to do, easier to check, easier to test).

But as the analysis of a clarinet in the picture here clearly shows, knowing what the parts are, and what they are called, tells us nothing about the sound of a clarinet, its dynamics (how softly or loudly it can play), its range (how many notes, how many octaves), its nuances (different playing techniques): such an analysis tells us nothing about what a clarinet actually does in the real world.

Analysing a text (identifying e.g. stylistic elements, finding the metaphors, underlining assonances) works the same way - the question is not whether you can do it, the question is: What does it all mean?

An analysis is just a handy way to collect and order material (to observe), but it never replaces interpretation, nor does it stand for interpretation: analysing is not interpreting.

A text is like a clarinet: you must hear it, you must make it sing, and until such time as each individual performer plays it, the clarinet is just a piece of wood with bits of metal on it. It means nothing, it reveals nothing: it is full of potential which can only be revealed by fully engaging with it.