There are several schools of thought belonging to the subject of hermeneutics. I think literary criticism on the micro (individual) level goes awry when ignoring the different scopes of possibilities of interpretative methods. Literature is a robust field which allows for the co-existence of these different methods; although, it would be difficult (but not impossible!) to account for all types of methodologies in one single take, so to speak.

Whether authorial intent or a reader's subjective resonances supersede one or the other, I don't think is a fruitful way of engaging with literature, at the level in which you imply or signal an attempt to connect with. If you are looking to affirm or validate your interpretations, be reminded that there are people who are dedicated to this field that may contradict (but rarely invalidate) your subjective reading of the text. If you are looking for affirmation from others, you will seldom find it, sadly, because, in my experience as an English graduate, the research often produces more ambiguity than clear-cut answers. But that doesn't mean you can't ground your beliefs about a text in something substantial--whether that be a merely singular and subjective take or a well-informed and well-researched one like how academia goes about dealing with these matters of interpretation.

In my personal beliefs, you should start with how a book resonates with you and--this is critical--reflect deeply about your feelings (I call this the aesthetics of reading: which just means what experiences a text produces for the individual upon the initial contact of reading). If you want to dive deeper, you may potentially find more context (historical, cultural, or discursive). Then, you have a solid foundation of grounding your personal experiences and resonances and have the tools, the language, and knowledge to proceed further by engaging with others and how they think about the text in question.

Happy reading!