This is a bit more of an abstract question, but it's one that I think is going to become pretty important. It's also not something we're going to be able to resolve in a day, but I wanted to kick off discussion on the topic.
Literature.SE has seen a lot of questions so far. A good fraction have been in-universe, diegetic questions: why did character do X? Why didn't Y happen/work? Another fraction have been outside the text: why did the author decide to write Y as dysfunctional? Why did the author choose not to let Y happen/work?
The latter of these questions are arguably more "literary." The former of these questions are important, but for some definitions of literary, they are less so. Literary analysis tends to concern itself less with the diegesis itself, and more with the real-world, outside-the-narrative why of things - what's really being said.
So, what should our attitude be toward questions that are diegetic, and those that are not?
While this question is partially, maybe one of scope, there are aspects of it that are important whether or not it's in scope. It's one that needs to be addressed even if both are in-scope. I also don't want to push scope changes this early - it's just something to keep in mind.