I've never read anything without interpreting it. In fact, it is impossible to read without interpreting what is being read. Interpreting is an automatic process that must take place in order for any comprehension to take place. Without interpretation, there is no comprehension.
When one says that something doesn't need interpretation, what he is really saying is that the interpretation is obvious. However, saying that something doesn't need interpretation is making a false statement. Of course it needs interpreting, everything that is comprehended must be interpreted. The interpretation may be obvious, or it may not be obvious, but saying that it doesn't need interpretation is utter foolishness.
The place where I've encountered such foolishness the most is in biblical interpretations. Often a person is so indoctrinated with a particular interpretation that he cannot see any other interpretation; therefore, he makes the foolish statement that it doesn't need interpreting.
Any amount of wisdom would allow a person to see that there are multiple interpretations of many biblical passages. The truly wise would try to understand each interpretation, and conclude which interpretation or interpretations are correct. A fool will bury his head in the sand and say that it doesn't need interpretation.
To demonstrate this, I will compare a couple of Catholic interpretations with a couple of Campbellite interpretations. When Jesus said, "This is My Body," and, "This is My Blood," in Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, the Catholic Church has always interpreted these words to be literal. Catholics believe that during the Consecration in the Mass, the bread and wine physically become the Body and Blood of Christ. Campbellites, on the other hand, interpret these words figuratively. Both interpretations are perfectly legitimate and simple to comprehend. The question is: which one is correct. That takes much more investigation.
The interpretation of the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 12:46, Matthew 13:56, Mark 3:31, Luke 8:19, John 7:3, Acts 1:14, and 1 Corinthians 9:5, is also a point disagreement between Catholics and Campbellites. Campbellites use the modern western understanding of brothers and sisters to mean that Mary had children in addition to Jesus. Catholics use the ancient Hebrew understanding of brothers and sisters to mean any close blood relative. For modern westerners, the first is easier and takes less study; the second is more complex and requires awareness of Hebrew culture.
Many biblical passages are complex to modern westerners because they require more background information, such as Hebrew culture, in order for them to be correctly interpreted. When one is confronted with background information that supports an interpretation that conflicts with the interpretation that he is comfortable with, frequently he will obstinately ignore this information. It's much simpler to say, "It doesn't need interpretation."
I've encountered this so much that I usually will not argue about biblical interpretations. Most of the time, such arguments are a waste of time. I will help a person understand an interpretation, but I won't argue about the interpretation.
What I will argue about is who has the authority to interpret the Bible. Few will argue over this because they don't have any authority to interpret the Bible. The only persons with infallible authority to interpret the Bible are Catholic bishops as Successors of the Apostles when they are in union with the pope as the Successor of Peter. The Campbellites are successors of heretics, and such, have no authority whatsoever to interpret the Bible.