Is there a clear cut difference between perception and interpretation?

Maybe.

Most Great or Controversial (Is there a clear cut diff...) authors seem to get "Drastically Misinterpreted". I'd say they get misinterpreted no more so than any other author, but because their ideas are so fundamental and controversial, the usual warping of ideas by the perception of others seems drastic.

The object you perceive is not the object itself, it is your mental interpretation of an input. Interpretation is essential to the process of perception, in addition to the physical side of perception - whereby an input could be warped by a sense organ - there is the psychological side: In assimilating data, you will form unique relations and conclusions. You may achieve a significant overlap in paradigm with the author (percieved, if not held - agreement not being essential to understanding), but that overlap will never be total.

My Interpretation of Cerebus happened as I read and thought. You are in fact, reading an expression of my interpretation of Cerebus, and by the nature of perception you will get your interpretation of my expression at the end of it. Right?

To put it in terms any Cerebus reader will find familiar, this interpretation is an expression of my inferences, and may only overlap slightly with what Dave Sim is either saying or implying.

So, on that basis, I don't claim any "Truth" in my output.

Which is your input.