That is not what death of the author means. It doesn& #39;t "invalidate" anything. When you read something, you simply cannot know what the author was intending to do, you can interpret art however you want to.

And that interpretation is not necessarily equal to authorial intent. https://twitter.com/RealAtomicJay/status/1386173194051145729">https://twitter.com/RealAtomi...

This is not due to some random bullshit in essays from the 60s, as you put it, it is for the very simple fact that /language is not 100% objective/.

When you read something, your mind will & #39;decode& #39; the words you read with whatever concepts you have learned from experience. —>

—> And that & #39;decodification& #39; (I& #39;m using a metaphor here) is personal to each and every person. The author & #39;translates& #39; their concepts into words, the words get read, and the reader & #39;decodes& #39; them.

Authorial intent is lost in the translation and decodification process, because —>

—> words do NOT have an intent and authors cannot control (and shouldn& #39;t) the way those words are interpreted.

That is not & #39;invalidating& #39; anything, it& #39;s simply how language and art works. If it weren& #39;t true, you wouldn& #39;t see so many discussions and essays on art.

If you have a theory on a game, as this thread was talking about, it still DOES fall into death of the author! If the author does not make it explicit /within the media/ that "X is Y", then how is anyone supposed to know?

And are & #39;wrong& #39; theories really that bad? Are we, now, —>

—> simply not allowed to especulate "what-if" scenarios for fun, just because the author has declared that the "what-if" scenario isn& #39;t real?

You& #39;re making it sound like authors hold an authoritative power over how people enjoy their craft.