>>715353306
>Death of the author is a thing but not every interpretation is valid and some are objectively wrong
True, unless you get into silly "It was all a dream" kind of logic, which, hey, if it's how you genuinely interpret any work, good for you, but that is never gonna have any validity to anyone else.
>When an author is clarifying his intention to debunk some braindead headcanon, it's corroborating evidence not an authoritative statement.
If you need the author's word to corroborate your view of a work, then either you are a brainlet or the author failed. You should have more than enough evidence for your interpretation. Thus, the author's statement is meaningless. Either you can already explain your perspective using the text, in which case the author's statement doesn't matter, or you NEED the author's statement to try to get one up on people saying something you disagree with, in which case, the author failed.
>Death of the author is meant to apply when the author goes crazy and says something blatantly untrue and easily countered by citing the work
No, anon. It's not. It's about interpreting works broadly, and also in critique. It was not some safety mechanism invented to deal with a mindbroken author, lol, it was always from the perspective of discussing works.
>>715363684
Obviously some people are gonna be dishonest when discussing works, but that's just another thing to deal with on the internet. It's no different from dealing with a retard that goes "NO, I'M RIGHT, BECAUSE THE AUTHOR SAID THIS IN AN INTERVIEW"