When it comes to interpreting any sort of story, there are generally two schools of thought. In one corner, we have the concept of authorial intent. Those who argue in favor of authorial intent believe, at the basis, that what the author was going for and wanted to say with their story is the true, objective interpretation. This remains true even if the author adds content or insight outside of the story through items like interviews. However, in the other corner is the concept of death of the author. This corner believes that the author inherently does not matter. Instead, stories are completely subjective, especially in regards to what the story means. It is up to the reader to decide what they mean, even in regards to story points that may be presented as vague.
For many, the argument between the two has no bearing on their lives. However, spend time in any fandom long enough and you will see this basic concept come to the forefront. Does the author clarifying this story point mean it is objectively what happened? Does it matter what the author wanted for a message if other points in the story don’t support it? Fans spend hours and hours arguing which is more important, usually with nothing gained at the end of the conversation.
In the end, though, I have a different position that I wish to take. Rather than one being better than the other, I wish to argue that both are valid and have their place depending on context. If this is a topic that interests you, I hope you’ll stick with me while I lay out my points. Of course, remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is simply my own, and if you feel different that is perfectly fine.
Rebel of All Trades 