You've kind of flipped the script here. First you argue everyone's discounting the author. But then you state "as an allegory of", which would fundamentally b

You've kind of flipped the script here. First you argue everyone's discounting the author. But then you state "as an allegory of", which would fundamentally be about authorial intent. Instead such would have to be stated as: "The killing of the pig can be read through the lens of..." The second prospect is distinct in that it recognizes that the subjectivity of the reader must be foregrounded by the very definition of experience. The core anxiety here is one of fear in relation to notions of the possibility (or not) of communication. If I cannot ensure meaning of myself with regards to the perceptions of others, then can I control myself, seeing as how there are a multiplicity of myselves in each human perception? What does this mean when the author has evaporated? Was there ever a single Homer? Who wrote Little Red Riding Hood? What about when the author contradicts themselves in regards to intent? Ray Bradbury gave opposing 'meanings' for Fahrenheit 451 over the course of his lifetime; one of them had to be incorrect; how does this bode for authorial intention? Absent of such knowledge does the text become meaningless? No, because it always depended on the subjectivity of the experiencer. Which is why randomized strokes of paint (or stars in the sky) can be experienced as meaningful.