It's worth noting that this is a reinterpretation of Death of the Author. The original essay isn't about this sort of "what is canon?" question at all, it's abo

It's worth noting that this is a reinterpretation of Death of the Author. The original essay isn't about this sort of "what is canon?" question at all, it's about the subjective meaning and interpretation of a text. It's arguing that asking the author "what does it mean that the curtains are blue?" isn't the way to get a definitive answer. To quote Barthes' essay: "all writing is itself this special voice, consisting of several indiscernible voices, and that literature is precisely the invention of this voice, to which we cannot assign a specific origin" -- i.e. the author's contribution is one part of the work, but what the reader is bringing to the work also matters when you're interpreting it. The author can't tell you how the work makes you feel. It's totally valid to say "I think what the author said is canon is junk, and I'm going to ignore it", but that's not technically Death of the Author. :D (This particular term being thrown around inaccurately is, perhaps, a pet peeve of mine.)