>>2801636Not them, but it isn't. At all. You've fundamentally misunderstood the idea of the Death, which dismisses both the Author AND the notion of having a correct interpretation beneath the text.
The death is, as anon said, that the text stands in isolation, what the author says, or intended does not matter, because ultimately the reader, and only the reader, is interpreting it. It is quite literally the opposite of feels over facts, because the point of it is that the author's feelings do not matter. The written words and how they are read do. Likewise, nowhere does it say that any reader interpretation was right, because they are all fundamentally interpretations, and can't be. The whole point of the death of the author was dismissing the idea of write and wrong interpretations, because anyone is going to just take the text as they take it regardless of external forces. You cannot have a "magically right" interpretation if there's no such thing as a correct interpretation to begin with.
To elaborate on anon's Rowling example
>>2801655Rowling says that Dumbledore is gay. The books do not say that he is or isn't gay. What ultimately matters is the reader. If the reader is a child living in the third world with no internet, where "homosexuality" does not exist because they've never met anyone who is it, and no one has ever said anything about it to them; then Dumbledore is not gay, and what he is "supposed to be" is unimportant. The author, and their intent, and their background, and everything else, does not matter. What does is the reader's background, and their knowledge, and their frame of reference, and the text itself. Because that is who is reading the text, and trying to get to some deeper, "correct" meaning below it is folly.
