Author Authority

The sum of it is that the Author is sovereign- not nonexistent, not first among equals, but sovereign. Their interpretation is first and last. This is because the author has the original Form of the narrative. One owning legal rights does not contradict this. Only the original maker of the Form has the original Form. They cannot give it to anyone else- it is confined within their heads. When the author dies, the original Form dies with them, so everyone else is left with merely clones of that Form.

To dispute this, give me an example of a neuron signiature being exactly the same in two different brains.

## Form, Execution, Particular

There's a concept I like to call Form, Execution, Particular. The Form is the story the author has in their head. The Particular is the story written down, or acted out, or anything else. The Execution is how the Particular is done. Execution can be good in one of two ways: good that it matches the Form that the author had in their head as best as possible, and good in that it appeals to its audience. Execution is bad when the Particular does not match the Form the author has and/or it doesn't appeal to its audience. Drakengard matches up well to the Form, but is intolerable for many audiences. It's a bad story that is good. A story is perfectly good if it told the story the audience wants to hear and the author wanted to tell. Form is more fundamental than Execution. No Execution of Particular, Form exists, no Form, no Execution or Particular.

### Lying

In addition, I think the author has the duty to not 'lie' to the audience. By that I mean the audience should think that the Execution of the Particular they see is very close to the Form that the author had in their head. If this is broken, the author has betrayed their duty and the trust between audience and author is broken. A story about lies- like Umineko technically can still be good because it is *about lies in its Form*

### Opinions, Truth

What the author's opinions on their work, when defined or implied, become not opinions, but facts. and referring to that rat drawing, then you would be right, it is a car. However, this is an Execution that fails to appeal to the audience. To put it simply, it is true, but bad because it is contradictory to most readers. It is like calling a car a dog and a dog a car. People accept that in your world they are swapped around. People cannot then accept that and take into account the real world knowledge as well. what you say about 'the author's idea may or may not match up to the page', but I call this a simple mismatch of Form and Execution. Goodness is partily dependent on the execution of the particular but is more dependent on the real world.

The author's truth is whichever is newest and overturns the older truth. The author, when they contradict themselves, allow the readers to choose between two interpretations until the author appears and rectifies this.

How to figure out the meaning of a text? In normal cases, we try to understand the context of the author, where they were born, how they were raised, their standing in life, their culture, their religion, their language, the political climate, and so on

### Clones

As nobody may have the author's original Form, or any Form of any other person in general (due to it being impossible to access anothers subjective experience directly), all we have are Clones of the Forms. Now, universal language is still a thing- as everyone's Clones of everyone else's Forms can be similar enough to the Form that a comparison can be made. For instance, the 2 + 2 = 4 in my head is similar to the 2 + 2 = 4 in everyone else's heads. Thus a comparison can be made. But they are still not the same. And as the Clone of the Form would not exist without the Original Form, the Original Form is more fundamental than the Clone Form and thus takes precedence.