To what extent do you think authors interpretations of their own works relevent? Do authorial statements count as canon (facts within the work). Unsurprisingly, I'm going to take a middle line.
I think the authors conceptions when writing the book are relevant, and probably count as canon. If they intended so-and-so to have this reason for doing things, it's polite and probably most accurate and informative to think so when you read it. Things will probably make most sense when you assume this background.
But that what they say doesn't *necessarily* reflect what they were thinking. As annoying as it is for an author to be deconstructed, sometimes the right interpretations may lie in assumptions never consciously adopted (eg. the author's morality informs the book's morality), or conceptions at the time later changed (eg. uh, no, the Ender's Shadow prequels were totally canon, honest), or even, potentially, things the author deliberately lies about (eg. no, no, I'm not misogynist and racist, it's art).
Of course, there's still room to interpret the book in different ways -- people do this even when something's clear from the book itself as well as authorial pronouncements.
For that matter, much the same argument applies to small points of continuity (here you said "three days", but there you said...) as large background motivations (so, all the way through, there's this unrequited...) Sometime it's best for the author to just come clean and say "whoops, it doesn't work, just pretend it does, ok?". That's not wonderful, but mistakes happens, and it's better than trying to patch it up later in even more confusing ways.
Of course, this leads to the unpalatable conclusion thatconsistency may not be the be all and end all of fiction sometimes consistency has to be set aside. If the author intends so-and-so to have this motivation, but half the time forgets and gives them that motivation instead, and then admits it when we deconstruct the book -- you may find both intertwined halves of the book are great with the motivation intended at the time, but there's no consistent interpretation that makes sense all the way through.
Do you have to accept an author's pronouncements? I don't think so. They probably (assuming you decide they're accurate) represent an improvement, but if the book is what you have the book is what you read.
I think the authors conceptions when writing the book are relevant, and probably count as canon. If they intended so-and-so to have this reason for doing things, it's polite and probably most accurate and informative to think so when you read it. Things will probably make most sense when you assume this background.
But that what they say doesn't *necessarily* reflect what they were thinking. As annoying as it is for an author to be deconstructed, sometimes the right interpretations may lie in assumptions never consciously adopted (eg. the author's morality informs the book's morality), or conceptions at the time later changed (eg. uh, no, the Ender's Shadow prequels were totally canon, honest), or even, potentially, things the author deliberately lies about (eg. no, no, I'm not misogynist and racist, it's art).
Of course, there's still room to interpret the book in different ways -- people do this even when something's clear from the book itself as well as authorial pronouncements.
For that matter, much the same argument applies to small points of continuity (here you said "three days", but there you said...) as large background motivations (so, all the way through, there's this unrequited...) Sometime it's best for the author to just come clean and say "whoops, it doesn't work, just pretend it does, ok?". That's not wonderful, but mistakes happens, and it's better than trying to patch it up later in even more confusing ways.
Of course, this leads to the unpalatable conclusion that
Do you have to accept an author's pronouncements? I don't think so. They probably (assuming you decide they're accurate) represent an improvement, but if the book is what you have the book is what you read.