But I think it's just as important not to kill the reader for the sake of the author's vision.
Ooh that's a really good way of putting it, @_sims_Yimi ! I hope what I said above didn't sound like I think the reader interpretation doesn't matter unless the story is fully written. At the end of the day, your own personal view of a story you're engaging with is matters the most to you, which applies both if you're reading it, or of you're writing it (hence the whole conflict haha).
I actually take great pleasure in writing scenes that can be interpreted in many different ways, and seeing what people choose to see.
I can definitely think of scenes like that in Camelot for sure! :)
I've experienced that a few times myself. I'd be excited about a prediction/idea I had for a story I'm reading, so I shared it with the author. They then proceeded to explain in detail what was actually going on, and how my theory could not be true. It cleared things up - but it also pretty much killed any enjoyment I had in analyzing the story.
You know, I can see this from both sides. From the perspective of the reader, it goes back to what I sad about high school lit classes - you're told what happens, and what the author meant by it, so what's the need for you to be a part of that equation? Obviously offputting. But then from the writer's side, say you see someone that really has a completely different idea from where you are going with this, and they keep bringing this up, and you foresee them getting frustrated because of their expectations of the story. I can see why you might end up ellaborating more then. Of course you could make the counterargument about how people like being surprised in some cases, but it doesn't always work that way and I don't want to get even more off topic/tangled up :D (And for the record, by the example above I obviously don't mean things like you attacking magic HQ with your gnome army, Yimi :mrgreen: We all know that much is inevitable lol)
I'm sure I've told people too much in responses to comments on some occassions. It's a tricky line to walk - unless you get your gnometastic attorney answering everything, basically any kind of response is providing extra context/clarification that wasn't in the story. But then if you don't really reply, you kind of end up with the same equation, because people will think, well, why do I bother sharing my thoughts if they're not getting acknowledged in any way? I don't really have an answer to what the ratio is, and I'm notoriously terrible at gauging what people do and don't consider a spoiler/important, so I guess... I'll continue my bizzare blend of either not saying enough or saying too much :D
Edit: I've just remembered two instances of me commenting on two different stories where I applied author's intent in one, and death of the author in the other. In one, I felt really confused and directly asked the author for their clarification (I did offer my interpretation, but it didn't seem to add up, so I wanted to see what their intent was). In the other, I felt really strongly about my own interpretation of events, so when the author replied with "no, that's actually not what x was thinking", in my head I just went "yes they did" and will still proceed reading the story with my assumption (that I have been told is incorrect haha). So maybe the tipping point is based on how attached you are to that particular interpretation, on a case by case basis, more so than a general approach to take? (Or maybe I'm just reiterating what a flake I am here...)