>>1375796>what you are essentially arguing is sort of a super-death of the author, in which the authorial intent not merely equal to, but inferior to fan's interpretation?That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that stuff that happens earlier needs to stay happened, or you aren't writing a franchise (or at least you aren't writing a good franchise). The author's intent in the past needs to at least be *accounted for* by the author in the present. The audience's expectations were created by the previous works, they didn't come from thin air. I'm not saying the audience gets to bring their own expectations that they invented, they're bringing back stuff that you laid down earlier.
Someone brought up Harry Potter, and it's a really good example: if you retroactively make characters gay over Twitter, people don't say it's a groundbreaking story twist, they say it's bad writing.
