Just another reader.

You do realize
I've only a cursory interest in interpretations
regarded as definitive? The author

has no authority to say whose story it is now. That information

is in every line, or else

it wasn't included, and it doesn't exist. The work
is the text. Post-textual proclamations

do not have affect.

Having said that, I enjoy
authorial opinions on their own works! I find
them of some small interest, as all trivia
is of some small interest. But nothing

like the interest of literature. The interest
of what has actually been accomplished.

The work

explains itself to the degree it explains
itself, within the body of its actual text
- or else,

nothing else can.

Explanations beyond
that which exists
and can be supported from within the text
are additional
fictions: nothing,
more or less.
From the author,
they'd be harmlessly masturbatory
pseudocritical self-fanfictions, which

hey, it little befits

the dignity of authorship, arguably,
but

it can be flattering to the dignity of a critic. Charming
to hear what an author thinks now

their work really meant.