@Owlor @astraluma the concept which is focused on and discussed is “death of the author”, which is kind of this

(it is also widely misunderstood)

framing it as permission is a very internet way of thinking about it, where audiences and authors are in real-time constant contact with one another and that communication goes both ways. it also implies a sort of agreement and understanding, like an audience gets what you are trying to convey and says “yeah i’ll follow you there” or says “no i won’t”.

in fact, most audiences do not care what you are trying to convey, or about you at all. they care about what “your” work can do for themselves (which is actually “what they can make it do”). sometimes, they might force your story into doing things which you never imagined or intended (queer/perverse readings). it is only a very small subset which might say “what is this author trying to convey”, much less ask the further question of “do i want to allow that?”

for this reason, i tend to view art less as a contract or social creation and more like building materials. artists create building materials that audiences use to construct their worlds. of course, artists try to make materials which are enjoyable or useful, and maybe enjoyable or useful in specific ways or for specific things. but you wouldn't say a person gives a paperclip manufacturer permission when they use a paperclip for clipping paper, or that they revoke that permission when they use it for something else. they bought the paperclip (they read the book). they can use it for whatever they want.