and insist that it's valid on account of death of the author.
I’ve always loved this kind of thinking because it’s usually a sign that someone misunderstood what the theory is and is trying to be a nihilist with their analysis.
While death of the author is a theory that suggests the author’s background and intent should not factor into an interpretation of a work, it does not ignore textual evidence or cultural relevance.
Like, using Nick’s American Beauty interpretation. There is quite literally zero evidence that Lester was “bettering himself” as in the context of the film, his life and reputation are utterly destroyed, and Lester himself is very clearly an unreliable narrator. There’s also the cultural relevance. While our society has degraded quite a bit since the movie was made, we are still not at a point where society deems any of those things as “bettering.” Death of the Author encourages you to have your own interpretation, but it does not encourage you to ignore society and cultural norms, in fact you’re supposed to keep them very much in mind when forming an analysis.
We also have Nick’s “most beautiful part of the movie.” The scene that he believes is the thesis of the movie. “In the end, he made sure that she would be alright without him, which is what every father does.” This fails the textual context requirement almost immediately as at no point in the movie is Lester concerned with how his daughter will be with or without him, and at no point in the movie are we shown steps taken to prepare her for a life without him. Rather, his downward spiral is starting because she’s no longer as active in his life as he once was. It would be more correct to say he was making himself alright without her then the other way around. It would also again, force us to assume that everything Lester shows us as the narrator is reliably, which it most certainly isn’t, or that his death within the context of the film is something they can be seen as redeeming.
Unironically, Dick’s joke of “if he fucked that girl he wouldn’t have died” is a better death of the author interpretation than anything Nick has ever said about the film, and it wasn’t even intended to be an interpretation.
I've actually never seen him stream without drinking, so I don't believe he can do even one sober stream until I see it for myself.
He did a stream with Vic where he said at the start that Vic requested he not drink. To my knowledge it is the only truly sober stream.
He also has one stream where because of a power outage he had to read the superchats the following afternoon, he did so on his patio and since it was middle of the day I have to assume he wasn’t drunk. No alcohol is seen in that stream