There have been all sorts of threads on En World about how authorial intent is the only "true" interpretation of a work. RC has repeatedly stated that in Tolkien threads, just as an example I can think of off the top of my head.
Quote that or retract.
As far as "No idea what that book is. None that I have ever read. " I suggest that RC go back to the 1e DMG and early Dragon magazines that he loves to quote all the time. Since what I said is almost word for word taken straight from either of those sources.
Quote that please. I would love to read the word-for-word.
But, I am guessing that you cannot. Nor can you even tell us what the source is. Is it Dragon? Which one? Is it the DMG? Where?
I have quoted the 1e books and Dragon once or twice to make a point, but "that he loves to quote all the time"? Are you confusing me with someone else?
RC dislikes having to quote those books -- it is work to do so. First off, he usually doesn't have them lying around with him. Second off, he has to retype whatever it is he wants to quote. So, if it actually comes to the point where RC quotes, you can be certain it is because that seems the only means left to carry a point after all other means have been taken.
For example, in Q's thread about leveling expectations vis-a-vis 1e and 3e, as every demonstration of problems with the methodology were largely ignored or brushed aside, I did take the time to quote both the author of 1e and the author of 3e -- the only authorities on what their expectations were -- as to what those expectations were. And I did quote B1 (which was rather funny, because it was the module Q took his user name from) to demonstrate that there was not an expectation that all treasure would be found, but rather the reverse.....and rather explicitly so.
And still that wasn't enough to demonstrate authorial intent for some folks! Neither Gygax's nor Cooke's statements
about the rate of leveling that they expected was taken as evidenciary
of the rate of leveling that they expected.
For another example, when someone says "Earlier games where I was told if I don't follow the letter of the rules I'm not playing the game the way it's intended" I
might be tempted to quote the exact opposite from the rules.
I imagine that you are misremembering Gygax's Preface to the 1e DMG.
Gary Gygax said:
Similarly, you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variations and differences are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system.
You may have failed to read on.
Look, I certainly hold that statements of the author are the primary vehicle for determining authorial intent, just as you would hope that I would take statements of Hussar as the primary vehicle for determining Hussar's intent.
But, within the context of the fictional universe, any interpretation that matches the fiction is equally valid. Heck, you are talking about a person who has repeatedly argued the same about
the actual universe -- any model that predicts actual experience is valid to the degree that it predicts that experience.
To be fair to RC, Gygax did tend to contradict himself, and say different things at different times in different places.
As do we all.
RC