SmilerLoki, I'm not sure what we're engaged in here can be rightly called "literary criticism," as I've known a number of academic lit-theory heads who would just dismiss us all as the plebletariot - despite the fact that a good number of us do have letters of sorts after our names 
.
Literary criticism is a vast and
very controversial field. But specifically using the Death of the Author theory is much more being academic in dissecting a work of fiction than actually pragmatically discussing it for the purpose of conventional understanding (I should note that the existence of literary understanding doesn't diminish conventional one, those are different frameworks of looking at fiction). It's not so much the content of the discussion itself (which, sure, can appear childish to an academic) that governs it as the intent behind it, which I cannot share at the moment. Putting it in a less obscure way, I have the author (Bakker, specifically), who wants to say something to me, and since I'm interested to hear him out, what he means is of paramount importance to me. As opposed to the series itself, where he can fail in his endeavors to convey his views to the point of needing to extratextually clarify what it was he was writing.
So, I separate the work and Bakker's intent for said work. Right now I'm only discussing his intent when we talk themes of the series.
But how can you take Bakker at his word, if he fails to execute and communicate that to a majority of readers through the text?
It's most certainly a failure in the context of the work, don't get me wrong. And it's very problematic in itself, because it will, and does, push away readers. The fact that I'm willing to look past it means precisely nothing in the grand scheme of things, since I have extremely convoluted reasons for it.
But, again, simplifying things. I'll just consider his failure an honest mistake and get to the "meat" of his ideas.
Additionally of note is the magnitude of his undertaking. He is really trying (and in many instances succeeding) to offer something new for the fantasy genre. Others might not be so obscure and hard to understand in their writing, but they are also being strictly formula (obviously not all of them, but the exceptions are exceedingly rare). They don't attempt anything new and so insure themselves against many associated mistakes. I don't like that approach in established authors (on the other hand, if you're just getting your writing feet under you, then being strictly formula is the way to go), and so I have every respect for Bakker. When he wins, he wins big, and that earned him good faith in situations where I would roast another writer.
On former, I don't understand this - and I'm probably wading into content I don't have any real grasp on. We can certainly take the text, Bakker's extratextual comments, and compare the two, no? I don't necessarily see how it *must* be the case of either taking Bakker at his word or not.
Sure, but that's looking at the work as separate from its author's intent, which I'm not yet prepared to do for the Second Apocalypse.
But in general, yes, you should and will see unintended things in any literary work.
Also you might think that the author doesn't give his comments in good faith and look for deceptions, but I don't share this view pertaining to Bakker.
I've often been the first to take Bakker at his word over the years and use his words as a lens when reading his text but surely execution must be paramount?
There is a little technical snag here. If Bakker intended something to be read a certain way, then he would write everything stemming from that point in the work as conforming to the intended reading. Everyone else who somehow read the part in question differently would just be mistaken in his eyes (or, to give another example, deceived by design, if the part was conceived as deceiving).
If not, and his extratextual comments were paramount, wouldn't that render reading TSA as someone who never participates online and knows nothing about his extratextual comments an exercise in futility? (Though, I'd argue not but I'm just curious about teasing your thoughts from you ).
That's the problem with failing to execute your vision, unfortunately. Or even making it too obscure. I do feel that there are some issues of this kind in the Second Apocalypse.
Just to clarify, I don't think Bakker intends us to read any of his extratextual comments. It's just at some points, so far, we have to get at least a little additional information from him, or our understanding of the events suffers.
There's a thread for writers. If you're ever published, I'd be honored to read it. I got ya man, no hard feelings! 
A whole subforum even .
Thanks, my friends! I'll get there when I have something to show for myself.
