The memory of Caitlin is celebrated since the town is named after the woman that brought the characters there. The father is shown as broken and ineffectual, caring for a constituancy of potatoes that thrive well enough without him. This has been said to represent the breakdown of patriarchy. I'm not really sure I buy that. Just because a book has a heroine and no strong male figures does not mean that the book is antipatriarchy. Granted, it's not propatriarchy, but do we need to listen to the opposite assumption that novels lacking in strong females are mesogenistic? Maybe some are, but I wouldn't condemn the lump sum of them. Letham wrote a novel, not a political tract. Let's keep ourselves clear on that.

Having not seen Casablanca I can not comment on any speculation of resemblence between this book and that story.

At the end of the novel Pella is waiting for Doug to return. It has been suggested that this is because Doug is evil and Pella is the protective motherfigure against evil. When I read the book however, I read this passage to indicate her interest was one of wishing to mate with him, which I thought rather odd. On the other hand, as suggested in class, evil is seductive. We wish to escape the mundane and stable world of goodness. And evil also carries an arrogance that is often mistaken for such positive qualities as confidence and charisma. Thus we want bad people in our life so we shall not be mithered in bordum.

Parallels have been drawn between this book and McCarthyism and the more recent sex scandles. I really didn't see any justification for a "Communist under every bed" line of thought. And though the household deer were voyeristic, I didn't see them as voyeristic in quite the same way as the modern media.

It has also been suggested that this book is "Hitlarian". While I can agree there are parallels on a tiny scale, even if I can agree that those parallels are intentional, I don't really see where that takes us. Even if we argue that Effram is meant to be an allegorical Hitler, Effram's background was quite different from Hitler's and the "Town" later to be called "Caitlin" was quite different from Germany. At most this book says "One may can lead us into malicious actions against any group of beings" but I don't think it lends any new perspective to the phenominia and I'm not convinced that such a message is accurate. I don't believe Hitler created history so much as history created Hitler. Hitler did not create antisemitism nor national socialism. He did not create Aryanism. He was an artist who had no wish to get involved in politics but he felt called upon by God and country to restore Germany to it's former glory. The whole world was discussing eugenics and nobody wanted to receive the Jews that were to be exiles. Things got out of control. Humanity, not wishing to accept its own evil decided to give this evil a name and face and put all the blame on Hitler. Rare but open minded research can contradict this viewpoint. Suggested reading: John Toland's Adolph Hitler, Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace. See also a film called The Wave.

It has been suggested that Pella can be an allegorical Anne Frank or Schindler. Perhaps she is even a combination of the two. I don't know the story of either well enough to comment in depth. I can see a superficial truth, but what good does this do us? This isn't even revisionist history for political purposes. This is an SF novel that makes no direct claims on WWII.

It is suggested that the Archbuilder could represent the Jew or the Black. I can also see the Archbuilder as representing the Homosexual. I see nothing useful in this. Mike Resnik wrote several novels where humans represented white imperialism and aliens represented subjegated races, for example Paradise and Purgatory. Resnik had the advantage however, of creating situations that were more parallel to those of human experience and clearly demonstrated specific points about imperialist abuses. Letham just seems to remind us that prejudical hatred exists.

It is true that reads may feel sympath for Archbuilders, but without asking someone predisposed to bigotry how they felt about the book, I can only assume that Letham preachs to the flock. I've never known a close minded person to read Science Ficiton or Fantasy literature.

The parachute jump on Coney Island could be a symbol for male impotence. Personally, I am happy just to read it as a landscape feature. Isn't this search for metaphors becoming a literary McCarthyism with an allegory under every cover? Can't we just shut up about these things and either enjoy or burn the books.