i've always thought that critics and scholars assume way too much overthinking on the part of the writer, to be honest.

i so believe the sexual symbolism is there, no question, but i don't think (speaking as a writer here tho of course I"M NO CHARLOTTE BRONTE OMG) that the writer would have thought that out and intentionally put it in there. Maybe on revision they would have tinkered with it, noticed it, but the critic way of approaching the meaning of a text and the writer way of approaching the meaning of a text are so very different, in my experience.

I think it is true that science fiction allows us to treat our own problems differently, but again, writers approach this (in my experience anyway) from the standpoint of plot, and it's freeing to not be in Earth Timez in order to play with the What Ifs. Really great writers can extrapolate from a beginning scenario or setup and get to amazing places in SF.

But all this happens at a conscious analytical level, using tools of historical context, etc., from the scholarly side, and I think that so rarely happens in the fiction PROCESS.

You make me want to root around for writers who can do both, like Umberto Eco, and see what he says about it.

Thanks for the thinky as always.