True. What I meant was, ignore the characters as characters, but don't ignore them as representations of an ideological position. See them for *what* they stand for, rather than *who* they are.
EG: Avon - educated, civilised, visitor, knowing, scientific. And male, of course. Meegat - uneducated, primitive, native, ignorant, spiritual. And female, by some strange quirk of coincidence.
This only works if you agree characters are *meant* to be symbols, rather than people. As a writer, I try to write my characters, for the most part, as people. Only the bad guys symbolize the part they play (nasty-minded criminal; greedy corporate person who has no conscience yet exploits people without breaking laws; thrill-seeker). I myself am an educated yet degreeless woman who is strongly disposed towards science but has had some 'psychic' experiences which I believe have a scientific explanation that will one day be discovered and religious ideas that have been influenced by my upbringing yet differ from my parents' and certainly divert from the mainstream of society. People are complex and do not 'represent' something unless they choose to do so (in real life) or are chosen to do so (by the author in fiction). To do a literary analysis is to impose one's own views on a situation, and as the analysist has a strong need to FIND symbolism, they will create it where it may very well not exist. Don't say that's not true. We've all had to write papers for English class where we knew perfectly well we were shovelling it but had to make a point and back it up to get the grades we needed. Well, most of us. Some people may really beieve all the symbols they uncover are truely meant as such.