LadyRushia wrote:Context is everything, and that includes the intent of the author.
There was a time when I would have agreed with this statement, but now I'm not so sure. Part of the reason lies with Ray Bradbury and his (possible) senility.
Have you ever heard of Farenheit 451? It's one of his most famous novels, and is used in schools as an illustration of the horrors of censorship (the novel revolves around firemen who burn books "for the good of society," since reading is outlawed). Everyone who's anyone in the world of literary analysis will say it's about censorship.
However, Ray Bradbury in an interview said "Everyone who thinks it's about censorship is a moron, it's about how television will make people not want to read!"
So is every literary analysis that's used this book as an example of censorship wrong? Is Ray Bradbury's opinion really the only one that matters, even though it's ridiculous?
I think people can get something out of any piece of media that the creator never intended. Unless the meaning a person gets is contradicted by the story (for example, anyone trying to get any Christian meaning out of Philip Pullman's books would be contradicted by the fact that in the books God does not exist, but is a rogue angel), there really is no "wrong" way to interpret something. It may seem odd and strange, but unless you can use the story itself to prove them wrong, it's valid.
Such is my problem with this critique, as luck is acknowledged to exist and therefore contradicts any Christian interpretation (as luck and God cannot coexist).
You're welcome to your narrative, but I can't agree with it and think there are better series that would be usable for such a feat.
Though if the purpose is simply to illustrate Christian principles, I stand behind that (similar to using a three-leaf clover to represent the Trinity), but it seems you're going beyond simple illustration to "shoehorning" God into a story where He may not even exist (and probably doesn't, as shown by my Final Fantasy Tactics reference).