Speculation - Three Theories

[Tominator2]

The Big Theory: Parson is a loser in the real world. He is in Erfworld to get his act together, sort of a voyage of self-discovery and -improvement. As such, the important people he meets represent people or things he has to deal with before he can overcome his loser-tude.

The Theory of Oz : We don't see much of Parson's family in the real world. We can get some idea of what they are like, however, because the leaders on his side represent family members. It helps if you think of Parson as forming these images when he was around 12-14. In some important ways that is where he is stuck in terms of emotional maturity.

• Stanley is his father - distant and kind of a jerk, yet still to be obeyed.
• Maggie is his mother - closer, but not able to really help that much.
• Sizemore is his younger brother (playing in dirt) - they like each other, but each has his own problems.
• Wanda is his older sister - independent, with a strange, threatening sexuality.
• Jack is the eldest brother - so much older he doesn't make much sense.

One could guess at which characters would be his friends or other important people in real life:

• Jillian - Wanda's best friend.
• Ansom - a boy Wanda and Jillian both like.
• Bogroll - a childhood friend he misses.

The Horselover Fats Theory: Anybody with an Arkentool is meant to be an aspect of Parson's personality that he needs to defeat/overcome/integrate:

• Stanley - Parson's tendency to deal with problems by ignoring them and running away.
• Wanda - She uses violence the way Parson would like to - often, overwhelmingly and without consequence.
• Charles - Parson's desire to treat everything as a purely intellectual problem.

In the end, Parson is only incidentally fighting the various sides. He is really fighting himself. Failure means being stuck in Erfworld.

So, what's wrong with these theories?

[MarbitChow]

The Horselover Fats Theory...
So, what's wrong with these theories?

Well, I can't comment on the first two, but the problem with your third theory is that it goes against the only rule of the forum:
Don't be a (Philip K.) Dick.

[ftl]

I think finding out that this world isn't real and he's just here for his own moral lessons would be a little bit of a downer. We've had a lot of buildup of the fact that these are real people, with loves and wants and goals, who can feel joy and pain and anger and everything. I'd be disappointed if that all turned out to be fake.

[Sixty]

I second that. Obviously that isn't evidence that it is wrong, I just hope that it isn't the case. It's only slightly better than "It was all a dream".

[WaterMonkey314]

The Theory of Oz : We don't see much of Parson's family in the real world. We can get some idea of what they are like, however, because the leaders on his side represent family members. It helps if you think of Parson as forming these images when he was around 12-14. In some important ways that is where he is stuck in terms of emotional maturity.

• Maggie is his mother - closer, but not able to really help that much.

This would give us some interesting Oedipus complex implications given Maggie's summer update behaviour. (Actually, since it's the other way around, would it still be an Oedipus complex? Or should we call it a Jocasta complex?)

[drachefly]

Well, Oz is real to Dorothy in the same way that we all already accept Erf is real to Parson. She goes there and back repeatedly. She has an Earth acquaintance she first encountered in Oz (i.e the wizard thereof, whom she meets outside Oz later). So that wouldn't be like 'just a dream' in any sense. Oz is just magically conveniently defined for making character analogies!