Coursework advice

[Sam Smith]

Hi, I'm in preparation for my NEA (Non-examined assessment) which is basically coursework. I have to choose any novel/prose text to analyse from any of the following critical viewpoints: marxism, feminism, eco-criticism, narrative. I must create my own question. I have several ideas but none of them particularly enthral me so I'd appreciate any ideas, thoughts, or advice anyone might have. I also don't mind if I haven't read the text as I can then read it with a specific viewpoint in mind.
Thanks.

[Eiseabhal]

The things they make you do eh! How long have you got for this? You could try the twin novels Kidnapped and Catriona. Kidnapped needs the second novel as it picks up the narrative where Kidnapped leaves it. Kidnapped has only three minor female characters but Catriona has several significant female characters. Topography and geography are important in both without there being any sign that Stevenson could actually identify a single growing thing. There is a wide range of class culture and tribe in both novels. There is a distinct narrator.

[Red Terror]

Try H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man from a Marxist perspective. I found an article in Bloom's Modern Critical Interpretation series written by English Professor Paul A. Cantor of the University of Virginia (if I remember correctly). Well, the version I read of the article in the Bloom's series was different from the first link so be mindful. The version in the first link is longer which I haven't read yet. But, I read the version contained in the book (2nd link) which is provocative and excellent.

P.S. If you've taken any economics course, you know generally about Scottish economist Adam Smith's theory of the "invisible hand" of the market place. Smith wrote his seminal study of capitalism The Wealth of Nations in 1776.

Check it out:

https://mises.org/library/invisible-man-and-invisible-hand-hg-wellss-critique-capitalism

https://www.amazon.com/Wells-Blooms-Modern-Critical-Hardcover/dp/0791081303



Hi, I'm in preparation for my NEA (Non-examined assessment) which is basically coursework. I have to choose any novel/prose text to analyse from any of the following critical viewpoints: marxism, feminism, eco-criticism, narrative. I must create my own question. I have several ideas but none of them particularly enthral me so I'd appreciate any ideas, thoughts, or advice anyone might have. I also don't mind if I haven't read the text as I can then read it with a specific viewpoint in mind.
Thanks.

[Sam Smith]

Thanks, guys. I have till the end of summer to plan and essentially have a clear idea of what I'm going to do. I then have a couple of weeks to write it in summer when term starts again. Having never done a coursework like this I thought it would be useful to read a text purposefully and have a clear view from the start. Maybe this is the wrong way of doing things but it seems sensible to me. I'll have to double check whether I can do a pair of books. What is The Invisible Man about? Thanks again.

[Red Terror]

Wells' Invisible Man is a brief work --- maybe 200 pages or so. So you could read it in a week. Make sure you find one with end notes that explain obscure words and phrases since those are the ones I find most helpful. It was written in the late 1890s. The story centers on an albino scientist, Griffin, who arrives one wintry day to a small, obscure village in England. His face is covered with bandages and sporting a theatrical (false) nose and black, wrap-around sunglasses with a fake beard underneath his bandages. He is invisible and has come to the village to study his notes and reverse the invisibility process so he becomes visible again. He fails and he starts to go insane. There was a generally faithful black and white film starring Claude Rains in the 1930s or so.

http://www.garuyo.com/sites/default/files/tumblr_lhsr3cVdHf1qcay1ao1_500.gif


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb3n0g2NenI




Thanks, guys. I have till the end of summer to plan and essentially have a clear idea of what I'm going to do. I then have a couple of weeks to write it in summer when term starts again. Having never done a coursework like this I thought it would be useful to read a text purposefully and have a clear view from the start. Maybe this is the wrong way of doing things but it seems sensible to me. I'll have to double check whether I can do a pair of books. What is The Invisible Man about? Thanks again.

[Jackson Richardson]

Since you are given no boundaries, I would suggest you start with some work that attracts you, even though you can't work out why. Then choose the category that is most appropriate (ie not a feminist reading of Kidnapped or Moby Dick or an ecological understanding of Mrs Dalloway). I'm sure you (or at least Red Terror) could do a Marxist reading of Pride and Prejudice or indeed any work which even hints at a social setting, but it may not be the most appropriate approach. (Which is why Red Terror is not a Jane Austen fan.)

But (I wonder) if a Marxist reading, why not a Calvinist, Platonist or Thomist reading? (Alasdair Mcintyre in After Virtuesuggests Jane Austen was the last great Aristotlean, ie Thomist).

Good luck, Sam. (Note my enthusiastic use of parentheses).

[ennison]

Alasdair Macintyre.? The Quaker? Or who?

[Sam Smith]

Red Terror, what are the specific marxist observations of the book? I'm sorry for asking so many questions but my teacher wants a decision within the next few days which doesn't give me much time to make a decision. By the way, I am aware of how risky my strategy is for this coursework but I'd rather do it this way and enjoy it than forcing a reading out of a clichéd text. I am definitely going to read The Invisible Man now regardless!

Jackson, as you can imagine a lot of works interest me; having most recently read The Lovely Bones, and Life of Pi, I have these on my mind. (Sadly) I am not so well versed in "classic literature" but, again, I would read anything. Is there any specific (good) text which comes to mind for one of the views? (thank you for continuing the parenthetical trend).

I appreciate your guys' input, it's very interesting and great to bounce ideas around. All your thoughts are gratefully received. I am feeling right now I'm not as well read as I'd like to be seen as i don't know all the texts mentioned in this thread so far.

[Jackson Richardson]

OK, try the other way round. Which critical viewpoint would you be most comfortable taking? Then someone can suggest a possible text.

Let us know how you get on. (My last post was one of those late at night ones which I regret in the morning.)

[Red Terror]

My thesis would be worded as follows:

Wells, in The Invisible Man, incarnated Marxist values and doctrine ... or the Marxist incarnation of revolutionary terror manifests itself in Wells' The Invisible Man in the form of ...

Now that you remind me, Sam, I also remember reading a Marxist critique (yes! you guessed it, in one of Bloom's Modern Critical Interpretation series) of Bram Stoker's Dracula. It was also a very good essay. Dracula is looked upon as a lumpen-proletariat by its author. And there was another article circulating on the web that Dracula represented monopoly capital and the parasitic bourgeoisie but I can not find it presently.

The Victorian men and women conveyed in Bram Stoker's Dracula are pure and virtuous members of the upper and middle class. However, hiding behind this composed and civilized conception of England lies a dark and turbulent underbelly. This underbelly is the lumpenproletariat, whom Karl Marx defined as "the lowest and most degraded section of the proletariat; the ‘down and outs' who make no contribution to the workers cause". Victorian culture discriminated against these vagrants, who were seen not only as shiftless and immoral, but dangerous as well. Sex was taboo and purity was held sacred to the Victorian middle and upper class, but prostitution and sexually transmitted diseases ran rampant among the lumpenproletariat. The rich strive to be pious and good, but consider those of lower social standing to be less than human. The reaction of the characters in Dracula to the evil of the vampires can be likened to the Victorian conception of the lower classes. They were seen as a hedonistic but powerful force, with the collective capacity to end the affluent citizen's way of life. In this sense, the novel can be viewed as a struggle to maintain upper-class Victorian traditions against the traditions of the lower class. This paper will examine the similarities between the vampires and the perception of the lower classes in regards to superstition, sexuality, inequality and the "preying" of the lumpenproletariat on the respectable middle-class. It will also examine the signs evident in the novel of the Victorian mindset.

Dracula is an aristocrat with a castle and noble title, but in reality he is more associated with the lumpen. While trapped in Dracula's castle early in the novel, Jonathan discovers that he has no hired help, has been performing menial tasks such as bed-making and table setting in secret, and even acting as the horse-carriage ...

Sorry for digressing from Wells to Stoker but my mind is on caffeine right now. You ask how does Wells use Marx?? I would say that he employs a socialist critique of the free market. If you read that article by Professor Cantor you would see how it is done.

I quote from that article:

In sharp contrast to [Adam] Smith, Wells was a socialist. Indeed, he was a principal force in shaping the course that socialist theory and practice took in twentieth-century Britain; he is generally regarded as one of the architects of the modern welfare state. It should come as no surprise, then, that Wells uses his parable of the Invisible Man to call Smith's economic theories into question, presenting Griffin as a monster of egoism and finding chaos and catastrophe where Smith had seen order and progress. Thus, The Invisible Man offers an opportunity to examine Wells's critique of capitalism, both the substance of his arguments and the motives behind his hostility to the free market. In particular, we will see that Wells had special reasons as a creative writer for criticizing the impersonality of the market economy and its invisible ordering forces.

I may appear to be contradicting myself, by presenting Wells's Invisible Man as at one moment a symbol of capitalism and at another of socialism. But I believe that this contradiction lies in Wells's novel itself, that he portrays his central figure inconsistently. In many ways Wells was trying to give a portrait of the capitalist mentality in the figure of the Invisible Man, but he evidently invested too much of himself in his protagonist, and ended up simultaneously portraying the mentality of a political visionary, a man who tries to remake the world to fit his image of a just social order. Indeed, at several points in the novel, the Invisible Man sounds a lot more like a radical revolutionary than a capitalist businessman. He conceives the idea of a Reign of Terror to establish and consolidate his power: "Port Burdock is no longer under the Queen, … it is under me — the Terror! This is day one of year one of the new epoch, — the Epoch of the Invisible Man. I am Invisible Man the First." This is hardly the language of the free market. As Griffin's proclamation of a new era indicates, this is in fact the language of revolutionary totalitarianism.

For Wells, Griffin's invisibility symbolizes the working of an impersonal, decentralized, and — in Wells's view — dangerously chaotic market economy, which fails to respect the dictates of either traditional communal ties or established government authorities. In effect, what is most significant about Griffin is his invisible hand. In his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith had argued that in an unfettered market economy, an invisible hand guides the self-seeking actions of individual entrepreneurs for the good of the community as a whole.

The Invisible Man begins with "a couple of sovereigns" being "flung upon the table," and it ends with money as well. In a comic epilogue, Wells reveals what happened to all the cash Griffin stole. It winds up in the hands of his treacherous helper, Marvel. Precisely because of the untraceability of money, Marvel gets to keep all the stolen cash. "When they found they couldn't prove who's money was which," society's loss becomes Marvel's gain in a final inversion of Smith's invisible hand principle. And in one last twist, in the capitalist world Wells is portraying, even the story of the Invisible Man itself gets commercialized. With his insider's knowledge, Marvel becomes a celebrity on the stage: "And then a gentleman gave me a guinea a night to tell the story at the Empire Music 'all — just tell 'em in my own words."

You can borrow from that article and cite your source(s) etc. Remember the essay is called "The Invisible Man and the Invisible Hand: H. G. Wells Critique of Capitalism". The concept of the invisible hand was something developed by Scottish economist Adam Smith in his treatise The Wealth of Nations . Adam Smith postulated that an invisible hand of the market place supposedly regulated a nation's economy.

https://www.reviewessays.com/Book-Reports/Bram-Stoker's-Dracula-A-Struggle-To-Maintain-Victorian/16606.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=vQ6SQgAACAAJ&dq=bloom's+modern+critical+interpretations+bram+st oker&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiotYuppPPNAhVI9x4KHffQA0wQ6AEIHDAA


Red Terror, what are the specific marxist observations of the book? I'm sorry for asking so many questions but my teacher wants a decision within the next few days which doesn't give me much time to make a decision. By the way, I am aware of how risky my strategy is for this coursework but I'd rather do it this way and enjoy it than forcing a reading out of a clichéd text. I am definitely going to read The Invisible Man now regardless!

Jackson, as you can imagine a lot of works interest me; having most recently read The Lovely Bones, and Life of Pi, I have these on my mind. (Sadly) I am not so well versed in "classic literature" but, again, I would read anything. Is there any specific (good) text which comes to mind for one of the views? (thank you for continuing the parenthetical trend).





I appreciate your guys' input, it's very interesting and great to bounce ideas around. All your thoughts are gratefully received. I am feeling right now I'm not as well read as I'd like to be seen as i don't know all the texts mentioned in this thread so far.

[Sam Smith]

Jackson, I enjoy Marxism, and Narrative the most I think. I also enjoy Post-colonialism which I didn't mention earlier in the thread but I wouldn't feel as comfortable writing about this as I don't know it as well. Any thoughts?

[Sam Smith]

Red Terror, that looks and sounds fantastic. Really interesting and thought provoking extracts too. Thank you for all the trouble you went to finding them! I will have to talk to my teacher tomorrow and see whether I can have an extension to make my decision. As a back up I'm thinking of doing Camus' The Outsider from a Marxist perspective because I know the book. Hopefully I'll be able to use some time to read the book and make a more informed decision (of course thinking about your comments in this thread too!). Have you read The Outsider and if so what do you think to a possible thesis? Again I'm asking too much of my unknown friends here but your guys' knowledge is brilliant. Now I come think of it I've watched some of Professor Cantor's lectures on Shakespeare and they are very good too if you fancied them I'd definitely recommend them.

[Red Terror]

I never read Camus except extracts from his book "The Rebel" where he deals with the revolutionary Saint-Just.

I was wondering if you have access to the Bloom book on Wells because the essay contained therein on the Invisible Man is different than the internet version and it says some outrageously brilliant comments. For example: Cantor says in the novel (at one point) that the invisible man dissappears from even the author himself and he quotes an amusing and revealing passage to prove his point. Another example: the invisible man steals some money and Cantor offers some fascinating points regarding the invisible hand of the marketplace. I was looking at the internet version of the essay and was frustrated by what I couldn't find but what I know I read because I checked out the book several times in the past to reread that essay. (written via smartphone please excuse the sloppy grammar).


Red Terror, that looks and sounds fantastic. Really interesting and thought provoking extracts too. Thank you for all the trouble you went to finding them! I will have to talk to my teacher tomorrow and see whether I can have an extension to make my decision. As a back up I'm thinking of doing Camus' The Outsider from a Marxist perspective because I know the book. Hopefully I'll be able to use some time to read the book and make a more informed decision (of course thinking about your comments in this thread too!). Have you read The Outsider and if so what do you think to a possible thesis? Again I'm asking too much of my unknown friends here but your guys' knowledge is brilliant. Now I come think of it I've watched some of Professor Cantor's lectures on Shakespeare and they are very good too if you fancied them I'd definitely recommend them.

[Sam Smith]

I'm sure I could get the Bloom book if I knew where to find it; do you know? Those comments sound very insightful, I'd like to read the essay. If I'm honest, doing the Invisible Man looks to be more interesting than Camus. I'll have to see what my teacher says. An invisible character does sound like a great opportunity for symbolism and the suggestion of forces incomprehensible to us - perhaps even a reflection into what we hide from ourselves and our own conscience? I'll have to read the book to back up these thoughts though!

What's even more daunting is that I have to do this same task for poetry and I know even less about poetry than I do prose. Do you think I should head over to a poetry section to ask for advice on the poetry part, or do you think I'd still get help on this thread? Sorry for these questions but, alas, I'm new here.

[Red Terror]

For the Bloom book try www.amazon.com.

As for the poetry you could try reading Machiavelli's "The Prince" (which is very brief and I know a pretty good accessible English translation which I could give you the link for tomorrow). Shakespeare was influenced by Machiavelli and used his principles in his plays. His leading characters could be said to be Machiavellian. How many pages are all these term papers to be?



I'm sure I could get the Bloom book if I knew where to find it; do you know? Those comments sound very insightful, I'd like to read the essay. If I'm honest, doing the Invisible Man looks to be more interesting than Camus. I'll have to see what my teacher says. An invisible character does sound like a great opportunity for symbolism and the suggestion of forces incomprehensible to us - perhaps even a reflection into what we hide from ourselves and our own conscience? I'll have to read the book to back up these thoughts though!

What's even more daunting is that I have to do this same task for poetry and I know even less about poetry than I do prose. Do you think I should head over to a poetry section to ask for advice on the poetry part, or do you think I'd still get help on this thread? Sorry for these questions but, alas, I'm new here.

[Sam Smith]

For the Bloom book try www.amazon.com.

As for the poetry you could try reading Machiavelli's "The Prince" (which is very brief and I know a pretty good accessible English translation which I could give you the link for tomorrow). Shakespeare was influenced by Machiavelli and used his principles in his plays. His leading characters could be said to be Machiavellian. How many pages are all these term papers to be?

The only catch is that I mustn't use the same critical analysis i.e. I can't look at a prose text and a poem BOTH from a Marxist view. I will reply to this thread again tomorrow with more accurate knowledge. That being said, I'm fairly sure the word limit is around 1500 words or something like that. And yes I'd appreciate a translation of The Prince if it's not too much trouble. A demain.

[Jackson Richardson]

Here's old Nick right here on LitNet

http://www.online-literature.com/machiavelli/prince/

It will be an out of copyright translation which will probably be on the quaint side, but here it is.

[Red Terror]

I found one of the essays that I read way back in 2004. Wow ...

http://www.glyndwr.ac.uk/rdover/other/mark_jan.htm

Bleeding the Bourgeoisie Dry: Dracula and Fears of Monopoly Capitalism


Dracula was published in 1897, a decade after Stevenson's Jekyll. If Jekyll had worked in relation to bourgeois fears of disruption from the 'lower orders', Dracula worked in relation to bourgeois fears of domination from above. There have been many psychoanalytic readings of Dracula and vampirism in horror, but Stoker's novel is not the product of trans-historical unconscious tensions. Instead, as Franco Moretti has argued, it was a desperate attempt to articulate anxieties about the crisis of liberal capitalism which was taking place within the 1890s, and the challenge to the hegemony of the professional bourgeoisie which it entailed.

Earlier in the century, Marx himself had used the vampire metaphor to discuss the workings of capital: 'Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks." Stoker's vampire conforms to this description. He has no life himself, but maintains himself by living off the life of others. He does not feed upon them for the pleasure of it, but in order to survive; it is his nature. The more he feeds, the younger and stronger he becomes, but his feeding also extends his domain. Through feeding he converts his victims into his slaves, but again he does this not through choice, but through necessity. His nature 'compels him to make ever more victims, just as the capitalist is compelled to accumulate. His nature forces him to struggle to be unlimited, to subjugate the whole of society."
It is for this reason that while Dracula is a representation of capital, he is presented as a threat to the professional bourgeoisie. He is not capital itself, but a particular form of capital which was emerging in the 1890s: monopoly capital. As Moretti puts it, 'Dracula is a true monopolist; solitary and despotic, he will not brook competition.''; The professional bourgeoisie had established its hegemony by challenging feudal despotism with a concept of individual freedom. It challenged monopolist tyranny with free trade. However, monopoly capital sought to eliminate competition, and by extension the professional bourgeoisie's concept of individual freedom and independence. Monopoly capitalism threatened the era of liberal or laissez faire capitalism through the concentration of ownership. More and more of the population had less and less economic independence from capital. More and more of the population became employees who were dependent on the monopolies for their livelihoods. The bourgeoisie had combated the forms of hound labour associated with feudalism with the concept of the labour contract. The capitalist had no inherent rights over the labour of the worker as had been the case with the feudal lord. By contrast, the capitalist and the worker engaged in a contract in which they were, in principle, free and equal participants. Workers could not only choose the employer to whom they sold their labour, but their labour was also only sold for a fixed period. The worker had rights over his own labour. Dracula accepts no such rights or choices, even in principle. Once one is his, one is his completely and forever.
The distinction between the public and the private spheres of life was also intended to protect individual rights - or at least, the individual rights of the male. The bourgeois employer only had rights over the labour of the worker, not his whole being. Aspects of the worker were defined as private. The employer could control the labour of the worker for which he had paid, but nothing else. The worker could also escape the world of work within the private sphere of the home. The home was a place of privacy and individual sovereignty. It is Dracula's inability to accept any limitation to his will which evokes such horror for the bourgeoisie. He not only threatens the public sphere, but the private sphere too. He invades the bourgeois home, the bedchamber, the body, and finally, the will. It is for this reason that while he converts the free subject into a slave who is compelled to act according to his will, the manner of his attack is clearly sexual. Within bourgeois culture, sexual activity is defined as the most private of activities, and sexuality as the most private aspect of identity. The description of the act of vampirism is linked to sexual activity by the specific types of physical intimacy involved. As is often noted, the vampire's bite - or kiss as it is often described - suggests a whole series of oral sex acts such as fellatio and cunnilingus. Vampirism is also linked to sexual activity by the types of excitement which it evokes in the vampire and its victims.
While Dracula's attacks are aimed at the private sphere, his primary attacks are on bourgeois females, not bourgeois males. Women were defined as the organisers of this private sphere. They were supposed to display their husband's productive power, and create a suitable environment within which the males could escape the demands of the public sphere. Dracula's attack on these women converts them into his slaves, and turns these women against their men. He overturns the sexual politics of the bourgeois home. Ironically, once these women become Dracula's victims and slaves, they acquire an active, and even aggressive sexuality which is traditionally defined as the prerogative of the male. The men, on the other hand, are placed in a position of sexual passivity and victimization previously associated with femininity. it is in this way that the figure of the New Woman is presented as such a threat within the novel - but her emergence is identified as only one aspect of an even broader crisis within bourgeois society.
The sexual nature of the attack reveals both the strengths and the weaknesses of Stoker's attempt to represent this crisis. if the vampire's power is frequently presented as its ability to hypnotize its victims with its sexual magnetism, the attack cannot be purely external. Instead the victim must be seen as unconsciously desiring their own victimization, and the threat is presented as both internal and external. Stoker's Dracula is a peculiarly contradictory figure. He is both secretive and an exhibitionist, both the natural - transforming himself into beasts - and the over-cultured or decadent. He represents both the rational and the irrational. But he is also, strangely, an aristocrat. He is a feudal lord without peasants, only investment capital. Unable to acknowledge and recognize monopoly capital as a product of its own economic and cultural processes, the professional bourgeoisie was only able to represent Dracula as its negation. Having come to consciousness as a class in the struggle against feudal despotism, the professional bourgeoisie were only able to perceive monopoly capitalism as a resurrection of the past, not as a future which was emerging from capitalist competition itself. For this reason, Dracula must inhabit the body of an aristocrat.
If the novel attempts to diagnose the crisis of bourgeois individualism, it does not prescribe individualism itself as the solution. Van Helsing and Mina, Dracula's chief opponents, both stress the importance of collective action. As Waller points out, in his fight to save Lucy from Dracula, Van Helsing transfuses the blood of several different males into her, an act which he knows will horrify her suitor. The novel presents these transfusions, like the vampiric act, as sexual in nature. In order to combat Dracula, Van Helsing must knowingly transgress bourgeois taboos. He must ignore the sexual codes which define sexual contact with the female body as the right of a single, individual male - her husband.
In order to defend itself, the bourgeoisie progressively moved away from ideologies of free trade and freedom of the individual in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Instead, they developed an ideology of collectivism and economic tariffs. Isolated individuals were simply not equipped to deal with the problems associated with the increasingly complex economic and social relations which were developing in the late nineteenth century. Members of the bourgeoisie were forced to recognize their shared interests and work together. Moreover, Dracula is not only an aristocrat; he is a foreigner. The bourgeoisie came to regard overseas competition as a threat, not the market itself, and sought to defend itself through protectionist tariffs.
Dracula's two most vehement opponents arc also significant. Van Helsing is a sort of secular priest, a man who integrates scientific empiricism with religion, while Mina is a defender of communal values over individual interests. Women occupy a peculiar position within Dracula and vampire fiction in general. They are a central threat to be feared and distrusted by the male figures from whose position the narrative is often seen. But they can also be the major bulwark against vampirism. The appeal of the bourgeois home, for many women, was that it had been defined as a protection from aristocratic license. If a woman would accept the authority of a husband, he would protect her against exploitation by other men. For this reason, despite its limitations, women have often been the staunchest defenders of the family. Mina is particularly interesting, however. She does not simply accept male authority, but actively draws the group together.
Like Jekyll, Stoker's novel does not present a linear narrative with a single, individual point of view. Instead, it presents a series of different points of view and different forms of writing which are drawn together by Mina as she establishes the group. She collates and integrates these different accounts, and eliminates the errors and ignorance which arc the result of their individual points of view. It is only after her act of collation that the collection of individuals becomes a group, and the hunt for Dracula can proceed. From then on, as Moretti argues, it becomes
more accurate to speak of a 'collective' narrator than of different narrators. There are no longer, as there were at the beginning, different versions of a single episode, a procedure which expressed the uncertainty and error of the individual account. The narrative now expresses the general point of view, the official version of the events.


Dracula registers the major shift in bourgeois thought in which the class which had established its dominance on a doctrine of individual freedom began to develop a doctrine of collectivity. The legacy of this development was dramatic and would have far reaching implications and effects, particularly in the second half of the twentieth century.

[Red Terror]

Sam Smith, I found the other Marxist article on Dracula (in the Bloom series). It is by Laura Sagolla Croley and the essay is entitled:

"The Rhetoric of Reform in Stoker's Dracula: Depravity, Decline, and the Fin-de-Siècle "Residuum". Here is a link to the article in a PDF but it looks like you have to register to access it. Sorry, but I can't find a quick link to the article just some websites who promise you access if you register with them first. That's it. Kudos.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241841300_The_Rhetoric_of_Reform_in_Stoker's_Dracu la_Depravity_Decline_and_the_Fin-de-Siecle_Residuum

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=laura+sagolla+croley+the+rhetoric+of +reform+in+stoker%27s+dracula