Review of "The Bees" by Laline Paull

Ever wanted to see marxist theory assimilated with the world of the humble bee? Well here's your  answer. I loved every second of this disturbing, nightmarish tale of the hierarchy of a bee hive, which had alarming similarities to our own world. Not only is the absolute worship of the male drones a hyperbolic (or is it?) sexist parody of our modern world, but the hiding of information from the lower ranked bees betrayed signs of oligarchy we see all too often. 

Flora 717 ought to be just a simple sanitation worker, incapable of attaching her antenna to the full hive mind, and incapable of speech. However, when she's born her ability to speak sets her apart from the other sanitation workers. The hive is her oyster so to speak, and she can work in the holiest of places: the nursery for the Queen's babies. More importantly, her large body and intelligence means she can go out and forage, learning the ways of the world outside of the hive. Flora's ability to shift jobs and move above her stations allows her to see that the hive mind, and the sisterhood of the hive aren't as close knit as she once thought. What if the class system is a lot more dangerous than the threats from outside of the hive?

Have you read it? What did you think?

Steph x

50th Post | Review of Frankenstein

I really want to say thanks for reading my blog - it wouldn't have ever gotten this far without people's support! It's pretty apt that Frankenstein has come up as my 50th post as, having just completed it for the fourth (maybe fifth?!) time, I've realised that it is definitely one of my firm favourites. Having said that, I probably won't be reading it again any time soon - I feel as though I could practically narrate it word for word right now!

So, I've studied Frankenstein numerous times in my career as a lit student. The first was in the context of the gothical canon at a-level. Since then I've looked at it through the lens of its place in modern literature, and feminist writing. It's pretty much just a gift that keeps on giving, and every time I come to read it, I'm just amazed by how radical and potent it is. There are actually two different versions of Frankenstein - the 1818 edition and the 1831 one. I would advise anyone to read the 1818 version - it differs slightly in content and has fewer of Percy Shelley's amendments. 

Victor Frankenstein is an intellectual who seeks to discover more about natural philosophy. Having acquired an in-depth knowledge about this science, he turns his attentions towards an experiment which he hopes will make his name go down in history forever. Sadly it does, but for the wrong reasons .... Birthing a hideous creation, Frankenstein abandons his helpless 8ft monster to a life of loneliness and deprivation. However, as the above quotation indicates, a life devoid of any sympathy may turn the sweetest heart to stone.

The creature is a product of the labourer, Frankenstein. Unlike the majority of scientific research, Frankenstein does not create a theoretical piece of work, but a material one. This allows for a Marxist reading of the play. It is interesting that Frankenstein and his monster have both a master-slave and a producer-product relationship; these are not the same thing. The master slave relationship present in the book is a truly Hegelian one: the master's existence is dependent on the slave even more than the slave's existence is dependent on the master. The master's very identity is predicated on the existence of the slave. The master's and the slave's identities can shift: this is what happens with Frankenstein and his monster. Frankenstein moves from being the master, to slave, to master again as the creature *spoiler alert* stands over his dead body.

Although the entire book is narrated from a male perspective, there is a lot of room to examine the importance of women in the text. For starters, the entire novel is written specifically for a woman: Margaret Saville. Her presence ensconces the novel and adds another layer of perception to the book. Moreover, the central figure in all of the layers of narration is Safie, an arab woman. The  presence and non-presence of women and especially mothers throughout the text is probably something people find most concerning and noticeable. Frankenstein gives birth with no female input, and therefore, removes the woman from the domestic sphere. The question really is, after this can he ever become married and life a life of domestic harmony? Is it necessary that Elizabeth dies?

What do you think of it?

Steph 

A Reading on Capitalism in The Great Gatsby and The Picture of Dorian Gray

When examined in a Marxist light both of these novels highlight the negative aspects of living a luxurious capitalist lifestyle which is inevitably consumed by waste and corruption. Written a mere forty years apart each novel provides an image of the destruction which is to come for those living in late nineteenth-century England and 1920s America.

            Firstly, The Picture of Dorian Gray, published in 1890, examines the lives of dandies who lives frivolous lives and wore outlandish clothing in order to express themselves. The key character that represents this mode of life is Dorian himself. His character development throughout the novel reflects the superficiality of those engaged in capitalist activities. Indeed, his whole character is utterly altered by a relatively simple speech by Lord Henry in which he reveals to Dorian the fragility of youth. Dorian then embarks on a path of destruction, much as leaders of capitalist corporations do. Capitalist businesses exploit human labour, animals and the environment for their personal gain of wealth and fame whilst ignoring the negative impact they are having on the earth. In a similar way, Dorian ruins everything he touches: Basil and Sybil Vane are killed as a result of his direct or indirect actions; he destroys the reputation and therefore the social lives of anyone associated with him; and he lays waste to a vast number of material goods through his hedonistic pursuits. Lord Henry could be seen as a symbol for advertising as he instigates young men to take up a capitalist ideal in their lives and pursue this reckless, wasteful way of life. Lord Henry has no job, but merely lives an idle life of aristocracy; it is in his interest to persuade the younger generation to pursue this mode of life as it ensures that he gets invited to events and can host events which are well attended and make him feel as though he is doing something productive in his life. In this way he can be likened to a capitalist business as he is ensuring that his product will continue to be used in the future and thus ensures a continuation of the profit he receives from his wasteful lifestyle.

            Moreover, the key protagonist of The Great Gatsby has a life which is centred around hedonistic activities. His dream of achieving the love of Daisy, who represents “old money” in 1920s America corrupts him into creating a lifestyle which is utterly wasteful. He throws extravagant parties every weekend to entice her into his home: the superficiality of these parties is stressed repeatedly by Fitzgerald when he mentions that, not only does the house need to be restored to its normal state on the Monday by a whole team of labourers, but the people who attend the parties do not care about this, nor do they care that they have not been invited to the party but merely turn up because it is a glamorous party. As well as living an extravagant, wasteful capitalist lifestyle in this way, Gatsby is also a product of capitalism. He is a prime example of the “new money” in America at this time which was attempting to achieve the prosperity and reputation which the old money were able to inherit. He changes his name from James Gatz to Jay Gatsby to do this as well as insisting that his family is dead in an attempt to rid himself of his past. This is a key example of the destruction that capitalism creates; James Gatz is killed because he is of the working class. This is not the only point at which the working class and death are connected in the novel. The Valley of Ashes is a symbol for the waste produced by a capitalist society. It is an eyesore which reveals the fact that capitalism both destroys the land of the earth and the people as Myrtle, also a member of the working class, is killed there. Thus the novel highlights the way in which capitalism destroys everything it touches in an attempt to profit from it as the Valley of Ashes exists between two places which have prospered from capitalism which have profited by destroying it.