A Marxist analysis of 'The Left Hand of God'

Karl Marx beleved that 'capitolism thrives on exploiting it's labourers', in that the workers get less and the shareholders get more. It alienates the workers from themselves, meaning that they are not viewed as labourers, but are seen as production units for the individuals that they are employed by.
'The Left Hand of God' begins in a monastery/fortress/prison, which is run by the Redeemers (Paul Hoffman's interpretation of die-hard christian fanatics), who take boys from a young age (such as the protagonist Cale) and turn the ones who dont die from cruel punishments and malnutritian, into super diciplined soldiers of faith, who will probably die in their first week of battle against the enemies of the Redeemers, the 'Antagonists'.

Marxism shows that the Redeemers are just exploiting the boy's existence for their own use. The 'Zealots', as they are known, have no choices in life, meaning that taking up arms in an un-winable war is forced upon them, and their countless deaths both on the battlefield and in the fortress do not matter to the Redeemers, as they are seen in the first chapter by Cale to just replace the dead with more boys.

Marxism also explains how the boys are 'alienated' from themselves by their superiors. He writes that the Capitolist system does this by viewing workers as profit and not as people, even when they group together in unions. All of the Zealot boys, specially Cale, are not seen as individuals or even human beings, but are viewed by the Redeemers as a collective abomination of sin (which is why they are never allowed to see Girls). This is why they are beaten almost to death on a regular basis for something as simple as looking out of a window, and why the Redeemers are never ones to let a boy off with a caution. It is why they are trained for years to go and fight, die, be forgotten, and be replaced by more boys. The system of cruelty they live under is one that cares not for individuals, but cares only for the sheer number of individuals, to ensure a 'high output workforce', if you will.

The Gothic - Comparing 'Dracula' with 'Frankenstein'

"Dracula" by Bram Stoker is one of the most popular and well known gothic novells of today. It is the story of Count Dracula the vampire, and how Prof. Van Helsing trails the creature and hunts it down. "Dracula" says true to typical Folk tales of the time, which was typical of many gothic novells of the era. Stoker chose to use epistolary form - the use of diary entries and newspaper articles - to tell his tale, and give an insight into his character's thoughts and feelings, that they would not allways choose to share with the other characters. The novell is classed as many kinds of literature, such as Vampire Literature and Invasion Literature, and is of course a gothic-horror fiction novell. Stoker's portrail of women in the novell was contrevertial, due to the sexual nature of the seducing Count's 'visits', given the time that it was written in. Although Stoker did not invent the vampire as such, he made it a popular basis for many horror novells and, eventually, moving pictures and films.
"Frankenstein" by Mary Shelly is another popular gothic novell. Frankenstein is the chemist and alchemist who creates the Monster from the body parts of decieced individuals using ''forbidden science''. Upon realising what a monstrocity he has made, Frankenstein flees out of fear and the creature wanders alone in the wastes. He fisrt hides out in the wood shed of a pesant family, where he learns how to speak. He eventtually introduces himself to the father, who is blind, so they get on fine - untill the family come back and chase him off. the monster gets many opportunities to help people, but when he does, others persecute him because he is hideous. The creature then swears an oath of hatered to the intollerant human species, and goes to find and destroy his creator in revenge for briging him into such a harsh world. he eventually finds Frankenstein's son, and kills him, then frames it on the family's servant. He later finds Frankenstein, and demands him to make a female monster he can live in solitude with - which Frankenstein eventually cannot go through with, as he cant make a new species of monster. So the monster tries to kill him again, and the chase gets to the arctic circle, where the Professor gets hypothermia, tells his whole story on the ship, then dies. when the monster catches up with him, he swears by his grief that he will go to the most northerly point of the earth and burn his body to ash so that another may never be created again.
This novell also has the theme of monsters and horror, and adresses issues of human intollerance to things that are different, or dont conform. The novell is a landmark horror novell, and is regarded as one of the greatest gothic texts ever written, allong with Dracula and other works like Edgar Alan Poe's writings

1st Comparative Text - The Book Thief

The first book of my course is "The Book Theif" by Markus Zuask. It is a novell about a young girl called Liesel Meminger, and her ordeal of living with foster parents throughout the second world war. The story is told from the point of view of the novell's Narrator. The Narrator follows Liesel arround, and is revealed to be Death - whether he is an angel, or the grim reaper, or anything else associated with a supernatural personification of death, it is unclear - but Death is portrayed as an individual full of sorrow and grief, due to his job of taking souls from the dying and placing them on the "conveyabelt to the afterlife". Death also mentions, at the burial of Liesel's brother, that he has a schedule to keep, and that his higher authority (or 'Boss', if you will) tells him that he is not supposed to ask why a person is to die, but is just supposed to go and do his duty. this reveals that, according to Zusak's personification of Death, a person's demise is pre-determined by something other than the reaper, and that his work is for a cause he dosent know about.
Death never says "My name is Death" or "I am the Grim Reaper". Zusak uses a combination of humor and dark language that causes the reader to realise his identity. He writes, "I could introduce myself properly, but it's not really necessairy. You will know me well enough and soon enough, depending on a diverse range of variables." Death explains here, as dellicately as he can, that the reader will eventually die and meet him, and that it's just a matter of time. Zusak also writes "I entered the train. My feet stepped through the cluttered aisle and my palm was over his mouth in an instant. no-one noticed. The train galloped on." Death talks about taking Liesel's brother's life here, and no emotive language is used. Death is quite used to taking the lives of those whose time has come, even the lives of young children. So, the Hand of Death comes without hesitation - allthough it is revealed that death resents his purpose, and tries to escape from it by finding distractions in colour and the study of human behaviour.
Death presents himself as one who speaks like the higher class of the time, using a diverse range of vocabulary, and adressing the reader politely. However, it is interesting to find that even with his deep understanding of linguistics, he finds it extremely difficult to express his emotions - particularly sympathy and depression. Perhaps this is because he simply was not made with feelings inside him, or that he is content with who he is. But, the reader comes to realise that the most probable reason for this, is that the centuries of being the Harbringer of Death, has numbed his emotions, and he looks to the world to feel good about himself again.
Zuask's style is unusual, in that he gives the unbiased Narrator a charactor, which the reader develops sympathy for, and yet can relate to as a neutral teller of the story.