blah blah ginger, blah blah blah...

Once I got past Jameson's claim of supremacy of Marxism over all other theories (Marxism is the brand of theory that nine out of ten Marxists recommend), I was able to nestle into the warm bosom of (anti?) sociopolitical repression.

The main point in Jameson my brain glommed onto was that necessity creates dependence, just like how a domesticated animal comes home after a quick jaunt around town because it knows where its meal is coming from. It was also the reason that tribes were created: we keep each other warm, safe and fed, and we'll choose the most intelligent, and the best hunters, among the group to run everything. It made sense then, and it makes sense now. The only difference is that now it's sort of humiliating. We are willing slaves ("crumbs, crumbs, crumbs!").

I, in spite of this realization of gentle enslavement, prefer Althusser's off-brand version of Marxism (what is voluntary slavery, after all, if not compromise). There's that notion in physics that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction, but since when are things so clear-cut? A single moment in time is created by a confluence of events leading up to that moment, and each piece of art (especially writing) has an infinite amount of influences. The French Revolution didn't start because Marie told them all to eat cake.

Indeed, we are all a product of our times and economic status, and what we write about tends to reflect this. Marxism is definitely one of the better lenses through which a piece of literature can be read. We are, after all, severely repressed, and repression tends to produce some of the best (if not most interesting) art.