I would be interested to hear your Sandman comparisons, actually….

No, you certainly didn’t. The major problem with Marxist theory in any discipline but especially literary theory is its overwhelming tendency to be reductionistic., which has got to stem from Marx’s own view of Science and the normative baggage that deploying Marxist theory often involves. Many adherents to this particular discipline would argue that the historical context of the work exhausts it. You do not take this approach in your essay. I happen to believe that great works of art by definition cannot be reduced, and it would appear that you’d agree with me on some level there. You did great justice to the material, and I think Gaiman picked up on that in linking your article from his blog.

One note, though: I read Sandman when I was 21, a Junior at University in 2003. I still hold it stratospheric regard (almost absurd, if you here my comparisons) and never really moved decisively to other works of literature, since I’d encountered them already. It never performed quite the functions for me- as either a gateway for high literature or arena for working out the the personal impact of change on identity- as it did for you at 16, or at 26 for that matter. It was, though, unquestionably emotionally powerful for I think the same reasons. I was halfway between your two ages, though, so maybe I was in a decent position to take in the complexity of both of the perspectives each of your readings suggested. Or, I’m just being indulgent.

Cheers,

Dan