than Lukacs idea that "texts directly reflect a society's consciousness" (215). Since the consciousness is developed by society, which is developed by the bourgeois, these two theories are generally the same. Bressler says, "there is no absolute voice of authority who expounds 'pure' Marxist principles" (220) Here Bressler is wrong. By definition if one wants "pure" Marxist principles, go to the source: Karl Marx. It is true that Marxism is a socially constructed term based on Marx's ides, yet if a "pure" definition cannot be found from the source, it deserves a different title. Marxism boils down to the proletariat and the bourgeois, the ides that thoughts and actions are socially and culturally implanted in the working class by the upper-class. If the mode of thought does not adhere to these principles, it is not Marxist. Therefore these ideals are "pure."Bressler unnecessarily makes Marxism (as a literary theory) difficult to comprehend. The task may seem difficult, since Marxism was not intended as a literary critisism, yet the approach to literature is clear. Bressler focused on all the slight discrepancies between individual critics and declares that there cannot be one single approach to Marxism. The same can be said for all modes of literary analysis. This is where Bressler fails....
