Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes R. P. Ladilaw turns this philosophical bent into an example of the eternal return of the same by following a dialectic of character and circumstance that empties individuality into a general repetition of events. W. David Shaw's reading also takes the Hegelian lure, presenting the novel as an attempt to overcome a crisis of representation between two competing historical perspectives, positivist and Hegelian. By contrast, Sue Lonoff displaces this method onto the reader's synthetic judgment, claiming that the novel's multiple narrators express a problem in epistemology that readers address in their textual uptake, much as in Robert Browning's The Ring and the Book. See King 253–56. King also provides Overends's 1865 prospectus as an appendix, see King 328–29. Marx wrote in Capital 1 that “work of this sort has scarcely reached the stage of being subsumed even formally under capital, and belongs essentially to a transitional stage” (Marx, Capital 1: 1044). Post-Marxists like Paolo Virno, Christian Marazzi, Antonio Negri, and Michael Hardt have spent much time explicating Marx's work on immaterial/biopolitical labor to describe labor's contemporary economic situation. In particular, Virno persuasively argues that contemporary capitalism relies on the general intellect and socialized production, which extends beyond labor's remunerated time. See Virno, Grammar; Negri; Marazzi. Betteredge's use of Crusoe essentially repeats Crusoe's discovery of the Bible's prophetic capacities: “only having open'd the Book casually, the first Words that occur'd to me were these, Call on me in the Day of Trouble, and I will deliver, and thou shalt glory me. The Words were very apt to my Case, and made some Impression upon my Thoughts at the Time of reading them, tho’ not so much as they did afterwards” (Defoe 80–81). In Lacanian terms, Franklin's internal difference becomes one between the subject of the statement and the subject of the enunciation. In this respect, I concur with Lewis A. Lawson's psychoanalytic reading of Rosanna as the novel's castrating figure, but only insofar as this castration marks the cut disavowing narrative labor and collectivity since castration, in the Lacanian symbolic, marks the disavowal of the presubjective world of partial objects. The quote from Robinson Crusoe follows Crusoe's creation of an account book comparing the good and ill of being trapped on the island. Collins inserted “yourselves” for the original text “our selves” (58). Political economy often turned to the individual or isolated producer as a kind of ur-text for economic production. Marx uses Crusoe in Capital 1's well-known section “The Fetishism of the Commodity and Its Secret” to display how production in Crusoe is premised on the division of labor, even when there is only one laborer to be had (Marx, Capital 1: 169–70). The further implication of Marx's use of Crusoe not only reveals that the commodity obscures the social relations of production and exchange in an immediately present object but that Crusoe himself is the political economic fantasy of an economic producer whose product naturally carries exchange value even though it exists outside any social relation. OED, s.v. “rose” 7.a. Additional informationNotes on contributorsJoshua GoochJoshua Gooch received his Ph.D. in English from the University of Iowa. He is currently working on a book about the nineteenth-century novel, finance, and biopolitical labor. His work has appeared in Texas Studies in Literature and Language (forthcoming), the Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, and Cinema Journal.