Group work, in general, seems to be most suited for a type of socio-historical analysis, as far as literature is concerned. I say this, because that way, the differing views of each member can be incorporated fully. If one is more intent on doing a purely psycho-analytical survey of a particular, textual motif or genre, it is obviously then more applicable to develop the individual's point of view. Since group work is essentially meant to be a mixture, or rather, a spectrum of comments and opinions, it therefore works as a limitation on unconventional and unusual surveys which appear, from time to time, on the bookshelves of a university's library. This is not to say that some aspects of the group process should not be incorporated into the literary survey, but more precisely, that these beneficial aspects which are brought into the classroom, must be looked upon as being useful only in certain contexts.

As I observed earlier, group assessments do have a place in the field of literature, but there will always remain some pathways of textual analysis that are best propagated if left in the domain of the individual's point of view. The group atmosphere therefore is best exemplified when a particular text is to be examined for its relevant social, historical, and political connotations. A more in-depth analysis of the actual, symbolical undercurrent of a novel is most effectively to be produced in a written piece of work, in which the writer develops his assessment to the fullest possible degree. In that way, the purely aesthetical aspect of a given novel is best explored without words, but more realistically, by being brought to life in the staged ideas of a theatrical company.

One must therefore be careful when incorporating group work into the classroom, because if a more personal, and thus more variable aspect, such as symbol and psychology in a chosen novel, is forcefully interwoven into a 'collective' analysis, the results can then become ineffective and comical -- the group element would thus become a superimposing mask on incongruous, individual proliferations.

Project Report -- our consultations proceeded smoothly and minor differences in point of view were incorporated in a beneficial manner. By relying on compromise, we effectively created a broader sphere of interpretation and thus of knowledge, in the materialization of our labours. Our final project therefore successfully incorporated several valid aspects of literary-critical propagation. These distinct yet fundamental modes are those of the visual, interpretive, and historical realms, which are further elaborated upon below.

1. The visual realm -- this was effectively sustained by a picture. All group members provided a relevant image, either a realistic or a psychological manifestation, which best summarized their respective novel of choice. The dilemma of 'choice' was eased by the beneficial comment of one member, who said something nearly equivalent to the following: "Look for a picture that you would put on the cover page of your book."

2. The interpretive realm -- this was obviously done through the critical-analytical commentary of all group members, in relation to the chosen novels. I need not further elaborate on this particular issue.

3. The historical realm -- this would be represented through a few general sentences on each author; on their particular philosophical / aesthetical dominion in the Gothic tradition, (their literary influences). We finally agreed collectively that the historically based 'context of meaning' would best be exemplified if our project was structured upon a timeline. This would also be in keeping with our particular concern of 'terror versus horror,' in the sense that now, the class as an audience could as well perceive the developments and transitions of the literary world in relation to these two mentioned ideas.