Suzanne Guerlac has argued that the more recent resurgence of scholarly interest in Bergson is related to the growing influence of his follower Deleuze within continental philosophy: "If there is a return to Bergson today, then, it is largely due to Gilles Deleuze whose own work has etched the contours of the New Bergson. This is not only because Deleuze wrote about Bergson; it is also because Deleuze's own thought is deeply engaged with that of his predecessor, even when Bergson is not explicitly mentioned." Leonard Lawlor and Valentine Moulard agree with Guerlac that "the recent revitalization of Bergsonism ... is almost entirely due to Deleuze." They explain that Bergson's concept of multiplicity "is at the very heart of Deleuze's thought, and duration is the model for all of Deleuze's 'becomings.' The other aspect that attracted Deleuze, which is indeed connected to the first, is Bergson's criticism of the concept of negation in "Creative Evolution" ... Thus Bergson became a resource in the criticism of the Hegelian dialectic, the negative." It is this aspect that Mark Sinclair focuses upon in "Bergson" (2020). He writes that despite the philosopher and his philosophy being very popular during the early years of the twentieth century, his ideas had been critiqued and then rejected first by phenomenology, then by existentialism, and finally by post-structuralism. As Sinclair goes on to explain, over series of publications including "Bergsonism" (1966) and "Difference and Repetition" (1968), Deleuze championed Bergson as a thinker of "difference that proceeds any sense of negation" In this way, "Deleuze’s interpretation served to keep the flame of Bergson’s philosophy alive and it has been a key motivation for the renewed scholarly attention to it."