Blog Post 1 Topic 2

I believe that Bartleby’s behavior is a reasonable response to his circumstances.

The issue is not found within Bartleby but rather within the society which he makes residence in. Every society has societal norms, which the general population must conform to or face punishment. However, just because a society says that something is right, doesn't make it so.  This can be exemplified by how moral standards have evolved over time. What was once socially unacceptable could later become completely accepted and embraced. An application of this concept to our modern society could be LGBTQIA rights. People in many states across the United States were once prosecuted for having abnormal gender preferences or identities. In most state’s currently people can’t be prosecuted for these differences. This is because mind sets and ideals about these issues have changed. This is applicable to Bartleby’s situation as society isn’t accepting of him, because he doesn’t conform to the main stream. His brain is wired differently than what his society deems as “normal” behavior for a law-abiding citizen. This just shows that Bartleby may just have been born before society was accepting of people who had different brain activity than the norm.
The fact that Bartleby always says “I would prefer not to” whenever he is asked by his boss to perform a task other than the copying of law documents, shows how Bartleby can’t conform to societal norms. At first Bartleby works in the office very efficiently as his main job is primarily copying documents. In fact, he is so avid at his job, that his boss sees him as his best employee. However, Bartleby is never able to do much more than copy documents and his response to any other request is “I would prefer not to”. This shows how society enables and promotes people to be more like machines and without considering people’s feelings, thoughts, or desires. I believe that society’s pressure for humans to conform to these machine efficiency standards was what drove Bartleby to a breaking point. When Bartleby first got his job at the copying office, he did his work very quickly and accurately, no questions asked. His deterioration happened over time as the boss made other demands of Bartleby and he persistently “preferred not to”. After a while Bartleby wasn’t even able to copy law documents, he would just sit at his office desk day and night and whenever the boss asked him to do work, Bartleby simply repeated his coined phrase. Society has driven Bartleby to a point where he can’t even function like a “normal” human being anymore, because he became so used to performing like a machine.

The way that the boss responds to Bartleby’s “antics” after persistently trying to get him to leave the office or do work, is by deciding to relocate his office. The way that the boss handled the situation likely sped up Bartleby’s worsening mental health. With no one to watch out for Bartleby, he likely sustained a lonesome existence and when the new tenants took over the building and Bartleby was still there, they sent him to prison. In my opinion these turns of events sped up Bartleby’s worsening mentality and led him to his ultimate death. Unfortunately, societal norms of Bartleby’s time, likely didn’t understand issues of mental health and therefore anyone who exhibited these signs and became a disturbance to society’s ability to run like clock-work, was ultimately a liability and therefore these people tended to be locked up behind bars. Therefore, Bartleby’s behavioral response to the situations which he was put in, was definitely not by any means “normal” behavior, but rather, understandable behavior for his state of mental health and the time and environment he was in.

Blog Post#1 Topic#2

Bartleby, The Scrivener was written by Herman Melville. It takes place at a law firm on wall-street. The owner used to have three employees or two and a half employees to be exact, because two of the employees had a strange behavior. One employee will perform normally in the morning like any other scrivener. But things change after twelve o’clock. He became reckless and not suited for work. The other employee is vice versa, normal in the afternoon and weird in the morning. As the business grows, the owner decided he needed one more scrivener. There comes Bartleby, pallidly neat, pitiably respectable, and incurably forlorn as he describe. At the beginning, things are working well. Then, Bartleby start acting weir. First, he didn’t want to work with the owner and other employee. Then, he starts living in the office and refuses to neither work nor leave the office. Later, the owner had to relocate his office. But he still refuses the leave this old office. At the end, he was sent to a prison where he rest in peace.

Reading this story, it is normal for people to say that Bartleby’s behavior is unreasonable; at least that’s what I think. But in the very end of the story it mentioned Bartleby was working in the Dead Letter Office before he becomes a scrivener. Dead Letter Office is a place where all the undeliverable mails end up and being dealt with. At that time, mail or letter was the primary way of communication. Hope, love and happiness are often sent through mail. Working in the Dead Letter Office means you are destroying all of those mails day by day. This might have a serious impact on one’s mental health. This could explain Bartleby’s appearance when the owner first met him. In the end, the owner describe Bartleby as “dead men.” For me, a better word will be “un-dead”. If we look closer to Bartleby, we will see that he like to use the phrase “I prefer not to”. This phrase implies that I don’t want to do it, but if you insist, I will do it. But this is not what Bartleby meant. When the owner asks Bartleby to proofread the document or any other time when the owner ask him question, he answer will always contain “prefer not to”. This reminds me of patients in a mental institution.  They looks emotionless and doing things that they were asked and repeating the next day. This is basically what Bartleby was doing. And if we look at the place he work: a window that is almost blocked by bricks in one side and a large green screen on the other, isn’t this how a cell-block looks like. So is Bartleby’s behavior reasonable response to his circumstances. It dependents on how you defend his circumstances. If you think he is a stubborn and lazy employee, then the answer is no. For me, I think Bartleby was just a mental patient acting “normally” in his cell.

Blog Post #1: topic 2

Employees must execute their duties in the workplace. Failure to follow instructions or perform as due ought to be justified by a reasonable explanation. These are the rules at a workplace. Personally, I think they are reasonable and ensure the equality in our career life. In Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street by Melville, Bartleby，who works as a scrivener shows total disobedience to his employer. He displays an irrational behavior regarding the performance of his duties. On the whole, I believe Bartleby’s behavior is an unreasonable response to his circumstances.

It is not normal to abandon one’s duties, especially if the person is getting paid for what they are doing. At first, Bartleby is a faithful and hardworking employee. As the author says in the article, “As if long famishing for something to copy, he seemed to gorge himself on my documents. There was no pause for digestion. He ran a day and night line, copying by sun-light and by candle-light.” Sometimes, however, Bartleby will refuse some work that he does not like by saying, “I prefer not to.” I think it is acceptable for workers to refuse to do some work. Even it is a fact that employees should accept every request from employers, employees have their human rights to refuse the work that makes them uncomfortable; the employer should not treat employees as a working machine. Therefore, I still think Bartleby’s behavior is reasonable to some extent, even though he does not give a reason for refusing to work. However, his behavior changes abruptly. He now refuses to do any copying job, and he does not give a reason for this either, even when his employer asks him politely. He just kept saying “I prefer not to.” And from this part on, I changed my view on his behavior. Although copying is a boring job, it is a basic work expected of a scrivener. When Bartleby chose to take up this job, as an adult, he should have understood his duty and been responsible for this job. At least, I think he should give a reason for his behavior. Bartleby’s employer might be arrogant, but I think he truly wants to solve Bartleby’s problem and help his employee. Bartleby sounds very polite; however, I personally  think his behavior is very impolite and he does not respect his employer. He completely abandons his job duty as a scrivener.

Enjoying a right means taking the responsibility. Bartleby’s behavior is unreasonable and unacceptable. He refuses to do his job ; he also refused to leave the office room even when his employer gives him the wage and asks him to leave. As an adult in today’s society ,I think his behavior is unfair to other scriveners in the office. His fellow copyists manage to live outside the office on their salary, and the same is expected of Bartleby, especially now he refuses to take any duty but insists on living in the office room, using this capital resource. Personally，I think his behavior of staying in the office without doing anything is selfish. By reading, we can clearly see that his behavior affects the law business very much. As the author states in the story, “Though to be sure, when I reflected upon it, it was not strange that people entering my office should be struck by the peculiar aspect of the unaccountable Bartleby, and so be tempted to throw out some sinister observations concerning him. ”  I think he certainly knows others’ thoughts and the trouble he makes for them, but he just does not care about others’ feelings and does not want to change. Bartleby’s main answer “I would prefer not to” , shows that he thinks he is using his free will not to do the job and not to leave the office. However，there is no one absolutely free in the society，everyone lives in chains. The law enforces people to carry out their responsibility and gives them the rights, too. The free will is built on the completion of responsibility. No one should ask for a free lunch, the same concerns Bartleby. 

However, we definitely can not say Bartleby is a negative character. He is still a polite and honest young man. He would return the money he picked up and he is the most hardworking and loyal worker here when he wants to. Considering his background，his behavior，to some extent，is reasonable. He worked in the dead letter department. He spent years reading the letter contained people’s love in context. But those letters  was finally burned in the fire. He got tired of it, so he changed the job，but the new job is so boring that makes him feel him like a working machine. He finally loses his faith in the society and in human love，and decides to ignore everything, separating himself from the society. He would prefer to die than to accept this world.

 Bartleby is a poor man. Personally, I feel sorry and sad about his tragic life. However, I still think his behavior is unreasonable and unacceptable. There are many ways he can take to heal his inner wounds，but I think he does not choose a positive one.

Blog 1 Opt.2

Bartleby, The Scrivener,written by Herman Melville (1853), starts off with the narrator descriptively introducing the colleagues that work in his office which are Turkey, Nipper, and Ginger Nut to his audience. We see Bartleby as the new office employee who dedicates himself profoundly in doing what he is told (copying legal documents). It is this formal behavior that Bartleby portrays himself by in which brings the conclusion of his behavior being an unreasonable response to his circumstances.
The narrator summarizes his work performance as working “As if long famishing for something to copy, he seemed to gorge himself on [the narrator’s] documents” (6). The fact that Bartleby built this type of repute for himself makes the narrator and the audience assume that his description represents his persona. The environment in which he establishes himself in is sanctioned with an orderly routine from every individual, which might have been one of the reasons why he chooses to respond to his boss’s order with “I prefer not to”. Bartleby’s passive behavior is a reasonable response given his circumstances due to the disenfranchised infrastructure he becomes part of.
    Although the narrator provides a great amount of compliance with Bartleby’s responses, it can be identified as mere consideration for all of the work that he provided for him in the beginning which presumably helped keep his scrivening business in tact. At first Bartleby’s response was peculiar but only because it did not meet the measurable expectations that he presented himself with in the beginning. In comparison to the other employees, Bartleby stands as the best one due to his obedience and dedication. Turkey and Nippers are the only other two employees in which the narrator finds himself working around with due to their deep flaws that impact the status of his business, such as insobriety and inappropriate aggressive behavior. The narrator’s attempt to deal with Bartleby’s episode by “ [not turning] him away, [given] the chances [that] he will fall with some less indulgent employer, and then will be rudely treated, and perhaps driven forth miserably to starve”(9). The narrator only states this after giving the fact that Bartleby in fact is considered “useful” to him regardless.
    The narrator’s character stands as the monitor for individuals entrapped in the endless worker’s routine within the economic world. Although he tolerates, not once was Bartleby offered anything in order to aid him in his mental state. The narrator continues to abide by the social expectations from daily workers and even raises his voice at him. Throughout this Bartleby still remains within the respectable lines that divides the two characters in the social hierarchy within the office.
    The relation from Bartleby’s machine-like behavior to defiance only represents the likely outcomes of what the the office like environment causes. His only flaw was stating that he preferred not to do something he was asked for and in return he suffered a tragic end leading to death while the other deeply flawed office workers continued to do minimal work and were still seen ideal staff members.

Blog 1, Option 2

Bartleby is introduced by the lawyer, who from the beginning mentions Bartleby as “a scrivener of the strangest I ever saw or heard of”. This statement rapidly distinguishes Bartleby as eccentric. As we read through the story, we realize Bartleby is eccentric because he neglects to follow his boss’s demands. It first starts off by not willing to examine his own work, then into not writing and copying at all, until he completely refuses any orders the lawyer would ask for. Aside from this, Bartleby was residing in the office without permission and took hold of the office’s spare key, which at one point allowed him to lock the lawyer out of his own office.

The more I read, the more frustrated and annoyed I felt at Bartleby, but at the same time mad at the lawyer for allowing these actions. The phrase “I prefer not to” became my point of irritation because the lawyer was ordering him to perform a task, not asking him whether he wanted to do it. The first time Bartleby answered “I prefer not to”, I was shocked because he denied without reason and was non confrontational about it. I most definitely disagree that Bartleby’s behavior is a reasonable response to his circumstances. How can someone be so passively resisted to a boss’s orders? It’s a job, you have to work in order to keep it. You can’t expect to be employed, while not doing anything. We see that the lawyer is trying to justify Bartleby, but out of frustration, the lawyer asks himself “What was to be done? He would do nothing in the office: why should he stay there?” Bartleby was completely useless in regards to the office, but expected to remain employed and when asked to leave, he continued to refuse. At this point, I was aggravated with his behavior and do not have any more sympathy for him because he has taken it too far. His behavior continues to be childish because he doesn't understand and is abnormally stubborn. It also implies that he doesn’t respond to what others ask him to do and wants it done when he wants to do it, not when others want him to or else he will not follow through. For the workforce, this behavior is highly unacceptable, especially when he is making no contributions to the office.

I understand that Bartleby previously worked as a subordinate clerk handling dead letters, but the other scriveners also had their own previous troubles and current difficulties, yet we see them performing their job. Even as the lawyer was empathetic towards Bartleby and offered him help, he refused to cooperate. The help was there, but he didn’t take it, so there is really no reason for Bartleby’s behavior to be understood. Without the use of background information, the only circumstances Bartleby seemed to have were homelessness and previously working a sorrowful job. This, itself, is not a well enough reason for Bartleby to refuse any obligation given to him.

Blog Post #1 - Was Bartleby’s behavior is a reasonable response to his circumstances or not ?

Bartleby the Scrivener is a short story written by Herman Melville, published in the year 1853. An elder man, who is a lawyer and the boss, narrates the story, it revolves around Bartleby and his other colleagues named Turkey, Nipper and Ginger Nut. They were all employed to work as scriveners - scribes copying legal documents the way modern day scanning machines do. Newly employed Bartleby started off by impressing his boss by the amount of effort he put in his work. Though now after a few days his boss started to get agitated by a response Bartleby often gave “I’d prefer not to”. Even though Bartleby’s response is considered as infuriating, maddening and very candid, which not only left the boss displeased but this same emotion could be seen among the readers.

Bartleby passive aggressive response which denies any work given to him by his boss, is very appealing as anyone else in his place would have quietly accepted the work given to him by his superior instead of saying “I’d prefer not to”. This agitated not only the author but also the narrators, as they never thought this resistance to work is actually backed up with a rational explanation. Even though his behavior is completely valid and justifiable. It is the environment he works in that motivates him in being the way his is.

His job as a scrivener is not remotely close to creativity and freedom, and the shady brick walls surrounded in his office is a reminder of that. In the story the narrator talks about Turkey, Nipper and Ginger Nut who each have a unique personality that never fails to bore them. The author every morning knows exactly how these three are going to behave and what could be expected from them. They are like machines, which do the same thing everyday without fail. This is where Bartleby refuses to do his job, as he wants to be more than that machine. In Bartleby’s point of view, he had to wake up early everyday to duplicate documents, which in itself is very demotivating and demeaning.

            Once again he disappoints his boss and readers, though we all notice the authors frustration and our frustration everyone fails to notice his frustration. The author says, “I remembered that he never spoke but to answer; that though at intervals he had considerable time to himself, yet I had never seen him reading—no, not even a newspaper; that for long periods he would stand looking out, at his pale window behind the screen, upon the dead brick wall”. For the author and readers it is a brick wall but for him it was a dead end, nowhere to go, and nothing to do. That wall fascinated him because that wall defined his life dull and pointless. We all have choices in life, and Bartleby choose this one. He happily left his job at the Dead Letter Office, only to work at a dead end job on Wall Street. This killed him inside, as that wall was not just brick wall to him but instead it was reminder of how his life had turned out to be for him. In the end, we all have an invisible wall but it is up to us to choose to go around it or call it a dead end.

 

Blog Post 1, Topic 1

An initial reading of Franz Kafka’s “Before the Law” may leave readers feeling confused about its meaning. Due to the ambiguous nature of the story, the readers can utilize the reader-response theory to fill in the gaps to interpret it. However, my group and I agreed that applying Marxist criticism is most effective.

There are several examples that provide concrete evidence that the story is best understood using Marxist criticism. For instance, the gatekeeper serves as a powerful oppressor and the man is his powerless victim. The man spends his entire life attempting to gain entry into the law. He gives up all his possessions, no matter how valuable, to persuade the gatekeeper, who gladly takes everything. He gives the man false hope by saying, “I am taking this only so that you do not think you have failed to do anything.” In doing so, the gatekeeper becomes increasingly powerful throughout the story, while the man grows weaker, older and more powerless. Furthermore, the gatekeeper is described as wearing a fur coat. Once the man notices this, he realizes that the gatekeeper is of a higher socioeconomic class and decides to wait to receive his permission before going through the gate. In addition, the man thinks that “the law should always be accessible for everyone,” which is not true. When the man is about to die, the gatekeeper tells him that the entrance was specifically designated for him. Perhaps, it was predetermined that the man would never enter his gate due to his low socioeconomic status. Maybe those who attempt to enter gates guarded by the stronger gatekeepers have higher socioeconomic statuses and thus, have a greater chance of accessing the law. Throughout the text, this socioeconomic inequality is evident and is a key element of Marxist criticism.  

Using the reader-response theory, this story can be interpreted differently by various readers. For instance, “the law” has an unclear meaning. A reader may take on the literal meaning of “the law” and perceive the story as a man’s unsuccessful journey to access the law. In this interpretation, only government officials have the power to alter the law. Since the man holds no position of power, he fails to enter the law. However, a more religious interpretation may view “the law” as a place like Heaven. The man spends his entire life in pursuit of God and doing things that he believes will help him get into Heaven. Initially, the man patiently sits in front of the gate for years, symbolizing his faith in God. The gatekeeper represents the obstacles in life that the man could not overcome, causing the man to lose sight of himself and his faith. This loss could explain why he was never able to pass through the gates.

While the reader-response theory is a plausible approach in analyzing “Before the Law, there is more compelling evidence in the story that points toward Marxist criticism. This approach highlights how socioeconomic factors account for differences in people’s lives, which is evident throughout the story. By itself, the reader-response theory has too many possibilities for interpretation, which may stray from the author’s meaning behind the story. However, if applied in conjunction with Marxist criticism, it can be used to further our understanding and create an even better reading.

Blog #1 Topic #1

After a discussion on Franz Kakfa’s “Before the Law”, my group and I came to an agreement that the reader response theory is the approach that is appropriate for this short story. One of the main reasons as to why we chose this approach out of all the others is because of the gaps within the story. There are many things we as the readers do not know, like who the characters are and where they have come from. We know nothing about the two characters that appear in the story, but as we continue to read, we slowly learn a bit more about them. This is an example of the idea that reading is a process, which supports the reader response theory.

Another main reason why we agreed upon this approach is because of the interaction between the author and the readers. This is a story where each reader’s unique insights can be brought out. As I am someone who usually just reads what I see, my interpretation of the story is literally a man trying to pass the gate to enter the law, which in this case I perceived as a new town or country. With this thought in mind, I found it hard to understand the deeper meaning of the story. All I knew was that the man wanted to pass the gate, and wasn’t allowed to even after he died. One of my group mates, however, introduced me to a new point of view. She mentioned the bible, and described the story in a whole new way that I would have never thought of myself. Instead of the gate representing a barrier to a new town, she said that this was the gate to heaven. When the man asked if he will be allowed to enter later on, the gatekeeper replied, “It is possible, but not now.” The gatekeeper didn’t allow the man to enter possibly because the man was still alive. At the end, when the man in dying, the gatekeeper tells him that “this entrance was assigned only to you,” as in it was the entry way to his heaven. These two different views on the story is why we came to agree on the reader response theory.

A different approach to this story is the Marxist criticism theory. This is another approach that is highly agreed upon while reading “Before the Law”. The text hinted at social status when it mentioned that the man is “from the country”. From this, we can assume that the man is poor, or in the lower class divisions. The gatekeeper, on the other hand, is wrapped up in a fur coat which we can assume defines his wealth. Not to mention that this certain gatekeeper is the “most lowly gatekeeper, [and] from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other”. This means that even though this gatekeeper is of higher social status compared to the man, there are more men with even higher statuses within the law.

While the Marxist criticism theory is a strong approach for this excerpt, I believe that reader response is a more feasible approach as it is more open to interpretation. When using the Marxist theory, you only focus on social status and class, which I feel is more on the obvious side, with the man being in the lower class and the gatekeeper in the higher class. With reader response, I think that each person’s way of interpreting the story is different in a way, and that makes the story more interesting. 

Blog 1, Option 2

           Bartleby’s behavior is not a reasonable response to his circumstances. In defining and analyzing how his behavior and circumstances change in this story, we see why this is true. When initially hired by the narrator, he was a focused worker, for he “did an extraordinary quantity of writing…he seemed to gorge himself on my documents” (6). However, for some reason, he stops working and starts a passive rebellion of sorts. For instance, when asked to do a task, the narrator observes, “Bartleby was never on any account to be dispatched on the most trivial errand of any sort; and… [if asked] it was generally understood that he would prefer not to…” (11). Then shortly after, he refuses to do any writing at all, and when questioned as to why, has no response. The narrator’s then left to move offices, while Bartleby stays behind. Yet, when he becomes a nuisance to the new employers, he is taken to the Tombs prison, where he later passes away.

            Considering ‘reasonable’ to refer to something of logic and sound judgment, Bartleby’s response to his circumstance does not fall under this category. Though the narrator’s account could be bias, it is the only perspective of the story available, and so, we must assume it is reliable. As a result, according to his recollection of events, he was patient and respectful in his requests to Bartleby to not only do work, but also to leave his office. For example, in his first attempt to fire Bartleby, the narrator shows compassion to him through his willingness to help pay for Bartleby to return home, as well as to assist in anything else Bartleby may need in the future (14). Similarly, in a following attempt, the narrator offers to pay him an extra twenty dollars to help him find a place and move forward (17). The fact that Bartleby is shown such respect and care, yet continues to refuse to comply to a simple request shows his irrational response given the circumstance.

            After Bartleby dies, we learn that he experienced a potentially scarring situation when “he had been suddenly removed by a change in administration” while working for the Dead Letter Office (27). This could serve as an explanation for why Bartleby “prefers not to” do many tasks requested of him. Also, his work with sorting dead letters for their inevitable destruction could provide a reason behind his possible emotional injuries. Nevertheless, if he was upset by his situation, doing nothing about it does not solve the problem. Instead, a more sensible reaction could have been to utilize his boss’s willingness to understand Bartleby’s point of view. The narrator asked “Why do you refuse?” (8), and Bartleby could have explained his thinking and potentially negotiated something more favorable.

            Another alternative solution, is that if Bartleby was upset by the employment system, he could have rallied other workers who related to his problem and started a movement for change. While the idea may seem idealistic, the narrator himself explained how Bartleby’s influence was affecting people regarding their usage of the word ‘prefer’ when he says, “…[Bartleby] has in some degree turned the tongues, if not the heads of myself and clerks” (16). Bartleby had not intended to influence them, but he did, suggesting that if he had actually tried to gain support for a problem he recognized, there was potential for success to rally for reform. As a result, we see through Bartleby’s situation and alternative responses, that his actual response was not reasonable.