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.