Blog #1, topic 2.

Bartleby must be crazy. That’s what I felt when I read his classical response(“I would prefer not to”) to his boss for ten or more times. Every time when his boss asks him to check the documents he copied, he refuses without any specific reason. According to the quote, “Poor fellow! thought I, he means no mischief; it is plain he intends no insolence... ”, Bartleby doesn’t have any hatred or malicious resistance toward his boss, because he always replied so mildly and gentlemanly. He resists simply because he doesn’t want to do the work.

In fact, such resistant behaviors can be called brave. We can see why by analyzing the environment Bartleby works in. The office he works in is surrounded by shady brick walls, which represents the lack of freedom and choices. The job to be a scrivener also means the loss of creativity and freedom. Bartleby’s colleagues are very special. I noticed one common trait among them: there is certain pattern of regularity rooted in their daily lives. For example, Turkey gets more and more blazed and hot-tempered after twelve o’clock everyday. Nipper gets brandy-like dispositions before twelve o’clock everyday. Everything is predictable and follows their presumed assumptions as their boss expected. It is not a place for human beings to work and enjoy; rather it’s perfect for machines to produce. However, are we machines? should we follow the routines and assumptions without thinking if we like it or not? Bartleby’s answer is no. Mine as well.

Despite of the strange willfulness of Bartleby, the most surprised thing is that he suddenly decides to give up writing. He frustrates his boss and us again, but at the same time, he himself is also frustrated by the reality. “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 Bartleby, the most important thing is to stare at the dead brick wall. How boring and meaningless his life is! He could have lived a little happier and easier like anyone else in the office, but he chose not to. We don’t know the reason why until he died in the Tombs and some rumor about him went out. Before coming to Wall street, Bartleby worked in the Dead Letter Office. Imagine that he desperately left those dead letters away and found a new job in Wall street. However, unfortunately, he found another soul-killing job. So he looks out at the dead brick wall for days and nights, wondering what is the meaning of living a life without freedom or choices. Finally, he gives up writing and finds out life is meaningless. After all, we are all blocked by the invisible “wall” that made us live like a machine.

After reading this article, I doubt myself that if I can be as crazy as Bartleby. He is so desperate yet brave, as the narrator said, “like the last column of some ruined temple”. I wish the ruined temple would remain, even though the last column fell at the end of the story.  Our last hope to break the invisible wall may now rest in the ruined temple stubbornly, just like Bartleby.

Blog 1 Topic 2

              Rational behavior can be derived from a multifaceted array of influences ranging from individual stances to social norms. Perceptions can vary depending on changes to setting, time period, personal beliefs, and much more. In Herman Melville’s short story, Bartleby, the Scrivener, Bartleby antagonizes the protagonist, a lawyer who employs Bartleby, through his unorthodox life style. Initially a very efficient worker, Bartleby slowly transitions from a reliable scrivener to a social enigma that is adamant in his preference to not do certain jobs. Perplexed by Bartleby’s demeanor, the lawyer gives it his utmost effort to reason with Bartleby’s thought process. The story then revolves around the lawyer’s interactions with Bartleby and the eventual discovery of Bartleby’s past. Despite the hardships that Bartleby may have gone through, they do not justify his irrational behavior. Given the setting of the narrative and Bartleby’s failure to uphold his social norms, it is hard to reason with Bartleby’s actions.

                Melville published Bartleby, the Scrivener in 1853. During this period, Melville was at a career low, which may have influenced the gloomy demise of Bartleby. The setting of the short story takes place in wall street, presumably during the mid-19^th century. At the law firm, Bartleby works alongside three other works: Turkey, Nippers, and Ginger Nuts. Although none of these characters represent the ideal American worker, their work ethic stays consistent in manner that satisfies their employer. Conversely, Bartleby initially excelled in only copying but later refused to accomplish the most menial of tasks replying that, “[he] would prefer not to” (Melville 10). In spite of the narrators attempts at reasoning with Bartleby, Bartleby continued to deny “requests made according to common usage and common sense” (Melville 8). This situation proved to be very uneconomical for his employer, for not only did he continue to pay Bartleby’s wages, the narrator’s clients also voiced their disapproval of Bartleby’s presence. As an employed worker, it is important to keep a work life balance by separating private problems from professional problems to avoid potential problems such as these. A reasonable course of action would be to formally quit the job and vacate the premises. Although the Dead Letter Office previously employed Bartle, his experiences with his duties there does not justify his work behavior nor his residential use of the office. If he had traumatic experiences with his previous job that impedes certain job functions, he should seek employment with responsibilities that allow him to escape from his experiences while providing lodging such as caretaker jobs or naval jobs.

                Bartleby’s behavior throughout the narrative characterizes his loss of will to follow social norms. Although an obedient worker at the start, he degenerates into an enigmatic recluse that refuses to disclose his problems, comply with rational orders, and provide himself with a sustainable means of living. The narrator sympathizes with Bartleby and attempts to reason with him multiple times by giving him the option to continue working, paying him extra to leave, and even offering residence at his own home to give time for Bartleby to recuperate. Despite these attempts of friendly cooperation, Bartleby refuses to disclose his reasoning and defers to silence after uttering the words “I would prefer not to.” At this point, Bartleby seemed to be so deeply entrenched in his trauma that he failed to see the purpose of life. Instead of reaching out for help, Bartleby went with one of the most unreasonable courses of action by following the path of suicide. 

Post #1 Topic #1

The story composed by Franz Kafka, “Before the Law” tells a tale of a man who approached a gate that lead to the “law”. Guarded by a gatekeeper, this man waits before the gate until the gatekeeper will allow him entry. The story is filled with much ambiguity and very little explanations. To interpret the story and understand it using the literary theories we could get some idea to what Kafka was writing about. My group believed that one of the best theories was reader-response due to the stories major gaps which is open to interpretation by anyone. However, there is another theory that would also work, the Marxist criticism. The reason behind this is throughout the story there are clues throughout that show the readers the hierarchy that may be in place, poor and rich. Of the two the Marxist criticism has a more solid backing as the reader-response theory is based upon the different interpretations of the readers. Marxist has textual evidence where the other is conceptual.

If one is to analyze “Before the Law” by using the reader-response theory then there can be multiple variations on someone’s take on the story. For example, “the law” the reason why the man journeyed far, during the story we don’t get any explanation of what it is. Few mentions of “the law” make it hard to guess, one clue given is near the end of the story. “Everyone strives after the law, so how is it that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” This line lets us know that “the law is very valuable and what it is exactly is up for interpretation. Perhaps “the law” is some power bestowed upon making whoever has access a ruler or it could be some knowledge of all things in the world and why it’s the way it is. “The law” could also just be a law of the land and whoever is able to receive it will be as powerful as the gatekeepers. With the lack of details this allows the readers to alter the readings in their own minds due to everyone’s unique experiences.

While my group believed that reader-response was a reasonable theory a more textually supported theory was the Marxist criticism. The evidence of this criticism is the difference of class between the man and the gatekeepers. The gatekeeper in the story tells the man “I am only the most lowly gatekeeper…room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other.” This shows an obvious division of power and possibly class hierarchy, that the man is lowest in comparison to the gatekeepers but there is a sort of caste system among the gatekeepers. Another point in the story is when the man begins to give the gatekeeper all his possessions to let him in, this shows that the Marxist criticism based upon the idea that the interactions are economically driven. The man got desperate to obtain “the law” and gave everything he owned to possess one thing, believing that what he had was of equal value to enter.

The text itself helps support this claim where the reader-response theory is based upon a concept of an open interpretation. Marxist has solid evidence and easier to convey to others what is going on in the story. Reader-response theory is a bit ambiguous itself making it hard to express the endless ideas that many readers have. While it isn’t wrong to think that reader-response theory could work but, an argument could be said that this theory could work for almost any literary work. Each story, poem, or excerpt could have a different interpretation depending on who is reading. Marxist has definitive clues and ideas that can be found in such as “Before the Law”

Blog Post #1 Topic #1

                  While discussing “Before the Law”, my group and I agreed upon using Marxist Criticism to analyze the text. We agreed that the text hinted at social classes because of how the man was “from the country” and could be assumed to be poor while the gatekeeper had a “fur coat” which symbolized his wealth. However, since he is the “lowly gatekeeper” there are presumably more after him that are far more powerful and wealthy. Because the man was from the country, the law wasn’t made for him and therefore wasn’t accessible to him contrary to his belief that it “should always be accessible [by] everyone”.

                  While I feel that this is a strong reading of the text, I can also see reader response working better because of certain gaps that exist in the text. An example of this is the lack of a setting which gives a lot of room for the reader to interpret what this gate is or where it is located at. My interpretation of this text through the reader response lens is that the man is “from the country” trying to immigrate into another country which is presumably a better country, however he is being kept out. The gatekeeper asks the man questions about his “homeland and many other things” which is similar to the process an immigrant goes through when obtaining citizenship. The man even “equipped himself with many things for his journey” which he eventually ends up giving to the gatekeeper in order to bribe his way into the country. This can also reveal a layer that bribing yourself into a new country only works if you are wealthy to begin with and not just some man from the country.

                  The gate would then represent the barrier preventing people from entering another country or from keeping classes from moving up. This is shown through the interrogation which lends itself to learning about people’s nationality and their whereabouts to pick and choose what they want to allow into their country. This prevents people from moving up in society and achieving what they want to achieve in this new country whether it be wealth or a better life. Even if the man was allowed access in to the country, there is a notion that it wouldn’t be easy to obtain what he wants because of other gatekeepers who would pose obstacles.

                  I think that reader response is a more convincing reading for “Before the Law” because it allows the reader to fill in missing pieces to the story while Marxist Criticism looked at the piece as solely a minimalistic political one that focuses on just classes. With Marxist you can only see people being barred from moving up in social classes, however with reader response it expands on this thinking and involves feelings of xenophobia which is present when we talk about barring people from gaining citizenship into a country, and the powerful exercising the power they have. I feel like reader response gives a more convincing reading of the text because it encompasses Marxist thinking about social classes, however I think that in order to get a complete reading of any text we should use a mixture of these theories.