Topic #2- Sumeet Dhillon 

Herman Melville brings us to an arresting plot in his short story Bartleby, the Scrivener. We see that Bartleby is in a state that makes him only able to respond with “I prefer not to.” Why Bartleby chooses to avoid any confrontation with the realities around him but reiterates this equivocal phase is uncertain. In my opinion, I do not believe it is justified because he has many options to free himself of the troubles he may be in. 

            Bartleby is a man without a social position yet despite this, he still manages to land a job with a prestigious employer, undoubtedly showing he is capable of the position. The employer extols his hard, efficient work.  Above all, he does not have a rickety personality like Turkey and Nippers, but is bearable both in the morning and in the afternoon, allowing him to complete his work throughout the day. It is his choice, nonetheless, that he allows his conditions to overtake his reality triggering the end of his golden times. 

Soon, Bartleby becomes distracted by the long, hard hours and begins gazing out the window instead of focusing on his tasks. He stops writing entirely and announces he is going to give it up-a job he “gorged” on. The threats of his employer did not affect him as he continues to be idle. Everything Bartleby chooses to ignore by repeating the same response is entirely up to him. He has the option of not causing trouble and walking away from the job without being a hindrance to anyone, yet he chooses to stay. He is offered more than his earning pay as compensation and is given leniency on leaving at an appropriate time. Furthermore, the employer even offers Bartleby other jobs where he could be useful but yet again they are rejected with “I prefer not to.” And in one last shot to help the Bartleby, the employer even asks Bartleby to come live with him in an effort to prevent him from going to prison, but even that is not preferred. Bartleby does not appreciate any of the attempts from the employer; he does not even make an effort to try them out, but rather avoids all possible confrontations with the world because he no longer has the means to live in it. 

            It does not matter what the circumstances are if you have the will and drive to complete whatever it may be then you are able to. In Bartleby’s case, he lost that drive soon after his new job. He took not a single opportunity to get himself back onto his feet and having no alternatives was not the reason for such a tragedy. Bartleby’s fate was in his own hands and all of this could have been avoided if he had been flexible and took other’s words into some serious consideration, but “preferred” not to. Due to this, I believe that his actions are not justified but rather the route he chose to take out of the many available pathways that were drawn out for him. 

Word Count: 511

Topic #2- Ellie Lassotovitch

In the famous short story, “Bartleby, The Scrivener,” Herman Melville’s main character defies authority with his infamous phrase: “I would prefer not to.” While critics accuse Bartleby of being stubborn and insolent, I believe Bartleby’s actions were justified given his past. Due to the monotony of his previous job and the lack of personality on Wall Street, Bartleby’s response to his circumstances is reasonable.

Prior to working for the Lawyer, Bartleby was stifled by death at his previous job; he worked as a clerk in a Dead Letter Office. He sorted letters with money for malnourished relatives that didn’t arrive in time, instead the victim succumbing to starvation. The monotonous task of sorting dead letters for burning most likely was not the setting for conversation. Bartleby was said to be stubborn because he would not verify the accuracy of his own documents. Perhaps Bartleby avoided social interaction with the Lawyer and his coworkers because he was accustomed to it. There is no mention of Bartleby having a family or any friends so it can be assumed that he didn’t talk to anyone. Social anxiety could have caused him to use his infamous phrase as a defense to putting himself in uncomfortable situations. Ultimately, the death surrounding him and the dullness of his job caused Bartleby to be a disagreeable employee for the Lawyer.

            The men that worked on Wall Street cared more about their reputation than their actions. The Lawyer is partially an exception to the norm of the frigid businessmen that worked there. He viewed Bartleby as his charity case and gave credited himself for giving the man a place to live and work. After Bartleby stopped working completely, he didn’t have the heart to force Bartleby to move, so he did. However, when another lawyer asked about who Bartleby was he said he didn’t know anything about him. He left the city to leave his affiliation with the “vagrant” behind. Bartleby could not trust his own boss to stand up for him; the other men on Wall Street wanted him in the Tombs because he haunted the building and could affect business. The superficial appearance of the businessmen of Wall Street could have caused Bartleby’s social anxiety to heighten because he did not have money, a fancy job, or nice belongings like they all did. They offered no kindness to him, instead they looked down their noses at a man who was unable to speak up or engage in a conversation. Bartleby’s actions are sensible because he had no other options without money or social connections. It was just a matter of time before someone put him in the Tombs because they did not want to see a homeless man on a street corner affecting the prosperous vibe of Wall Street. Bartleby utilized his resources by staying in the office to preserve what little pay he was receiving from the lawyer. In conclusion, Bartleby’s actions are reasonable due to the fact that he has no history of social interaction, no family or friends, and a low-paying job. WC: 509

Blog Post #1 Topic #3 -- Mira Daya

Mira Daya

DUE: 10/11/17

Word Count: 503

Prompt 3: Which seems easier to identify with today: Whitman or Arnold?

After reading and conducting some research about both Whitman’s “Song of Myself” and Arnold’s “Dover Beach”, I have concluded that “Dover Beach” is easier to identify with today.

The poem begins with a calm and tranquil mood, the speaker and his companion are listening to the sound of the calm sea’s high tides, of “the pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling[...]”. As the poem progresses, the tone of the poem turns more serious as the speaker begins to describe the sea as “The Sea of Faith” where the sound of calming waves eventually become “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar[…]”. Eventually, the speaker shares his view of the world around him, he describes it as a beautiful land of dreams, however, there is no joy, love, light, certitude, peace, or even help for pain. He describes the world as somewhere where “ignorant armies clash by night”.

Thinking about our last election as well as the various bills and laws passed now and in the past few years, I began to think about the mood of the groups of citizens of the United States. For me, during the Obama administration, I felt similarly as the speaker does at the beginning of the poem. Things seemed calm to me, various laws were passed that were beneficial to my friends and family, and all seemed well on my side of the world. Now, as soon as we were assigned a new president, the world seemed to go into chaos for those of us who were at peace. Not just my side of the world, but the rest of the world as well seemed to be affected emotionally, and of course politically.

I relate back to the line “Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight”. Relating this back to reality, it seemed as though people were swept by confusion by this result and demanded recounting of ballots and questioning everything that may have lead us to our outcome. Many, many, people wanted to run away from it all together. (referring to increase in people wanting to move to Canada). People I knew were struggling from the racism that was brought on in large amounts following the election. I knew women who struggled to get themselves to go to class in fear of being violently harassed because they wear hijabs. It appears we too are met by ignorant armies in the sense that the world is now more of a battlefield, it seems as now, we must fight for the rights of our friends and families for than ever before. We can compare the ignorant armies to those who believe it is okay to take certain rights away from undocumented immigrants and their children or to the LGBTQIA community.

Overall, I believe that “Dover Beach” is more relevant to our current sociopolitical environment because it describes a world that, in view, seems calm and peaceful, but when you look at it as a whole it is chaos due to the battlefield created between citizens and their government.

Blog Post #1-Topic #1-Deven Benitez

Deven Benitez

ENL03 Fountain

10/7/17

Blog Post #1 Topic 1

           The short story “Before the Law” by Franz Kafka is a story that at first doesn’t have a clear cut meaning and can be interpreted in many different ways. In our group we all had different opinions on what literary analysis was best for the reading and understanding of “Before the Law”. Our group came to a consensus that the Marxist approach seemed to be the best literary analysis to understand this story. For example one thing we drew a conclusion about was when Kafka wrote, “I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other”. We thought that this is a great example of the socioeconomic ladder and how a lowly worker is under all these figures that have power over them. Personally though I believe that reader response is the best analysis of this story. Going back and learning about how the people at the time read this and interpreted it was what worked best for me. Learning that at the time Czechoslovakia was declaring its independence really made me think how the people felt. It allowed me to really think about the story and why is was written and the intended message it was supposed to give its readers at the time. Also considering this is written in World War One by a law student when the Czechs were being oppressed by the central powers mainly the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I think there was a message for the readers at the time. Like the previous quote I stated above really has nothing to do with socioeconomics, but actually stands for the central powers and how there are lowly powers that could be overpowered, but the bigger more powerful countries will be impossible to overcome. Also when Kafka writes, “the law should always be accessible for everyone, he thinks…he decides that it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside” (Kafka). I believe what Kafka was trying to say and what the readers at the time would think was that all people should have access to their civil rights, but they also must be willing to fight for these rights in the event that someone is trying to take them away or disregard them. They must also do it themselves and not rely on the help of others as I believe Kafka was saying when he wrote, “he even asks the fleas to help him persuade the gatekeeper” (Kafka). The Marxist approach does seem to fit well with the story, but the true meaning I feel has to do more with liberties and the law more than economic forces. Furthering my opinion that the reader response theory is better is that when Kafka writes at the end, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it” (Kafka). I believe that the readers were interpreting this as everyone or thing has a journey that they are destined to follow and if they don’t take the opportunity and really fight for what must be done then the journey will end, as opposed to journey never ending for the Czechoslovakia as it declared its independence and broke itself from oppression and continued on its set journey free of oppression. These reasons are why I believe the reader response theory was better than the Marxist approach in this case of interpreting the story.

Blog Post #1-Topic #2-Mingyu Zhang

Bartleby, the Scrivener. A Story of Wall-Street has long been disputed since the story came out in the 19^th century. The controversy remains on the main character, Bartleby, a scrivener working for a lawyer in the story. On one side, people argue against Bartleby’s extremely bizarre and passive response to the requests asked by his employer, the narrator of the story. They believe that Bartleby could have explained his reason and logic instead of refusing by saying “I would prefer not to”. However, given the circumstances at the time of the story, when employers had inarguable power over workers, Bartleby’s behavior is a way to fight against the self-righteousness and superiority many employers possess and brutal working on Wall Street.

Indeed, Bartleby’s reluctance to do anything demanded by the narrator seems awkward and inappropriate to most of us today, especially when we are living in a world valuing positive networking and communication. Even worse, his lame and ambiguous slogan shows disrespect and lack of interest in his job. But considering the exhausting and boring nature of Bartleby’s job, a scrivener working for a lawyer on Wall street, his refusal to examine the copy is understandable to some extent. As described by the narrator in the story, the examination of law documents is “a very dull, wearisome, and lethargic affair”. He even states that Byron would never be willing to sit along with his scriveners to do the work together.

It may seem odd to readers when Bartleby doesn’t do a single errand asked by the narrator. What on earth reason does he have to refuse the demands from his boss? Buying a cup of coffee for your employers when they are in the middle of business is nothing of significance to today’s people, but by consenting to such request, we easily neglect that workers don’t necessarily have to fulfill any wishful thinking employers have beyond the scope of their jobs. In Bartleby’s case, he is stubborn and unbelievable, but I only interpret it as the writer’s intention to draw our attention to the self-righteous manner of employers. In the story, when the narrator finds that Bartleby would prefer not to do any trivial errand, and he immediately feels shocked and starts to contemplate ways to fight back and test Bartleby’s limit. Some may argue that the narrator is obsessed to Bartleby’s strange behavior, but the he is culpable as well because he doesn’t stop asking and even considers it his right to demand. It is no wonder then for a man like Bartleby to keep refusing the requirements.

At the end of the story, the narrator reveals a rumor that Bartleby had worked in the Dead Letter Office previously and thus his passive and reclusive behavior would be explainable, since that job is even more grueling and soulless. This revelation is relevant to the reason for him to quit copying. Through his occasional meditation during the time working for the narrator, he might finally blame his miserable situation to the weariness and in-human nature of the work on Wall Street.

I admit that in real life, a person like Bartleby most likely doesn’t exist, but his muted occupation of Wall Street is a symbol of people with lower social status voicing their preferences and attitude.

Blog Post 1: Topic #1- Amanda Hovnanian

In “Before the Law,” by Franz Kafka, there are many unexplained aspects of the story. For this reason, my group chose to analyze this short story using the reader-response theory. By having so many plot holes, like why the gatekeeper barred the man from entering, the reader is forced to fill in the gaps left by the author. The reader-response theory describes how the reader needs to fill in the gaps that the author leaves because reading is a process and the passage changes as you read. This response assumes that the reader will adopt a view point that helps them make the most sense of a passage. However, the Marxist theory seems to be a better analysis of this piece of literature than the reader-response theory. By reading this passage from a Marxist’s point of view the reader is able to fill in many more gaps and find more hidden meaning in the story. The Marxist theory looks mostly at social status and how that affects peoples’ lives, and chances for success. For example, the man that comes to the law is described as, “the countryman” who was trying to reach the law. The countrymen’s clothes had fleas and were not as well kept as the gatekeepers. The man was timid with the gatekeeper, not wanting to bother him too excessively because he felt and knew he was below him in status. The gatekeeper even goes on to say, “I am powerful…” and talks about, “great men” versus just “people” like the countryman. The gatekeeper would ask the countryman about his home as “great men” do but still did not permit him into the law. So, by looking at this reading from a Marxist approach it is clear that the countryman is of a lower class than the gatekeeper and has no power or belonging that he could use as leverage to get to the law. For a Marxist it would be easily explained that the countryman was barred from the law because of his social status. He was poor and he offered the gatekeeper all his most precious, valuable belongings, but still the gatekeeper did not allow him to get to the law. This idea that society labels us as haves and have nots and that we cannot go outside of our ranks is a Marxist idea, which helps us understand the dynamic between the gatekeeper and the countryman. This idea also sheds a light on the fact there is inequality in society. Whether this is the point that the author is trying to make in this story is up to the interpretation of the reader, but as a Marxist reader one can assume that the author is trying to make some sort of statement about harmful social statuses. Personally, I am better able to understand the motivations of the gatekeeper and countryman if I analyze this story from a Marxist point of view. I can understand how the countryman wants to be in a higher position in society, because nobody wants to be a have not. However, I also understand that the gatekeeper has a role in keeping people segregated in their respective ranks in society. Overall, I do believe that the Marxist theory does reveal more of the author’s intentions than the reader-response theory.