Blog Post #1 Topic #2

The American dream gave those who occupy the U.S. a sense of hope that anyone, no matter what socioeconomic status, can be successful if they have the right sense of hard work and determination. From this, it helped construct expectations of how workers should act. Strict social norms in the workforce were imposed such as the amount of respect given to those in the authoritative hierarchy. However in the story Bartleby, the Scrivener by Herman Melville, the author presents the idea of these norms with the character, Bartleby. In the text we follow the narrator who hires Bartleby as a copier of legal documents for his law firm, yet when the narrator assigns him a task he generally responds with “I prefer not to”. Bartleby’s response is not seen as a sign of rebellion nor as an indication of cooperation. Yet his reply implies the sense that he has an option, an idea not usually seen or given in the workforce. Even though norms in the work force are sometimes unjustified, his response to a job that he was hired for was condescending and is not enough to defend his actions.  

I think that the main question that needs to be answered about Bartleby’s behavior was not whether or not it was reasonable, but if it was appropriate. Of course his actions would be viewed as reasonable considering the fact that he had a grim experience with his past position with the Dead Letter Office. With this circumstance, the reader can be understanding of Bartleby’s depressive episodes. However, the answer to why Bartleby acted the way he did wasn’t revealed until almost the end of the story. If this fact was never revealed would the audience still possess the same feeling of pity and empathy towards him? In present America, if a worker had the same quality that Bartleby did, they would most likely be fired on the spot. American society imprinted the notion on the working class that if they do not do their jobs properly they can be easily replaced with someone who is more qualified. In a capitalist society, if you do not have a job your are unable to produce money that will allow you to live a comfortable life for yourself and your family. Due to this, workers will try their hardest to impress their supervisors and not cause any trouble in the work force. On the other hand, it is the complete opposite for Bartleby’s situation. Bartleby’s actions didn’t show obedience to authority. The narrator was actually surprised and perplexed when Bartleby preferred not to proofread his own document. Yet the narrator didn’t dismiss Bartleby from his position. Melville conveys how society is so used to these norms that once someone defies them we are dumbfounded and unsure on how to handle a situation of disobedience. Moreover, he also allows the audience to question if we should even apply and follow these norms in the first place.

Overall, I think that Bartleby’s actions were reasonable considering the fact that he went through hardships in his life. However, taking into account that the story took place in a work setting, I think that he could have used a different approach with dealing with his emotions and experiences.

Word Count: 543

Suraj Melligeri - BP1T2

Blog Post #1  

1. Argue for or against this statement: Bartleby’s behavior is a reasonable response to his circumstances. 

2. 
   

In Herman Melville's short story "Bartleby, the Scrivener", we see Bartleby , a mysterious yet diligent scrivener who changes his attitude towards his work as we move through the plot. Bartleby, when first given the job, was very hard working, copying papers every day without leaving his office. But we see his that his behavior starts to change when the narrator requests Bartleby to review the papers he copied to which Bartleby responds with "I prefer not to".  As we move through the story, this line is used more and more often by Bartleby when eventually he doesn't do any work and sits in his office all day. This change in Bartleby's behavior may be due to the rumor that is revealed at the end of the story; the narrator figures out that Bartleby used to work in a Dead Letter office and had lost his job before becoming a scrivener.

I believe that his occupation of burning letters of dead people and copying pages upon pages of papers of law led Bartleby to be so mentally depressed to the point of him doing literally nothing was better than doing work.  We can clearly see the symptoms of Bartleby's depression as the narrator figures out that he has literally been living in the office since he took the job as a scrivener and also when he doesn’t touch the compensation money of about thirty dollars to move out instead choosing to just sit and do nothing in the office.  At one point in the story, Bartleby wasn't motivated enough to eat anything in when he in prison which eventually leads to his death.

   
His continuous refusal to engage in his work is notably followed by the phrase "I prefer not to" which reveals much of his character. In particular his use of the term "prefer" is unique in that often, one utilizes the term "prefer" when comparing two different subject matters. Although he does not directly address the other subject matter, one can infer a notion of hopelessness and a lack of motivation which ultimately confirms a state of depression.   

Some argue that Bartleby symbolizes Melville's feeling at the time he wrote this story and I agree with the aforementioned statement. Melville, at the time of writing Bartleby was thought to be depressed as two works that he had recently published were not well received by critics so Melville was under a lot of pressure financially due to having three children. He used to spend hours locked in a room writing novels and poems which had an impact on his physical and mental health. I think that while this argument is plausible, it is only one of numerous interpretations that emphasizes his sadness.  
In conclusion, I believe that the change in Bartelby was due to his depression from his work as most of Bartelby's symptoms suggest that he is indeed depressed. It also gives a somewhat universal meaning to the story that readers can relate to.  
 

1. 
   
2.   

Blog Post 1: Topic #1 Amy Joo

After reading the short story, “Before the Law” written by Franz Kafka, my group analyzed it by engaging in Marxist criticism, which is used when the characters in the story can be divided based on their socioeconomic status. In “Before the Law,” many inequalities in the characters can be detected based on their background and language. A man, who asks to enter into the law, is described as a countryman, while the gatekeeper, who tells the man that he himself is powerful, is depicted as a high-status man. Based on the gatekeeper’s condescending tone and the country man’s non-educational thoughts, we can differentiate the characters’ intelligence and motifs as well. The gatekeeper asks couple questions about the country man’s hometown and many things, but his questions are indifferent and short and do not relate to the entry into the law at all. Merely without any thoughts of giving the man the access to law, the gatekeeper is asking these questions out of his own curiosity or boredom. On the other hand, the countryman thinks too simple of the law in this world; he thinks giving valuable items to the gatekeeper would allow him to gain entry to law. He also believes that “the law should be accessible for everyone” (Kafka); clearly we can tell that as a countryman, he is not used to strict rules. To him, laws can be upheld or broken based on the gatekeepers’ appetite. Because he thought some precious items could attract the gatekeeper to give entry into the law, he becomes mad and tired of the gatekeeper’s inflexibility about rules. With the knowledge of the characters’ socioeconomic status, we can understand the reasons behind their thoughts and action more easily.

While I was analyzing the story by myself, I thought the psychological theory would also be a good technique for delving into this story. As the countryman keeps failing to gain entry to law, he gets exhausted, old, and irritated. From the hopeful man who believed the access to the law would take little time and some bribery, he becomes wrinkly and weak, eventually seeing the door permanently closing right in front of him. However, after the discussion in class, I realized that the Marxist criticism is a better approach than the psychological theory. Although the psychological theory helps us to understand the gradual changes in the countryman’s internal state, it is hard to detect that of the gatekeeper. As an educated man that learned to follow the rules only, the gatekeeper cannot express his own feelings about the countryman. The gatekeeper is responsible for being indifferent to everyone at the door, and thus his internal state is forced to be more neutral than that of the countryman. On the other hand, the countryman, who has the sole goal of gaining the entry to law, can freely show his own feelings about the problem. He would do anything in order to achieve this goal and thus gave away his precious belongings for his journey and even ask the fleas on the gatekeeper’s fur for help. As the feelings of the gatekeeper cannot be expressed due to his gatekeeping role, the psychological approach is less efficient to learn about the characters in the story. Therefore, although both the Marxist criticism and the psychological theory helped us to easily detect the characters’ emotion and thoughts, the Marxist criticism allows us to see both perspectives more clearly and objectively.

Blog 1: Topic #1 - Jenette Echeverria

            Franz Kafka’s parable “Before the Law” follows a man in his failed attempt to gain entry to the law. Although the parable follows a simple plot, the symbolism creates a more complex story. The parable can be interpreted in many different through the use of different literary criticisms or through different perspectives. In this post, I will be explaining two different readings of “Before the Law.” I will first explain my initial interpretation of the parable through the Marxist criticism of it as a story on class struggle, i.e., between the law and its people. Secondly, I will describe another interpretation of the parable where the law is a motif for the man’s dreams or goals within the parable.

            Based on the Marxist approach, “Before the Law” is a story about the struggle between the government and the people that it controls. Marxist criticism bases its analysis on “human interactions [being] economically driven and that the basic model of human progress is based on a struggle for power between different social classes.” (Gardner 173). In the parable, a “man from the country” wants to enter into the law, which is guarded by a “powerful” gatekeeper. The man asks to gain entry, but the gatekeeper refuses to let him enter. The man decides to “wait for permission” to enter. The man sits at the gate waiting for so long that he eventually dies. The man and the gatekeeper portray a power struggle between classes. The common man is trying to become involved in the government that controls him, but is denied access. The gatekeeper represents the powerful, rich men of politics that are not interested in a normal man’s concerns. For instance, even the gatekeeper’s appearance of a “fur coat, large pointed nose and his long… beard” illustrates the difference between government and people.  The Marxist approach depicts the parable of “Before the Law” as being a power struggle between the corrupt government and its people.

            Another interpretation of the parable is through the use of a motif of a man failing to achieve his dreams. Instead of defining “the Law” as the government or legal system, it could describe the man’s goal in life. The guards and gates blocking the man are the struggles he faces in order to accomplish the goal. The gatekeeper warns the man, “if it temps you so much, try it in spite of my prohibition. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper.” (Kafka). The gatekeeper notices the man’s fascination with the law and tells the man that he should attempt to enter the law even though it will be difficult. The man instead decides to wait for explicit permission to enter. At the end of the story, the gatekeeper tells the dying man “here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going to close it now.” (Kafka). This interpretation better explains the ending of the story as the law being the path to reach the man’s potential but he never reached it. “Before the Law” is a tragedy of a man that timidly waits for life to be handed to him instead of working to achieve his dreams.

            In this blog post, I described two rational interpretations of Kafka’s “Before the Law” one through the Marxist approach and another based on the law as a symbol for the man’s dream. There are many different analyses for the parable because of the different interpretations of the symbols such as the law and gatekeepers.

Word Count: 592