Blog Post # 1 Topic #2

Bartleby’s behavior is a reasonable response to his circumstances

I choose to present an argument against the statement. There are reasons why I believe that the behaviors of Bartleby were not as a response to the circumstances he was in. When one is faced with challenges, it is likely for that person to be involved in acts that might harm his or her life. The case of Bartleby was different. It is true that the man had gone through a traumatizing moment, but that does not justify the reason why he ended up doing what he did. The man had a good job, and he worked for a good boss. The lawyer had two employees who had problems. One could not work in the morning, and the other could not work in the afternoon. However, the boss chose to retain both of them. That is an indication that despite the circumstance that Bartleby was in, he had someone who cared for him and someone who wanted all things to be okay for him.     

The behavior of Bartleby was either driven by his depression or by ignorance. The reason why these are the only good terms to explain this is because of the way he responded to help that was offered to him different times. When Bartleby started working for the lawyer, he was the best employee. This is an indication that he had the ability to work better in the environment that he was in. After working for some time, the behavior of Bartleby started changing, he starting refusing to take orders from his boss and things started getting tense because he was not performing as it was expected of him.

Looking at this scenario, one will realize the change in behavior by Bartleby was not motivated by any circumstance but rather by his will to be disobedient (Melville, 1853). If circumstances were leading to his behavior, then he would not have been a good employee and then turn to be a disobedient employee. Circumstances are the surrounding forces that make one act in a certain way. The environment and the behaviors of Bartleby are not parallel to each other. Despite Bartleby being treated well by his boss, he goes on to do as he pleases. If circumstances were the main cause for the behaviors of Bartleby, then he would have been a better person than his fellow employees.

First, Bartleby was rude to the lawyer after being given a task. The answer that he gave was not expected to put into consideration that the lawyer was his boss. At the same time, Bartleby was spending his nights at the office. According to employment rules, that was wrong, and the boss had the right to kick him out. Despite the boss showing care and concern, Bartleby showed no interest of being helped. When worse went to worst, the lawyer decided to help Bartleby and made sure that he had something to eat.

Despite all the effort by the lawyer, Bartleby went on to starve himself to death. The actions that have been revealed by Bartleby are not anyway motivated by circumstances. Among all other employees, Bartleby was the only one who received care that was beyond boss to employee relationship, and that is why I am against the argument that his behaviors were a response to circumstances. If his behaviors were a response to circumstances, he would have been the best and most obedient employee in the office of the lawyer.

Blog post#1 Topic#1

The way I initially interpreted “Before the Law”, was a metaphor for life. Here you have a man being denied, what is rightfully his. This is a prime example on how things don't pan out just because they are meant for you, or you may that way. I was astonished to see the man willingly waste his entire life to gain entrance to the law.  The gatekeeper took all the man's gifts to assure him that his efforts are not going to waste. It is similar to when people dedicate their life to fulfill a goal that cannot be fulfilled. In my understanding, each level of the law represented the different levels of difficulty in life. I took the ending as only you could move forward in life, and only you can hold yourself back.

My group thought that reading could fit under reader's response criticisms because each reader could see the story in a different way. One way we saw it was each level of the law could represent each level of the government (city government, state government, and federal government). Also the description of the gatekeeper, as having fleas on his fur collar could mean dirty power or a corrupt government. The gatekeeper took all the man's gifts to assure him that his efforts are not going to waste, but they were. It is similar to when politicians assure progress or promise change, but it never happens. We also saw the story as a class struggle, and the gates represented each class. The gatekeeper could be the government, standing over the man, taking his gifts and giving him nothing.  Other people in the class saw it as a psychological/internal struggle and the gates keeper could represent our subconsciousness, and the law perhaps his goal or what he wanted to accomplish. It could be said that the man was really in an eternal battle with himself. That only he could let himself into the law, but his subconsciousness was in the way.

I feel that reader's response criticism could fit this story the best because there are so many different ways that this story could be interpreted. The story is vague enough to where you could take different meanings from the story, and it would still make sense. So there is no right or wrong answer. This literary theory could be more useful than the other because it does not limit your interpretation of the text. It does not focus on one topic, and I think that is exactly what the author of “Before the Law” was trying to do. I think he was trying to make the story fit multiple interpretations so that the story could be related to issues present at the time when it is read.

Blog Post #1 , Topic 2

Jon Xie

912215721

ENL 3

Blog Post #1

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

While I certainly sympathize with Bartleby and his dehumanized condition, I personally believe that his behavior is not justifiable. Depression and mental illness may have profound effects on the individual, but allowing it to greatly disrupt the productivity and lives around him or her is unreasonable.

Fired from his previous clerkship at the Dead Letter Office, Bartleby finds new work as a scrivener under the lawyer of our story. His output as a copier is enormous initially, but he quickly finds himself slowly losing his mind to the monotony and routine of his new job. The feeling of being “another cog in the machine” drives Bartleby to an overwhelming sense of apathy. His signature phrase,“ I would prefer not to”, becomes his way of expressing this. He gradually becomes less productive and rejects the orders of his boss, who worries and shows concern for him to a certain extent. His refusal to leave the office forces the lawyer to completely move his unit to a new building. He eventually is thrown into a prison called the tombs where he succumbs to starvation. His old boss finds him cold to the touch and laments the inhumanity of the poor scrivener’s life.

            Much like today’s society, there is a certain expectation of productivity in the lawyer’s workplace. While it might be incoherent to base Bartleby’s behavior by modern standards, I think it is safe to say that Bartleby overstepped his boundaries as an employee to the point where he became extremely unaccountable. His boss asked him to perform small tasks, and he repeatedly rejected these advances. The fact that he was sleeping in the office for a week also suggests that he simply does not care about company policy and etiquette. There is much to be said about the mental state of Bartleby and his circumstances, but from my perspective of the reading, he seems like the equivalent of a modern day employee working an unfulfilling desk job that he does not find purpose in. Would it be reasonable or justifiable if someone in today’s society acted like this just because they felt depressed? It certainly seems like it wouldn’t be. I would think that the Bartleby equivalent would have been fired immediately without nearly as much consideration from his boss in today’s world.

Melville’s commentary of the archetypal workingman through Bartleby still provides an outlook that is applicable towards modern day society. His behavior is certainly understandable, as depression can cause individuals within society to act in very self-destructive ways. However, I believe that a depressed individual like Bartleby does not have the right to act the way he did in the workplace because it begins to greatly affect those around him in a negative manner. Forcing the lawyer to completely move his office across town was perhaps the greatest effect of his behavior. I wholeheartedly emphasize with Bartleby, but depression is not a justifiable reason for causing trouble in society.

Blog Post 1, Topic 3

Colette Weese

ENL 003

The 19^th century poets Matthew Arnold and Walt Whitman both offer insight on people and the world that maintains significance and could be applicable today.

While Whitman’s optimism reflects the hopefulness of today’s social justice movements, Arnold engages in the necessary confrontation of the pervasive and persistent ugly layers of life. Today’s movements are in response to that ugliness, and Whitman falls short of the demand for action. Whitman, for all of his progressive ideas (for his time, at least), is too complacent for today’s America. In “1,” he is happy simply to be, and his thoughts on the injustice of slavery in “I sing the Body Electric” remain unvoiced. Today’s challenges and movements ask for resistance and involvement, not acceptance or passive disapproval, of the world around us.

One parallel to draw from Whitman’s writing to today is his love for Earth and nature, which one could argue is a call for environmental protection. His musings on the simple beauty of grass, and his provoking question of “have you reckon’d the earth much?” may read like calls for appreciation and preservation of nature. His recurring theme of people as creatures in nature has remained contemporary since its writing. However, Whitman’s attitude of the sufficiency of simplicity may also come across as apathetic, especially in the face of challenges, in the sense that personal issues might not matter because everything is fine in nature. In the readings, Whitman paints a confusing picture of his actions in the face of injustice. He published the poem “I Sing the Body Electric,” so in that way he is vocal. In the poem his speaker helps the slave auctioneer, but he finishes by saying that partaking in slavery leaves one “cursed,” which is more like a threat of damnation than a direct motivation for change. Upon, first reading, Arnold seems much more pessimistic than Whitman, but further analysis reveals that Arnold is actually much more inclined to invoke balance than his peer. Where Whitman focuses on punishment for wrongdoing, Arnold says that bad things come and go.  

Arnold presents the statement that there is “an ebb and flow of human misery,” allowing the reader to conclude that there must also be an ebb and flow of joy, prosperity, hope, or whatever counters that misery. The recognition that there are good times and bad times is necessary in today’s world. Whitman seems to say, “It’s all good, and if it’s not all good, you’re ‘cursed,’” while Arnold says, “It’s not all good, but maybe it will be, and at least we can make it better for each other” which is much more reflective of today’s attitude: realistic about what is wrong and hopeful that it will get better.

Arnold acknowledged that the reality of his world was not pretty, and 150 years later, neither is ours. Still, the poem ends with the pronoun “we,” reinforcing the unity with which he faces the “ignorant armies.” Just within the last week, millions around the world manifested his words and marched in solidarity for human rights. Arnold says that loneliness is real and so is pain, but at the end of the day we are together and we’ll be all right.

Blog Post 1: Topic 3

             Walt Whitman is canonized as one of the most influential American poets. He began writing in 1850 and published “Song of Myself” from Leaves of Grass in 1855. This point in American history saw rise to the Industrial Revolution and issues of slavery and racial inequality. At the time, Whitman’s poetry was revolutionary with transcendental themes. In an effort to resist the reduction of ourselves into rational beings, Whitman’s work highlights the beautiful and divine aspects of humanity and humanity’s relationship to nature.

In the first stanza of his first poem he writes, “I celebrate myself, and sing myself…For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.” This line represents the essence of Whitman’s message about human nature and the world around us: we are all connected. He celebrates himself as a part of the natural world, not separate from it, and encourages his reader to do the same. We all share the same world and history and therefore should rejoice in our similarities, rather than criticize our differences. “The smoke of my own breath / Echoes, ripples, buzz’d whispers, love-root, silk-thread, crotch, and vine,” he writes. All that is private and made to be shameful should actually be embraced. Whitman wants the reader to undergo a shift in their understanding of themselves. The seeming disgraceful and private parts of bodies and our lives are beautiful and should be appreciated. By evaluating and understanding the world around us we can build a stronger respect and symbiotic relationship with ourselves, each other, and with nature.

Although written over one hundred years ago, “Song of Myself” is still a relevant response to the contemporary world today. Fascinated with the simple and the natural, Whitman encourages his readers to turn away from rationality. Distance from nature is a problematic theme the modern world is still grappling with. By speaking of grass and blood and wood and the atmosphere, the reader is reminded of the everyday beauties of nature that are often taken for granted. Today, more than ever, there is so much hate in our world. We are tied to arbitrary identities that divide us over issues of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and nationality. As a population we are quickly destroying our earth. Industry is depleting faster than our earth can replenish and we are producing at a rate much higher than we can demolish. Modern technology has caused us to become dependent on artificial interaction and various forms of social media, abandoning each other and our natural world.

The significance of Whitman’s poetry remains appropriate to readers today. We have lost touch with each other and with the world around us and need to be reminded of simplicity and human kindness. Poem 2 states, “You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books.” Whitman would encourage us to live in the moment and experience the world for ourselves. He ends the sixth poem by stating, “All goes onward and outward, nothing collapses,”. This sends the message that we are all related and should exist interdependently, not in conflict. If we, as a human population and as a industrialized nation, slow down, we can improve our relationships with nature, each other, and ourselves and better see the beauty around us.