Be Strong, Ree

Oh Ree, you are determined and strong,
but the Ozark is so cold and long.
Remember your kin;
how hard it has been.

There’s your mom…she needs you,
and then there’s your siblings too.
For them be strong.
For the journey is long.

The Deterioration of Society

Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street displays the dismal deterioration of society through the interaction of Bartleby and the charitable narrator. Through Bartleby’s lax attitude towards his work in refusing to assume even the simplest jobs from the narrator clearly expose Bartleby’s refusal to incorporate the old ways of charity and hard work. The author, Melville, is sending a powerful message about how the new ways of laxity and negativity are deteriorating society as a whole.
At first the narrator reacts the logical way to a worker not showing promise. He turns to fire him. “I buttoned up my coat, balanced myself; advanced slowly towards him, touched his shoulder, and said, ‘The time has come; you must quit this place; I am sorry for you; here is money; but you must go.’” (Melville para 138) Of course after saying this, Bartleby replies with his famous, ‘I would prefer not to.’ The narrator is then amazed when Bartleby doesn’t take the extra money he offers and shows up to work. Bartleby’s attitude continued to stun him as he replied again that he would prefer not to quit. At this point it seems there is nothing the narrator can do to free this man from his own pressing negativity and laziness.
The narrator then realizes that the answer is not to fire Bartleby. “What shall I do? I now said to myself, buttoning up my coat to the last button. What shall I do? what ought I to do? what does conscience say I should do with this man, or rather ghost. Rid myself of him, I must; go, he shall. But how? You will not thrust him, the poor, pale, passive mortal,—you will not thrust such a helpless creature out of your door? you will not dishonor yourself by such cruelty? No, I will not, I cannot do that. Rather would I let him live and die here, and then mason up his remains in the wall. What then will you do? For all your coaxing, he will not budge. Bribes he leaves under your own paperweight on your table; in short, it is quite plain that he prefers to cling to you.” (Melville para 171) The narrator’s regarding of Bartleby as a ghost sheds a new light on Bartleby’s character, dictating his negativity and depression seems to be outweighing his negligence. Perhaps his laxity was because of this inward darkness. The narrator then decides that, since Bartley wouldn’t leave him, he would leave Bartleby.
Bartleby’s character is both perplexing and depressing. At large, he is a man who seems to have the inability to comply, whose tongue can only form words of defiance and negligence. He is a man who cannot let himself enjoy life, who cannot give in to happiness, but must continually press on in dreariness. The narrator thought well to regard him as a ghost of a man.
Melville is hinting at a far larger sphere than Bartleby in his text. His aim reaches to society as a whole and a new trend of leisure and negativity. Such is reflected in the last statement of the text, “Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!” (Melville para 251) Clearly the narrator is not only frustrated with the lax copyist, but with humanity as a whole.
There are several symptoms that are displayed in Bartleby, which are hinted to be present in society. First off is rebelliousness. Surely Bartleby was most practiced at replying to any request, “I would prefer not to.” Bartleby is so content on replying thusly that even when the narrator offers him an extra sum of money, he still replies in the like manner. It seems that Bartleby is so devoted to defiance that he rebels simply to rebel, and not necessarily because that’s truly how he feels. Perhaps there is a thrill that comes from rebelling, from being different. Though Bartleby’s intentions are somewhat shrouded, as it is written in the point of view of the narrator, it is quite plain that he is rebelling just to rebel.
Another symptom displayed in Bartleby is depression. Once again, the narrator refers to him as a ghost, making a clear statement concerning his dismal nature. “For the first time in my life a feeling of overpowering stinging melancholy seized me. Before, I had never experienced aught but a not-unpleasing sadness. The bond of a common humanity now drew me irresistibly to gloom. A fraternal melancholy! For both I and Bartleby were sons of Adam. I remembered the bright silks and sparkling faces I had seen that day, in gala trim, swan-like sailing down the Mississippi of Broadway; and I contrasted them with the pallid copyist, and thought to myself, Ah, happiness courts the light, so we deem the world is gay; but misery hides aloof, so we deem that misery there is none.” (Melville para 89) The narrator compares those who seem to prove that there can be no misery to one as dismal as the copyist Bartleby. It also seems that melancholy is as contagious as any other disease and is spreading to the narrator. Thus such a condition of depression can very easily span to society as a whole.
The third and final symptom is laziness. Bartleby refuses to work, indicating society’s new trend of refusing to labor, falling prey to convenience and leisure. Bartleby’s adage “I would prefer not to” once again would be highly applicable here in displaying his laxity towards anything that requires even the most infinitesimal amount of exertion.
In Melville’s, Bartleby the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street, Melville makes clear hints towards the deterioration of society. Through Bartleby, we see evidence of defiance, depression and laziness. Our eyes are opened to what could very well be plaguing our society if we don’t watch ourselves.


Work Cited:
Melville, Herman. “Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street” 1853. Bartleby.com

Bartleby, "I Would Prefer Not To"

“Imagine my surprise, nay, my consternation, when without moving from his privacy, Bartleby in a singularly mild, firm voice, replied, ‘I would prefer not to.’
“I sat awhile in perfect silence, rallying my stunned faculties. Immediately it occurred to me that my ears had deceived me, or Bartleby had entirely misunderstood my meaning. I repeated my request in the clearest tone I could assume. But in quite as clear a one came the previous reply, ‘I would prefer not to.’
“‘Prefer not to,’ echoed I, rising in high excitement, and crossing the room with a stride. ‘What do you mean? Are you moon-struck? I want you to help me compare this sheet here—take it,’ and I thrust it towards him
“‘I would prefer not to,’ said he.” (Bartleby 21-24)
Bartleby is quite clearly not the normal, run-of-the-mill kind of guy. In this passage we see that he is willing to set a standard of passive resistance to one who believes in blind compliance.
The language in this passage helps contribute to the overall message. When the lawyer assumes his “ears had deceived him” or “Bartleby had entirely misunderstood his meaning,” it truly gives you an idea of how shocked this man was when Bartleby refused to accept the seemingly simple request. Also “crossing the room with a stride” gives you an idea of his bewilderment, the wording painting a clear picture of how this man was reacting to Bartleby’s simple, rebellious reply. Another example is “I sat awhile in perfect silence, rallying my stunned faculties.” All examples give you a clear idea of the response of this man and how shocked he truly was.
The passage is important to the story because it sets the standard for passive resistance on Wall Street. Bartleby’s simple, but firm denial to comply becomes his slogan and a defining factor of his character. Here we have a businessman who routinely asks questions, expecting in full confidence for complete compliance and this peculiar man, Bartleby, stuns him with a lack thereof.

Summary and Analysis When I first look at the two ways to look at a piece of writing, I look at them as being quite similar. However, as I looked into the meaning of each further, I’ve seen many differences. A summary is a brief recounting of what the writer wrote where you set aside your personal bias and simply report. Analysis, on the other hand, involves breaking down the literary piece, inputting your own personal bias and opinion on whether the broken down elements benefit or degrade the piece. As was illustrated by our instructor, summaries are much like the book reports we used to do in school. We answer the question, ‘what happened in the book?’ If we were to analyze the book we read, we would break it down to the many elements that make it good or bad writing. What is the theme of the book? How was the plot? Were the characters well developed? When we dip into analysis, we shy away from the actual events and delve more into how those events affected the piece as a whole and how applying the elements of good writing made it what it was. So when would we want a summary over an analysis or vice versa? Alluding again to our instructor, if one hasn’t ever seen Cinderella, they would prefer a summary. Summaries are better for introducing the audience to the piece. Now if somebody has already been introduced to the piece, an analysis would be more appropriate. Then you can break down the elements of the work and truly delve into the piece.

Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” was an interesting read. The problem he identifies is that many poor children in Ireland are being a burden to their parents. He proposes selling children into a meat market at the age of one, combating the large population and underemployment. Now I don’t this is to be taken seriously and, if so, I believe Jonathan is quite a sick, twisted man. I think his purpose is to throw the problem out there and get people thinking. A lot of times when you throw a problem out there and suggest a solution, however ridiculous, it gets other people to try and come up with more logical solutions. Providing statistics helped others be sure they have a sure foundation when they go to find a solution to the evident problem of poverty in Ireland. Even though the man sounds like he’s lost his mind to me, I think the guy just might be a genius.

Good Readers and Good Writers

Good Readers and Good Writers What I got from Nabokov is that readers should look at their text with an eye for detail. Suggestions such as having a dictionary handy, discussing points in the book with others in a book club, etc. point towards that. If one has purchased or checked out the book, they obviously have some interest in reading it, some motivation. Reading with a keen eye for detail allows one to get all we can out of the journey readers embark on in reading. Do I agree with Nabokov’s points? Yes, I believe his suggestions can truly allow us to delve into the world that the writer created for us. If we do not understand quite what the author is attempting to portray, it alters the world he/she is attempting to create for you. I believe what makes a good reader is one who, though we cannot truly delve into the mind of the author, tries the best that they can to see what they saw, feel what they felt, and so on. Am I a good reader? It kind of depends what I’m reader and how much interest I have in the text. If the text is captivating to me, I believe I am…or at least I try to be.

Customize your own free picture slideshow