I am was weirded out when Bartleby refused to examine the document. The first thing I did after reading this was question Bartleby's response. I thought, why? Why didn't Bartleby just want to look over the document? I think this is the way that Melville wants us to act. Melville wants us to question the story, and try to think deeper about what Bartleby's recalcitrance could possibly mean. Corey Grill E-Block
I thought it was brave to stand up to his authority by saying he "preferred not to..." I think I'm supposed to think, "Why won't he just check the sheets???" But, he is always there and I think his recalcitrance took guts. -Lindsey Pearlstein
firstly, i find it very strange how obstinate Bartleby was being with the lawyer for weeks and weeks. I suspect this is the response that Melville expects from us. in addition i think that Melville expects us to question his motives, the lawyer's motives, and the story in general
After reading this and seeing Bartleby's defiant attitude, I was originally a little bit shocked by his character. In my thoughts of someone who was a scrivener in the very beginning, I wasn't expecting this rebellious and almost loud character Bartleby in fact had. I think that this made me more interested in him as a person. I think that Melville wants the reader to question his character a little bit and at the same time be more interested in what you might have thought to be uninteresting character. --Chloe Fishman
After reading this, I noticed the interesting contrast that was developed between Turkey and Nippers, the two interestingly named scriveners who work at the same office as Bartlby. The narrator sets up two polar opposite characters, one favoring the day while the other favors the evening,one being young and one being old, and one being comical while the other is serious. These strange characters increase the contrast between Bartlby and the other scriveners, before he has been described to any serious extent. -JD Nurme
When I was reading the story I generally felt extremely irritated. THis employee was consistently outwardly insubordinate and there really wasn't any excuse besides stubbornness. So, personally, at this point, I'm mostly frustrated and angry with Bartleby. However, I don't think Melville wanted quite so strong a reaction, but more just to inspirer curiosity and confusion. My main reason for thinking so is how much emphasis he puts on the calm, above-thou attitude of the scrivener. I think this confusion is intending to lead up to a climactic confrontation, but I'm not certain. ~ Rebecca Krane
I thought that Bartleby's attitude is a bit arrogant by refusing to look at the document. I was also confused as to his reasoning behind it because it didn't seem that difficult of a request. I think Melville wants us to understand that by refusing Bartleby's character is strong, and we should respect that. -Julianna Goldring
After reading this story I was very surprised to find out that Bartleby's recalcitrance is why the lawyer describes him as "the most interesting Scrivener." The author builds up the story very gradually before introducing Bartleby's real personality. Usually when people are described as interesting you would expect them to have an exciting life or experience, not to be completely recalcitrant. I think Melville wants us to ask ourselves if refusal is wrong even if it's done in a most mannerly way.
When Bartleby was first introduced he gave off an aura of perfection in a scrivener. He appeared to work diligently at a constant rate for indefinite amounts of time. To that point in the story, he seemed ideal for his position;he steadily produced consistent work (and it should be mentioned that despite the fact that he would soon begin to refuse his duty as an editor of his own work, an error in his work has not yet been brought to the reader's attention). Then, once he began to calmly refuse his duty as an editor i was slightly taken aback. Immediately my perception of him as a flawless worker began to change and with his growing preference to not perform the most menial tasks such as making trips to the post office, he soon became irritating to the point that I wanted to yell at the computer screen and tell him to do his damn job. I believe that Melville wants the reader to be conflicted over his or her feelings towards Bartleby. On one hand, you may be on the verge of hurling your computer (or book or kindle or whatever) across the room and out the closest window, but on the other hand, you feel for Bartleby. To imagine him working endlessly without respite or even a meal, while toiling away at such a monotonous task as that of a scrivener is depressing to say the least. You almost get the feeling that Bartleby is made immune to criticism by the sheer quantity and diligence of his work as a copyist. It seems that that is the reaction that Melville intends for the reader when reacting to Bartleby's ludicrous defiance. -James Wronoski
I thought that the story in general was pretty odd. For such a short story there seems to be a lot of unnecessary details. I also don't understand why Bartleby wouldn't accept Imprimis' request. Shouldn't he have been fired? Also, another small detail that I thought was unnecesarry was Ginger-Nut, whys it important that a 12year old is an errand boy? Why is that an important detail in such a short story.
I think Bartleby is a very strange character because not only does he refuse to check over his copies, he refuses to leave the office. Why shouldn't he leave the office? They are paying him to work there (which he isn't even doing to his full capabilities) and they are even providing him with a makeshift home. There is no logical reason that we can obtain from the story to explain why Bartleby has such a strong aversion to doing menial tasks. I think we are meant to be perplexed by Bartleby up until we realize he has been living in the office, at which point I think we are supposed to pity him. -Bianca Dempsey
Bartleby's defiance seems humorous at first, but, as the reading went on, it became strange and annoying. The fact that he refuses to do anything that is asked of him by his superior and furthermore refuses to say why he is so defiant, is bizarre. I think that Melville wanted the reader to react in this way. Melville distinctly makes Bartleby seem as peculiar as possible. Also, Bartleby is the polar opposite of his co-workers in every way which adds to his singularity. They are described as "flighty" and "fiery" while Bartleby is characterized as a quiet and hard-working individual. Bartleby also defies authority while his coworkers ahere to it. Melville surely intended for the reader to see Bartleby's quirks and irregularities, and imagined that the reader would see his defiance as an odd behavior not often heard of at the time. -Jamie Lamoureux
I was sort of surprised by Bartelby's character because scriveners, as reflected by their jobs, seem to be boring and uninteresting people. By having Bartelby be such a defiant character, Melville caught me sort of off guard. I think that although in many cases defiance of authority can seem like a somewhat desirable trait, in the case of Bartelby it is odd and illogical. Also, by having his co-workers be such polar opposites of Bartelby, Melville is able to highlight the irregularities in Bartelby's character. -Pema Doma
Bartleby's insolence and obstinacy stand in sharp contrast to his diligence and effectiveness as a scrivener, which is the main reason his recalcitrance came as such as surprise. The short story is filled with polar opposites, however, so it isn't as out of place as one might think: for instance, there are the sudden shifts in mood of Turkey and Nippers (as one is in an "ugly" mood, the other is tranquil). I think the reader is supposed to feel conflicted about Bartleby. Of course, one is bound to be frustrated and irritated by his resistance to the simplest of tasks (such as putting his finger on a piece of tape), but on the other hand, the fact that he is living in the office--especially the image of him in a tattered shirt all alone on a Sunday morning--elicits pity.
I think that in writing the first half of the short story, Melville wants us to see the monotony of Bartelby's job. It is possible that he did this so we can relate to him in some way, but i believe it is really to almost put us "to sleep". The first half is basically a list of the old story just copying itself. Had the first half of the story been action packed (somehow), then Bartelby's quitting would have very little impact on us as readers. Melville puts us in his shoes just so we can see how big of a change this is in Bartelby's life. Rather than being just a normal event in somebody's life, the whole story flips upside down. -Mike W
My theory on Bartelby's unnecessary defiance is that it was motivated by the limits of his power. Bartebly realized that with all his good work, he had risen up the "ranks" quite fast. The lawyer is blown away with the work done by bartelby, and he realizes that he might be able to get away with something, like ignoring orders, which he did.
It is strange how such inaction, on the part of Bartleby, can evoke such a strong response and even a response at all. Some may see view him with pity and sympathy for having an excruciatingly boring job, or hail him as a righteous combating an unfair system with passive disobedience. However being an American in an American Literature the perspective of the hard working American everyman who scorns laziness. This passage first showed Bartleby as the industrious go-getter staying up in the candlelight to finish copying that has come to define the dogged American work ethic. For his hard-work, he is looked upon favorably by the boss. Yet, as he begins decline work Bartleby degrades, staring out the window, then living in the office. Furthermore, showing the brutal capitalist reality, his co-workers stand idly by and even his boss attempts to move his office away. That said, this passage may be less to demonize indolent behavior, and more to reveal the America’s meritocracy and its effect on the lower rungs of society.
Bartelby's defiance to read the papers presented to him and to show his copies to the narrator and his clerks made me think that he either was very secretive, or slightly arrogant because of his lack of openness with his fellow workers. I think that Melville wanted us to think that Bartelby was strage just because he was different to the other clerks who have odd temperaments, though they are not thought of as very odd because they are common feelings of anger and rage, not calm and introverted. -Kate Rhodes
I felt that Bartleby's recalcitrance is Herman Melville's way of getting the reader to think deeper. When Bartleby refuses to look over documents and was being obstreperous I think that Melville is using that for the reader to not accept what is explicit. He wants the reader to expand their thinking and fully understand the significance of Bartleby's actions.
While reading my opinion of Bartleby changed as the story went on. In the beginning I was intreeged (spelling?) by his character and I wanted to know more about him and what had made him act the way he did. Further into the story as he became more stubburn and obstinate in his ways refusing to write and giving up copying all together I just became really frustrated and annoyed with him and couldn't understand how the boss put up with him. I think Melville wanted the reader to think about the act of simply perfering not to as a response. The lack of character really has an effect on the boss and why this is true makes the reader think about society and how people react to non-violent protests and standing up to "the man" Ella MacVeagh
I think Bartleby's resistance and defiance is very interesting because, in some ways, it reflects his occupation and in others it does not. One would think of a scrivener, typically as a rather boring person with boring job. Such a boring person would most likely not defy the request of their boss to do a menial task as part of an even more menial job, like examining a legal document. Bartleby does just that, resisting going over a document with the narrator. Even though Bartleby resists, he manages to do so in a very boring and dreary way. He shows no emotion or agitation with the lawyer's request, and talks in a very mild tone. Such an emotionless and boring way of doing things is what you would expect from a scrivener, but Bartleby is dispassionate in doing something you would not expect from a scrivener. -Josh Slavin
Bartleby's refusal to look at the paper was quite astonishing to me. This refusal signifies his defiant character, and how he doesn't respond well to commands. I think that Melville is trying to show the reader how different and unconventional Bartleby's character is. The narrator, who is Bartleby's boss says how he "should have been quite delighted by his application" because of his hard work ethic, but is not. Although Bartleby's work as a scrivener is very good, there's still something off about him, which is what I think Melville is trying to show us through his repetitive and unexplainable refusals. - Becca Robinson
Through out the story Bartleby, by the author Herman Melville, he wanted to show the audiences that you can write an interesting detailed story out of nothing. All through the story Herman Melville wrote about his workers but if you looked at them without the story you would think they were boring and there is nothing interesting about them. With this story Herman Melville could write about anything such as his work place, copying papers and make it sound intriguing, you would want to keep on reading this story wanting to know what happened to Nippers, Turkey and Ginger Nut. If you would go into their work place you would feel mind-numbing but actually Herman Melville would make an “adventure” and “dramatic” story out of this. I especially liked this story because Herman Melville would take any null sort of object or person or workplace and turn it in a fascinating story. -Shira H
Bartleby's refusal to assist in one kind of menial legal task is puzzling because he does vast quantities of another, very similar kind of work. We know nothing about his character's background, and even the actions he does in the office show nothing. He appears to have no interests, no personality, and limited, mysterious motivation. He barely exists. His slowly expanding wall of refusals emphasizes the fact that his character is, so far as we can tell, a void- a negation of a person.
I was confused when Bartleby refuses to examine the document. I think that Barlteby's recalcitrance makes no sense. Why does Bartleby do tons of similar work but refuse to examine the document? Although Bartleby's recalcitrance is weird it also explains why the lawyer calls Bartleby the most interesting scrivener. I think we are supposed to react to Bartleby's recalcitrance by being interested and baffled. This would mystify the reader, and make him want to read more. The reader would want to discover more about Bartleby and why he refused to examine the document. -Jared Videlefsky
Bartleby's weak refusal to perform certain tasks is somehow translated into a strong stubborness. Although Bartleby only says "I would prefer not to," a rather mild statement, the narrator only argues with him for a short while and then gives up. It's as though Bartleby's presence eminates so much power that his words are magnified. Personally, I find Bartleby's reactions (or lack thereof) irritating. His utter refusal to perform simple tasks without any logical reason seems stubborn and unjustified. The narrator's lack of action in order to gain control of the situation is just as irritating. It seems as though the reader is meant to feel conflicted about Bartleby. We feel simpathy for his poverty, respect for his politeness, but annoyance at his irrationality. This mix of emotions towards the character is peculiar, since he himself seems to feel none.
I thought that Bartleby's lack of obedience was surprising, given the only other description of him. After presenting Bartleby as such a robot, and so complacent and bland, one would expect him to do as he is told. Perhaps since Bartleby is robotic enough that he knows he doesn't need to check his documents. Even his refusal is in a robotic tone however, always calm and respectful. ~Marie Kolarik
As I read the story of Bartleby, it was flowing ok and then when I got to the point where he refused to go over a document, I was surprised. A little thing like that completely changed the flow of the story, its as if car breaks were slammed. The fact that the lawyer had workers who did his bidding even though all had their negative sides, they obeyed. Now here comes Bartleby a quiet guy who does his work religiously and then one day decides to just say no to the boss. That surprised me a lot and confused me too. I think that Melville wanted us to have the surprised reaction, because it would make his story better. As we learned in class, Melville did not have much success in writing after Typee. So to me this seems as a way a to get readers attention and make him keep reading the story. Also this kind of shows how Bartleby is completely different person than the people that work at the office, because he just denied the boss. -Ayan
I think that you, as the reader, are not supposed to react to Bartleby's recalcitrance in either of the ways that the narrator does; you are not supposed to find it somewhat endearing or enraging, but you are expected to be intrigued. I believe that you become more irritated as the story goes on not because Bartleby is continuing to "prefer not to" do things - as this is expected - but because your impatience increases as his reason for doing so remains unrevealed. I additionally felt Bartleby's announcement that "he has given up copying" was somewhat triumphant, as the narrator let everything that Bartleby refused to do slide because he thought he would feel bad firing him. In simply deciding to stop copying, however, Bartleby has made it clear that this pity was unnecessary. -Amanda Farman
I thought Bartleby's disobedience was exactely what made him interesting. He appears to have amazing self control and from the narrorator's description of him and his strict and serious nature contrasts with his disobeience. His lack of doing other actions puts much more stress on all the actions big or small he does do and gives them a significance that I can't quite figure out yet. ~Lily Waldron
My reaction to Bartleby's insubordination is very similar to that of the narrator. I feel that I should be mad at this man, but there's something about his inscrutable attitude that makes me say "Well, that's just how he is," to myself. Although he is outwardly disobeying orders, he does so in such a manner that I cannot help but condone, for a reason I don't know! And I don't know how I'm supposed to be reacting. He seems to be extremely dedicated to his work when it comes to purely copying, but it also seems like he's hiding some aspect of his life from everyone else in the office. He's thoroughly puzzling thus far. -Jacob Dana
After encountering Bartleby's insubordination, I was surprised. From the beginning of the story, I was under the impression that a scrivener had no work related rights and didn't have to option to skip tasks assigned by their boss. Because of this, Bartleby's response to his boss's demand really shocked me. I was also surprised at how Bartleby' boss reacted to his insubordination and how he gave Bartleby no consequences. I think that the author wanted the reader to react in a way similar to how I reacted, and to be taken aback by the backwardness of the situation at hand.
I think the development of the different characters is so interesting. It completely pin-points the fact that, not only is Bartleby new, but he doesn't quite mesh with the environment of office attitude. On one hand we have Turkey, who sugar-coats and sweetly criticizes and on another, Nipper, who is blunt and cold. Ginger Nut just goes along with it all, being only a boy, and our Narrator is the conductor on this crazy train. Bartleby, who plays to his own ideas and refuses to conform to others, is pointed out to look like the crazy one, in the eyes of his boss. But, I feel he grows to represent and embody the opinions made by his co-workers by slowly getting weirder and weirder. The moment where he was caught in the office and fact that Bartleby consistently refuses his boss creating a strange essence around that man that makes me, as well as the narrator, pity the man. -Danielle Balanov
I'm not exactly sure what to make of Bartleby's refusal to do much of anything around the office. He is clearly quite good at one aspect of his job (copying) but at the end, he is even bad at that. Despite being seemingly incompetent towards the end of his job, and difficult for the narrator to deal with, I believe that we are supposed to sympathize and even pity Bartleby. He is dedicated to his job, he just has limits. Working there clearly takes a physical toll on him, and it is almost literally his entire life, saying as he lives there. The main reason I think we are supposed to sympathize with Bartleby is because the narrator is a sleazy and lazy person, and the other two workers in the office are equally strange. Bartleby stands out remarkably well in comparison to these three workers, and as such I believe we are supposed to look even fondly on Bartleby, reluctance to work and all. ~Daniel Krane
At first I was surprised at Bartleby's refusal to work. All three of the other scriveners have their eccentricities, their bad moods and their strange and sporadic tempers; these things I feel Melville means to portray as innate things of their nature. Melville described Turkey's wild moods, for example, as by being determined by a certain factor: the time of day, 12 o'clock. But Bartleby's actions and moods are more definitive. Bartleby does not read the papers over (does not do his duty and rebels against authority) by making a decisive choice: because he does not prefer to. There's some irony there because Melville is implying that refusing to do something (his passiveness)is, in fact, a more active choice than that of any of the other scriveners. I admire Bartleby's ability to exercise choice and take responsibility for his actions even in the face of authority. -Anna Parkhurst
I thought that Bartleby's disobedience was a bit surprising, given the narrator's revering attitude towards Bartleby. I think Melville meant for the readers to be a bit surprised because the first impression of Bartleby was that he was somewhat a reserved person, exhibiting an insane amount of self-control. ~ Josef Shohet
Bartleby's refusal to copy the documents show his reluctance to accept authority. He feels too at ease with defying his boss. The way in which he responds is almost more abnoxious than the actual refusal. Barrtleby repeats that he “would rather not”, instead of simply stating that he won’t do it, his response ecohs his absolute refusal. Though he says he “would rather not”, it is clear that he means he will not copy over the documents. Bartleby refuses to do the tasks which his boss assigns to him, and therefore it seems that Mellvile is trying to convey that defying authority is quite humorous. I thought that Bartleby is a very amusing character and that it was quite clever to disguise his humor under a very boring facade. Mellvile wants the reader to understand the oddness of the situation as well as to recognize its brilliance. It is clear that this story is meant to entertain the reader and present the humorous aspect of a very boring office job. I think Mellvile is trying to show the reader that everything in life can be both fun and funny with the correct dosage of sarcasm. What makes Bartleby so funny is the way in which he breaks the mold of the typical office scrivener.
I thought that Bartleby refusing to work was pretty suprising, especially because the narrator described him in such a good light and talked about how he was very calm and level headed I assumed he would be the perfect worker. However I wasn't really shocked that he wouldn't want to work, because after copying four papers, I probably wouldn't want to check them. I think Melville really wants us to guess why is he doing this? why does her have such an effect on the narrator? but I don't really find myself wanting to know, because I think I understand -- Gabby St Pierre
After reading this I kind of stopped. You would think that a person who was paid to write everything everyone says would be quiet or socially awkward. I mean no one wants to do that, and if you did it because your not a people person. Thats why when i read that Bartleby stood up to his boss and wouldnt look at the document i thought "wow, this is not what i expected" but at the same time i did because i knew the book would have to pick up.
After reading Bartleby, I have come to realize that everything that Bartleby did at his occupation was exactly what he wanted to do, not excelling because of others' expectations. It seemed very callus of Barteby to openly defy his higher in command, however I think that Herman Melville is showing the reader that Bartelby worked hard for his own success and that, because of this, he gained the respect of his superiors. This is relayed when the job that he refuses to do, just gets passed on to another member of the work force. It is fairly puzzling that Bartelby would risk losing his job and lively hood over an assignment he didn't want to do.
It was pretty weird.... Bartleby was such a weird character. Bartleby not only refused to examine the document but also to leave the office. He sems homurous at first, but he became extremely confusing and strange. I think it shows Melville’s life. Melville got to have an office job because of economical problem, which should have been a boring job. Bartleby is such a weird and boring character due to Melville’s situation...
I believe, that like the boss, it would be really hard for me discipline or critique Bartleby for not doing his job, because I would also be very taken aback and surprised by his refusal to do the job that he gets paid for. What really confused me was that he would never say "I cannot", It was always "I prefer not to". In some sense, I don't think I would care, because work is work and whether we would prefer to go or not we still have to in order to earn a living. So, I think that a serious discussion would be in order with Bartlebey where I would strictly enforce the consequence of having to fire him if he refused to do his job, and if he didn't want to, to bad he would have to find another job. I Mean when it comes to earning money at a low paying job, you probably won't be too picky.
Bartleby has figured out that the easiest way to make people play his game is to avoid agression towards them. By simply saying he would "prefer" to do or not do certain things, he creates a sort of guilty feeling in his opponnent and thus rendeer him unable to practice his authority.
I think that Bartleby's passiveness is indicative of his character. When he resists going over the document, he doesn't loudly resist. That is, he doesn't say, "No! I'm not going to do it." In fact, Bartleby usually has a very good work ethic. But when he resits going over the document he does it without much emotion. So this definitely contrasts with general trends in work ethic. But it makes sense and does match how he usually acts, which is in a low, boring way.
After reading through half of the story I found Bartleby's passive resistance very unnerving. In some ways he seemed to be the ideal scrivener, he was diligent, productive and unlike Nipper and Turkey, he didn't have a temper. However at the same time he refused to do half of his job. His way of refusing ("I would prefer not to") and the confidence he had while he said this was what I found unnerving. I think that this is how the reader was supposed to react because that is how the narrator acts. He finds himself unable to defy Bartleby and make him do what he is supposed to and even if he could, Melville makes it clear that Bartleby would not listen. The narrator says he feels disarmed by the narrator which translates to the reader feeling disarmed.
My reaction to Bartleby's recalcitrance was annoyance. I wondered why he would not just do it. Arguments about his duty aside, would it not be easier for everyone if he simply did the tasks he was asked? Clearly there has to be some larger reason that caused Bartleby to continually state his preference against the the things he was asked to do. Then again logical reasoning is often not the source of actions, though I think we like to think otherwise. I think the reader is expected to obviously question Bartleby's motives and probably pass judgement on whether his actions were appropriate and logical or not. We can look at what was accomplished as evidence for what he was trying to accomplish. He defied authority, he was firm and did not change his mind and he got out of doing work. Anyone of those results could have been what he was trying to achieve. - Cyrus Rassoulian sorry for the late posting, I was out on Friday
I was a little surprised at Bartleby's recalcitrance mainly because Bartleby's consistent refusal to work was only to prove his own will and stubbornness to himself. I think the author's intent was to surprise the reader with Bartleby's actions. I think he wanted the reader to realize the strangeness of Bartleby's somewhat extreme position on a fairly straight forward job. -Oliver Sablove
I am was weirded out when Bartleby refused to examine the document. The first thing I did after reading this was question Bartleby's response. I thought, why? Why didn't Bartleby just want to look over the document? I think this is the way that Melville wants us to act. Melville wants us to question the story, and try to think deeper about what Bartleby's recalcitrance could possibly mean.
ReplyDeleteCorey Grill
E-Block
I thought it was brave to stand up to his authority by saying he "preferred not to..." I think I'm supposed to think, "Why won't he just check the sheets???" But, he is always there and I think his recalcitrance took guts.
ReplyDelete-Lindsey Pearlstein
firstly, i find it very strange how obstinate Bartleby was being with the lawyer for weeks and weeks. I suspect this is the response that Melville expects from us. in addition i think that Melville expects us to question his motives, the lawyer's motives, and the story in general
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this and seeing Bartleby's defiant attitude, I was originally a little bit shocked by his character. In my thoughts of someone who was a scrivener in the very beginning, I wasn't expecting this rebellious and almost loud character Bartleby in fact had. I think that this made me more interested in him as a person. I think that Melville wants the reader to question his character a little bit and at the same time be more interested in what you might have thought to be uninteresting character.
ReplyDelete--Chloe Fishman
After reading this, I noticed the interesting contrast that was developed between Turkey and Nippers, the two interestingly named scriveners who work at the same office as Bartlby. The narrator sets up two polar opposite characters, one favoring the day while the other favors the evening,one being young and one being old, and one being comical while the other is serious. These strange characters increase the contrast between Bartlby and the other scriveners, before he has been described to any serious extent.
ReplyDelete-JD Nurme
When I was reading the story I generally felt extremely irritated. THis employee was consistently outwardly insubordinate and there really wasn't any excuse besides stubbornness. So, personally, at this point, I'm mostly frustrated and angry with Bartleby. However, I don't think Melville wanted quite so strong a reaction, but more just to inspirer curiosity and confusion. My main reason for thinking so is how much emphasis he puts on the calm, above-thou attitude of the scrivener. I think this confusion is intending to lead up to a climactic confrontation, but I'm not certain.
ReplyDelete~ Rebecca Krane
I thought that Bartleby's attitude is a bit arrogant by refusing to look at the document. I was also confused as to his reasoning behind it because it didn't seem that difficult of a request. I think Melville wants us to understand that by refusing Bartleby's character is strong, and we should respect that.
ReplyDelete-Julianna Goldring
After reading this story I was very surprised to find out that Bartleby's recalcitrance is why the lawyer describes him as "the most interesting Scrivener." The author builds up the story very gradually before introducing Bartleby's real personality. Usually when people are described as interesting you would expect them to have an exciting life or experience, not to be completely recalcitrant. I think Melville wants us to ask ourselves if refusal is wrong even if it's done in a most mannerly way.
ReplyDelete-Keinan
When Bartleby was first introduced he gave off an aura of perfection in a scrivener. He appeared to work diligently at a constant rate for indefinite amounts of time. To that point in the story, he seemed ideal for his position;he steadily produced consistent work (and it should be mentioned that despite the fact that he would soon begin to refuse his duty as an editor of his own work, an error in his work has not yet been brought to the reader's attention). Then, once he began to calmly refuse his duty as an editor i was slightly taken aback. Immediately my perception of him as a flawless worker began to change and with his growing preference to not perform the most menial tasks such as making trips to the post office, he soon became irritating to the point that I wanted to yell at the computer screen and tell him to do his damn job. I believe that Melville wants the reader to be conflicted over his or her feelings towards Bartleby. On one hand, you may be on the verge of hurling your computer (or book or kindle or whatever) across the room and out the closest window, but on the other hand, you feel for Bartleby. To imagine him working endlessly without respite or even a meal, while toiling away at such a monotonous task as that of a scrivener is depressing to say the least. You almost get the feeling that Bartleby is made immune to criticism by the sheer quantity and diligence of his work as a copyist. It seems that that is the reaction that Melville intends for the reader when reacting to Bartleby's ludicrous defiance.
ReplyDelete-James Wronoski
I thought that the story in general was pretty odd. For such a short story there seems to be a lot of unnecessary details. I also don't understand why Bartleby wouldn't accept Imprimis' request. Shouldn't he have been fired? Also, another small detail that I thought was unnecesarry was Ginger-Nut, whys it important that a 12year old is an errand boy? Why is that an important detail in such a short story.
ReplyDeleteJACK CORCORAN
I think Bartleby is a very strange character because not only does he refuse to check over his copies, he refuses to leave the office. Why shouldn't he leave the office? They are paying him to work there (which he isn't even doing to his full capabilities) and they are even providing him with a makeshift home. There is no logical reason that we can obtain from the story to explain why Bartleby has such a strong aversion to doing menial tasks. I think we are meant to be perplexed by Bartleby up until we realize he has been living in the office, at which point I think we are supposed to pity him.
ReplyDelete-Bianca Dempsey
Bartleby's defiance seems humorous at first, but, as the reading went on, it became strange and annoying. The fact that he refuses to do anything that is asked of him by his superior and furthermore refuses to say why he is so defiant, is bizarre. I think that Melville wanted the reader to react in this way. Melville distinctly makes Bartleby seem as peculiar as possible. Also, Bartleby is the polar opposite of his co-workers in every way which adds to his singularity. They are described as "flighty" and "fiery" while Bartleby is characterized as a quiet and hard-working individual. Bartleby also defies authority while his coworkers ahere to it. Melville surely intended for the reader to see Bartleby's quirks and irregularities, and imagined that the reader would see his defiance as an odd behavior not often heard of at the time.
ReplyDelete-Jamie Lamoureux
I was sort of surprised by Bartelby's character because scriveners, as reflected by their jobs, seem to be boring and uninteresting people. By having Bartelby be such a defiant character, Melville caught me sort of off guard. I think that although in many cases defiance of authority can seem like a somewhat desirable trait, in the case of Bartelby it is odd and illogical. Also, by having his co-workers be such polar opposites of Bartelby, Melville is able to highlight the irregularities in Bartelby's character.
ReplyDelete-Pema Doma
Bartleby's insolence and obstinacy stand in sharp contrast to his diligence and effectiveness as a scrivener, which is the main reason his recalcitrance came as such as surprise. The short story is filled with polar opposites, however, so it isn't as out of place as one might think: for instance, there are the sudden shifts in mood of Turkey and Nippers (as one is in an "ugly" mood, the other is tranquil). I think the reader is supposed to feel conflicted about Bartleby. Of course, one is bound to be frustrated and irritated by his resistance to the simplest of tasks (such as putting his finger on a piece of tape), but on the other hand, the fact that he is living in the office--especially the image of him in a tattered shirt all alone on a Sunday morning--elicits pity.
ReplyDeleteI think that in writing the first half of the short story, Melville wants us to see the monotony of Bartelby's job. It is possible that he did this so we can relate to him in some way, but i believe it is really to almost put us "to sleep". The first half is basically a list of the old story just copying itself. Had the first half of the story been action packed (somehow), then Bartelby's quitting would have very little impact on us as readers. Melville puts us in his shoes just so we can see how big of a change this is in Bartelby's life. Rather than being just a normal event in somebody's life, the whole story flips upside down.
ReplyDelete-Mike W
My theory on Bartelby's unnecessary defiance is that it was motivated by the limits of his power. Bartebly realized that with all his good work, he had risen up the "ranks" quite fast. The lawyer is blown away with the work done by bartelby, and he realizes that he might be able to get away with something, like ignoring orders, which he did.
ReplyDelete-Sam KW
that Colby said...
ReplyDeleteIt is strange how such inaction, on the part of Bartleby, can evoke such a strong response and even a response at all. Some may see view him with pity and sympathy for having an excruciatingly boring job, or hail him as a righteous combating an unfair system with passive disobedience. However being an American in an American Literature the perspective of the hard working American everyman who scorns laziness. This passage first showed Bartleby as the industrious go-getter staying up in the candlelight to finish copying that has come to define the dogged American work ethic. For his hard-work, he is looked upon favorably by the boss. Yet, as he begins decline work Bartleby degrades, staring out the window, then living in the office. Furthermore, showing the brutal capitalist reality, his co-workers stand idly by and even his boss attempts to move his office away. That said, this passage may be less to demonize indolent behavior, and more to reveal the America’s meritocracy and its effect on the lower rungs of society.
Bartelby's defiance to read the papers presented to him and to show his copies to the narrator and his clerks made me think that he either was very secretive, or slightly arrogant because of his lack of openness with his fellow workers. I think that Melville wanted us to think that Bartelby was strage just because he was different to the other clerks who have odd temperaments, though they are not thought of as very odd because they are common feelings of anger and rage, not calm and introverted.
ReplyDelete-Kate Rhodes
I felt that Bartleby's recalcitrance is Herman Melville's way of getting the reader to think deeper. When Bartleby refuses to look over documents and was being obstreperous I think that Melville is using that for the reader to not accept what is explicit. He wants the reader to expand their thinking and fully understand the significance of Bartleby's actions.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading my opinion of Bartleby changed as the story went on. In the beginning I was intreeged (spelling?) by his character and I wanted to know more about him and what had made him act the way he did. Further into the story as he became more stubburn and obstinate in his ways refusing to write and giving up copying all together I just became really frustrated and annoyed with him and couldn't understand how the boss put up with him. I think Melville wanted the reader to think about the act of simply perfering not to as a response. The lack of character really has an effect on the boss and why this is true makes the reader think about society and how people react to non-violent protests and standing up to "the man"
ReplyDeleteElla MacVeagh
I think Bartleby's resistance and defiance is very interesting because, in some ways, it reflects his occupation and in others it does not. One would think of a scrivener, typically as a rather boring person with boring job. Such a boring person would most likely not defy the request of their boss to do a menial task as part of an even more menial job, like examining a legal document. Bartleby does just that, resisting going over a document with the narrator. Even though Bartleby resists, he manages to do so in a very boring and dreary way. He shows no emotion or agitation with the lawyer's request, and talks in a very mild tone. Such an emotionless and boring way of doing things is what you would expect from a scrivener, but Bartleby is dispassionate in doing something you would not expect from a scrivener.
ReplyDelete-Josh Slavin
Bartleby's refusal to look at the paper was quite astonishing to me. This refusal signifies his defiant character, and how he doesn't respond well to commands. I think that Melville is trying to show the reader how different and unconventional Bartleby's character is. The narrator, who is Bartleby's boss says how he "should have been quite delighted by his application" because of his hard work ethic, but is not. Although Bartleby's work as a scrivener is very good, there's still something off about him, which is what I think Melville is trying to show us through his repetitive and unexplainable refusals.
ReplyDelete- Becca Robinson
Through out the story Bartleby, by the author Herman Melville, he wanted to show the audiences that you can write an interesting detailed story out of nothing. All through the story Herman Melville wrote about his workers but if you looked at them without the story you would think they were boring and there is nothing interesting about them. With this story Herman Melville could write about anything such as his work place, copying papers and make it sound intriguing, you would want to keep on reading this story wanting to know what happened to Nippers, Turkey and Ginger Nut. If you would go into their work place you would feel mind-numbing but actually Herman Melville would make an “adventure” and “dramatic” story out of this. I especially liked this story because Herman Melville would take any null sort of object or person or workplace and turn it in a fascinating story.
ReplyDelete-Shira H
Bartleby's refusal to assist in one kind of menial legal task is puzzling because he does vast quantities of another, very similar kind of work. We know nothing about his character's background, and even the actions he does in the office show nothing. He appears to have no interests, no personality, and limited, mysterious motivation. He barely exists. His slowly expanding wall of refusals emphasizes the fact that his character is, so far as we can tell, a void- a negation of a person.
ReplyDelete^by Ben Eggleston
ReplyDeleteI was confused when Bartleby refuses to examine the document. I think that Barlteby's recalcitrance makes no sense. Why does Bartleby do tons of similar work but refuse to examine the document? Although Bartleby's recalcitrance is weird it also explains why the lawyer calls Bartleby the most interesting scrivener. I think we are supposed to react to Bartleby's recalcitrance by being interested and baffled. This would mystify the reader, and make him want to read more. The reader would want to discover more about Bartleby and why he refused to examine the document.
ReplyDelete-Jared Videlefsky
Bartleby's weak refusal to perform certain tasks is somehow translated into a strong stubborness. Although Bartleby only says "I would prefer not to," a rather mild statement, the narrator only argues with him for a short while and then gives up. It's as though Bartleby's presence eminates so much power that his words are magnified. Personally, I find Bartleby's reactions (or lack thereof) irritating. His utter refusal to perform simple tasks without any logical reason seems stubborn and unjustified. The narrator's lack of action in order to gain control of the situation is just as irritating. It seems as though the reader is meant to feel conflicted about Bartleby. We feel simpathy for his poverty, respect for his politeness, but annoyance at his irrationality. This mix of emotions towards the character is peculiar, since he himself seems to feel none.
ReplyDelete- Claire Meyerovitz
I thought that Bartleby's lack of obedience was surprising, given the only other description of him. After presenting Bartleby as such a robot, and so complacent and bland, one would expect him to do as he is told. Perhaps since Bartleby is robotic enough that he knows he doesn't need to check his documents. Even his refusal is in a robotic tone however, always calm and respectful. ~Marie Kolarik
ReplyDeleteAs I read the story of Bartleby, it was flowing ok and then when I got to the point where he refused to go over a document, I was surprised. A little thing like that completely changed the flow of the story, its as if car breaks were slammed. The fact that the lawyer had workers who did his bidding even though all had their negative sides, they obeyed. Now here comes Bartleby a quiet guy who does his work religiously and then one day decides to just say no to the boss. That surprised me a lot and confused me too.
ReplyDeleteI think that Melville wanted us to have the surprised reaction, because it would make his story better. As we learned in class, Melville did not have much success in writing after Typee. So to me this seems as a way a to get readers attention and make him keep reading the story. Also this kind of shows how Bartleby is completely different person than the people that work at the office, because he just denied the boss.
-Ayan
I think that you, as the reader, are not supposed to react to Bartleby's recalcitrance in either of the ways that the narrator does; you are not supposed to find it somewhat endearing or enraging, but you are expected to be intrigued. I believe that you become more irritated as the story goes on not because Bartleby is continuing to "prefer not to" do things - as this is expected - but because your impatience increases as his reason for doing so remains unrevealed. I additionally felt Bartleby's announcement that "he has given up copying" was somewhat triumphant, as the narrator let everything that Bartleby refused to do slide because he thought he would feel bad firing him. In simply deciding to stop copying, however, Bartleby has made it clear that this pity was unnecessary.
ReplyDelete-Amanda Farman
I thought Bartleby's disobedience was exactely what made him interesting. He appears to have amazing self control and from the narrorator's description of him and his strict and serious nature contrasts with his disobeience. His lack of doing other actions puts much more stress on all the actions big or small he does do and gives them a significance that I can't quite figure out yet.
ReplyDelete~Lily Waldron
My reaction to Bartleby's insubordination is very similar to that of the narrator. I feel that I should be mad at this man, but there's something about his inscrutable attitude that makes me say "Well, that's just how he is," to myself. Although he is outwardly disobeying orders, he does so in such a manner that I cannot help but condone, for a reason I don't know! And I don't know how I'm supposed to be reacting. He seems to be extremely dedicated to his work when it comes to purely copying, but it also seems like he's hiding some aspect of his life from everyone else in the office. He's thoroughly puzzling thus far.
ReplyDelete-Jacob Dana
After encountering Bartleby's insubordination, I was surprised. From the beginning of the story, I was under the impression that a scrivener had no work related rights and didn't have to option to skip tasks assigned by their boss. Because of this, Bartleby's response to his boss's demand really shocked me. I was also surprised at how Bartleby' boss reacted to his insubordination and how he gave Bartleby no consequences. I think that the author wanted the reader to react in a way similar to how I reacted, and to be taken aback by the backwardness of the situation at hand.
ReplyDelete--Brandon Martone, F Block
I think the development of the different characters is so interesting. It completely pin-points the fact that, not only is Bartleby new, but he doesn't quite mesh with the environment of office attitude. On one hand we have Turkey, who sugar-coats and sweetly criticizes and on another, Nipper, who is blunt and cold. Ginger Nut just goes along with it all, being only a boy, and our Narrator is the conductor on this crazy train. Bartleby, who plays to his own ideas and refuses to conform to others, is pointed out to look like the crazy one, in the eyes of his boss. But, I feel he grows to represent and embody the opinions made by his co-workers by slowly getting weirder and weirder. The moment where he was caught in the office and fact that Bartleby consistently refuses his boss creating a strange essence around that man that makes me, as well as the narrator, pity the man.
ReplyDelete-Danielle Balanov
I'm not exactly sure what to make of Bartleby's refusal to do much of anything around the office. He is clearly quite good at one aspect of his job (copying) but at the end, he is even bad at that. Despite being seemingly incompetent towards the end of his job, and difficult for the narrator to deal with, I believe that we are supposed to sympathize and even pity Bartleby. He is dedicated to his job, he just has limits. Working there clearly takes a physical toll on him, and it is almost literally his entire life, saying as he lives there. The main reason I think we are supposed to sympathize with Bartleby is because the narrator is a sleazy and lazy person, and the other two workers in the office are equally strange. Bartleby stands out remarkably well in comparison to these three workers, and as such I believe we are supposed to look even fondly on Bartleby, reluctance to work and all.
ReplyDelete~Daniel Krane
At first I was surprised at Bartleby's refusal to work. All three of the other scriveners have their eccentricities, their bad moods and their strange and sporadic tempers; these things I feel Melville means to portray as innate things of their nature. Melville described Turkey's wild moods, for example, as by being determined by a certain factor: the time of day, 12 o'clock. But Bartleby's actions and moods are more definitive. Bartleby does not read the papers over (does not do his duty and rebels against authority) by making a decisive choice: because he does not prefer to. There's some irony there because Melville is implying that refusing to do something (his passiveness)is, in fact, a more active choice than that of any of the other scriveners. I admire Bartleby's ability to exercise choice and take responsibility for his actions even in the face of authority.
ReplyDelete-Anna Parkhurst
I thought that Bartleby's disobedience was a bit surprising, given the narrator's revering attitude towards Bartleby. I think Melville meant for the readers to be a bit surprised because the first impression of Bartleby was that he was somewhat a reserved person, exhibiting an insane amount of self-control. ~ Josef Shohet
ReplyDeleteBartleby's refusal to copy the documents show his reluctance to accept authority. He feels too at ease with defying his boss. The way in which he responds is almost more abnoxious than the actual refusal. Barrtleby repeats that he “would rather not”, instead of simply stating that he won’t do it, his response ecohs his absolute refusal. Though he says he “would rather not”, it is clear that he means he will not copy over the documents. Bartleby refuses to do the tasks which his boss assigns to him, and therefore it seems that Mellvile is trying to convey that defying authority is quite humorous. I thought that Bartleby is a very amusing character and that it was quite clever to disguise his humor under a very boring facade. Mellvile wants the reader to understand the oddness of the situation as well as to recognize its brilliance. It is clear that this story is meant to entertain the reader and present the humorous aspect of a very boring office job. I think Mellvile is trying to show the reader that everything in life can be both fun and funny with the correct dosage of sarcasm. What makes Bartleby so funny is the way in which he breaks the mold of the typical office scrivener.
ReplyDelete-Ofir Lebenthal
I thought that Bartleby refusing to work was pretty suprising, especially because the narrator described him in such a good light and talked about how he was very calm and level headed I assumed he would be the perfect worker. However I wasn't really shocked that he wouldn't want to work, because after copying four papers, I probably wouldn't want to check them. I think Melville really wants us to guess why is he doing this? why does her have such an effect on the narrator? but I don't really find myself wanting to know, because I think I understand
ReplyDelete-- Gabby St Pierre
After reading this I kind of stopped. You would think that a person who was paid to write everything everyone says would be quiet or socially awkward. I mean no one wants to do that, and if you did it because your not a people person. Thats why when i read that Bartleby stood up to his boss and wouldnt look at the document i thought "wow, this is not what i expected" but at the same time i did because i knew the book would have to pick up.
ReplyDeletemarisa najarian
After reading Bartleby, I have come to realize that everything that Bartleby did at his occupation was exactly what he wanted to do, not excelling because of others' expectations. It seemed very callus of Barteby to openly defy his higher in command, however I think that Herman Melville is showing the reader that Bartelby worked hard for his own success and that, because of this, he gained the respect of his superiors. This is relayed when the job that he refuses to do, just gets passed on to another member of the work force. It is fairly puzzling that Bartelby would risk losing his job and lively hood over an assignment he didn't want to do.
ReplyDelete-Jordan Bayer
It was pretty weird.... Bartleby was such a weird character. Bartleby not only refused to examine the document but also to leave the office. He sems homurous at first, but he became extremely confusing and strange. I think it shows Melville’s life. Melville got to have an office job because of economical problem, which should have been a boring job. Bartleby is such a weird and boring character due to Melville’s situation...
ReplyDeleteJonathan Oh
I believe, that like the boss, it would be really hard for me discipline or critique Bartleby for not doing his job, because I would also be very taken aback and surprised by his refusal to do the job that he gets paid for. What really confused me was that he would never say "I cannot", It was always "I prefer not to". In some sense, I don't think I would care, because work is work and whether we would prefer to go or not we still have to in order to earn a living. So, I think that a serious discussion would be in order with Bartlebey where I would strictly enforce the consequence of having to fire him if he refused to do his job, and if he didn't want to, to bad he would have to find another job. I Mean when it comes to earning money at a low paying job, you probably won't be too picky.
ReplyDeleteBartleby has figured out that the easiest way to make people play his game is to avoid agression towards them. By simply saying he would "prefer" to do or not do certain things, he creates a sort of guilty feeling in his opponnent and thus rendeer him unable to practice his authority.
ReplyDeleteI think that Bartleby's passiveness is indicative of his character. When he resists going over the document, he doesn't loudly resist. That is, he doesn't say, "No! I'm not going to do it." In fact, Bartleby usually has a very good work ethic. But when he resits going over the document he does it without much emotion. So this definitely contrasts with general trends in work ethic. But it makes sense and does match how he usually acts, which is in a low, boring way.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through half of the story I found Bartleby's passive resistance very unnerving. In some ways he seemed to be the ideal scrivener, he was diligent, productive and unlike Nipper and Turkey, he didn't have a temper. However at the same time he refused to do half of his job. His way of refusing ("I would prefer not to") and the confidence he had while he said this was what I found unnerving. I think that this is how the reader was supposed to react because that is how the narrator acts. He finds himself unable to defy Bartleby and make him do what he is supposed to and even if he could, Melville makes it clear that Bartleby would not listen. The narrator says he feels disarmed by the narrator which translates to the reader feeling disarmed.
ReplyDeleteMy reaction to Bartleby's recalcitrance was annoyance. I wondered why he would not just do it. Arguments about his duty aside, would it not be easier for everyone if he simply did the tasks he was asked? Clearly there has to be some larger reason that caused Bartleby to continually state his preference against the the things he was asked to do. Then again logical reasoning is often not the source of actions, though I think we like to think otherwise. I think the reader is expected to obviously question Bartleby's motives and probably pass judgement on whether his actions were appropriate and logical or not. We can look at what was accomplished as evidence for what he was trying to accomplish. He defied authority, he was firm and did not change his mind and he got out of doing work. Anyone of those results could have been what he was trying to achieve.
ReplyDelete- Cyrus Rassoulian
sorry for the late posting, I was out on Friday
I was a little surprised at Bartleby's recalcitrance mainly because Bartleby's consistent refusal to work was only to prove his own will and stubbornness to himself. I think the author's intent was to surprise the reader with Bartleby's actions. I think he wanted the reader to realize the strangeness of Bartleby's somewhat extreme position on a fairly straight forward job.
ReplyDelete-Oliver Sablove