Draft Essay # 2

David Hubbard
Eng.102
Feb. 18, 2012

                                                                     Lack of Humanity

                The Industrial Revolution threw away empathy, compassion and understanding for a better profit margin. This ethical and moral shift, never left the minds’ or the hearts’ of the wealthy and elite. In today’s work place, it is sad to see but profits and productivity trump the worker. The worker is merely a pair of hands or an annoyance, in the case of Bartleby. Industrialization, and now globalization, is stripping away the humanity of the world.   

 Emotional bonds and personal connects were prevalent and necessary in pre-industrial apprenticeships. To take an apprentice was to invest in a long-term relationship.  With the pace of mass production and the large, cold factories people got lost in the crowd and often forgotten or ignored. It was too much work to become emotionally involved with staff and in many cases undignified. Bartleby is society’s cry for help. In contrast, the narrator is the industrial revolutions’ coldness and aloofness.

The narrator introduces his subordinates in a negative light, focusing on their faults and referring to them by humiliating and offensive nicknames. With these actions he is setting a president of superiority by belittling them. He describes Turkey as an incompetent aging drunk with afternoon withdraws. Nippers also an alcoholic, discontent in life and work mirrors Turkey; “their fits relieved each other like guards” ( par.13). The narrator subtly mocks and jokes about these men’s lives being train wrecks, but justify it by the fact they get some work done in the office. He expects respect, but refuses to return it. He feels control and power through demeaning his employees and removing himself personally. 

   Upon hiring Bartleby, the narrator is shocked, when his authority is challenged. Unable to handle this insubordinate action, the narrator chooses to ignore it. The narrator chooses not to deal with it because he does not know how to. He like many business owners inherited his success and did not earn it.  This, have and have not society, leads to a superiority and often incompetence.  When his authority is questions a second time, he asks his subordinates what they recommended. They replied, “Fire him.” The narrator was hoping that peer pressure would do the job, that he is unable to do.

Problems escalate in the office with Bartleby, but still the narrator chooses to ignore. It is easier for him to ignore Bartleby, then confront him and get to the root of the problem.  The narrator justify ignoring him, by stating, “he means no mischief…he intends no insolence” ( par. 53). The narrator lets this issue fester and has an “evil impulse,” leading to the a rising temper and still no results ( para. 53). The narrator is confused as to why a man produces nothing and is almost envious of this fact. Bartleby goes against the grain of society, and this perplexes the narrator. The narrator is a machine; he continues without stopping and cannot understand why others don’t.

The narrator discovers that Bartleby is sleeping in the office and states an unfamiliar feeling of sympathy.  He states, “Happiness courts the light, so we deem the world is gay; but misery hides aloof” (par 89). The narrator was content living his life of grandeur and vacations, and never thought of the others. He was content being oblivious. Now the narrator has to address undesirable feelings. The narrator is beginning to see employees as people with needs, but chooses to ignore this and not get involved. The narrator is losing productivity in his office, by allowing Bartleby to stay, and the narrator is unable to identify and address his feelings towards Bartley. 

The narrator finally gains the courage to address the office issue, not the personal issue of Bartleby. When Bartleby refuses to leave, the narrator fantasizes about “diabolical murder for sweet charity’s sake” (par.165). Still he cannot acknowledge the problem and tries desperately to find quick solutions to cauterize the issue. The narrator in a final act of desperation attempts to leave the problem, by moving the office. He hopes he will be able to leave this problem and never address the issue. He is still refusing to acknowledge Bartleby as a person.

Once Bartleby is arrested, the narrator finally realizes the gravity of the situation and steps outside of the industrial mindset. He sheds the machine and desperately tries to repent for his mistakes. Unable to in time, Bartleby dies a sad and lonely death. The narrator finally realizes that life is far more important than production.  The narrator seems perplexed and annoyed at humanity and this inconvenient awakening.

The narrator’s denial, justification, and avoidance is that of a machine. He is a privileged business owner who does not have the time or the capacity to express sympathy or empathy. A persistent problem, forces the narrator to finally awaken and become human-open, compassionate, and vulnerable. Traits that are foreign to industry. 

Response to Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-Street

"I prefer not to" a phrase that rings throughout the text when Bartleby replies to others. This reading was slightly dry for my taste, but it kept the reader interested to find out why Bartleby behaved the way he did. The story brought up many human emotions when pondering what must be done to this poor man, who lost all will to work or even live. Its a sad story with pigments of humor and suspense, and leaves the reader drooling at the end for some more information on Bartleby, which the narrator gives a modest hint, though still leaves no real explanation. Overall I really appreciated this work of literary art, especially because it brought about so many emotions and really made you reflect yourself how you would react if this situation presented itself to you.

The characters are full of life and his descriptions really portray a richness in human traits. The narrator even gives them unique nicknames based on specific traits he deemed worthy to use as identifying them. We have Ginger-nut, a boy who eats ginger nuts, Turkey is an alcoholic elderly man who has a bobbling hand in the afternoon making ink blogs on copies, and lastly Nippers, who is a young man who is also an alcoholic and is very grouchy in the mornings, but pleasant in the afternoon. Nippers and Turkey played a comic relieve in this story with their distinct personalities that the narrator paints vividly and their at times humorously crude remarks.

When Bartleby is introduced in this story, you get a picture that he is aloof to the world, devoted only to doing his job. You admire him for his seriousness and laugh when he is asked to do little things like walk to the post office, only responding with "I'd prefer not to". The narrator is perplexed by Bartleby, the reader as the story unfolds further, begins to join the narrator in Bartleby's complexities wanting an explanation. The further the reader digs the more you know less about Bartleby, it is a unique story that leaves much debate.

My summary of this story will end with that, I really enjoyed this piece and its sadness has struck me with bewilderment, that I will seldom ever forget. The narrator is a very kind man, as well as a intellectual. He views his environment critically, seeking explanations for why the world is the way it is. I found a passage that really hit me internally, rattling my core and exposing light onto my being. It is one sentence, that can bring about the whole meaning of this story of Bartleby, and haunt you for life.

"Ah, happiness courts the light, so we deem the world is gay; but misery hides aloof, so we deem that misery there is none". (Bartleby par. 89) I was amazed by this passage, as we all can relate to it in our life, as well as understanding the moral of this story about Bartleby. Its perplexing to think about, we see happiness and forget of misery. Misery is all around us, but it hides in the shadows. Sometimes the shadow of misery, is cast over you and you find yourself shocked, as if it came out of nowhere. Its hard to respond to something you have little understanding of as well, as in the case of Bartleby. The narrator points out, misery is always around us, we just tend to not notice it until we have no choice. I feel like he dug out a trench in the soul of how we perceive good and evil, right and wrong, happiness and misery. When this phrase burns into your brain, you read further of this story and the pieces of what conspires only adds to this eternal comprehension and agonizing moral struggle.

I now contemplate what I would have done with poor Bartleby. As a reader you ache to for him to open himself up and expose the demons within that are decaying his body and soul. You are saddened that you never have a chance to get to know why Bartleby gave up on life, you just know he did. You debate it feverishly within your mind, playing out scenarios and still have little to add for explanation. This story causes the reader to look inside themselves, something rarely found when reading. I am glad to have been able to have read this piece, I enjoy all the emotions I was forced to experience. The deeper meaning I found in this story I will not forget.

 "Ah Bartleby! Ah Humanity!". (Bartleby par. 250)

After reading this story, this link adds to your foundation of the context and deeper understanding of Bartleby. Learn a little more here!

-David

WORKS CITED

Melville, Herman. "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street." Bartleby. N.p., 2011. Web. 18 Feb 2012. <http://www.bartleby.com/129/>. 

Summary = Observation Analysis = Arguement

Greetings!

      I am writing to express my understanding of the following; summarizing versus analyzing. Before I begin to explain the differences between the two, I would like to state when appropriate, a summary is just as important as an analysis. We must first decipher when we are required to use one or the other. As well know the difference between the two when we are trying to interpret a piece of reading, if its observing something or if its making connections to something bigger based off those observations. I don’t want you to think that I trying impose that one may seem more user friendly than the other, or more important. They are equally valuable for a writer and a reader when the time to use either of them presents itself within the literature at hand. If I am looking to read a summary of a movie, I will not want to read an analysis. I just want a brief overview of key points that might interest me enough to spend my time to read or watch it. On the other hand, if I am looking for a much deeper understanding of that movie/novel, to see if anyone has brought about any hidden meanings that I might have overlooked, I would look for a detailed analysis, not a summary.

     A summary is as I said, an “observation” of a writing, movie, article and is summed up for the reader to get the key points across. In a summary, there is no thesis statement, there is no argument for why these events or settings took place. Its simply just a panoramic picture of what took place within the text or film. When one summarizes, they merely take what they think is important in their observation and shares it with others. If I were to summarize “a Winters Bone” by Daniel Woodrell‘s. I wouldn’t go into why the story unfolded the way it did, or make statements like “Ree, a heroine, battles against the world of drugs, deceit and poverty. Her affection towards her family is so deep that she does anything to keep them safe, with a roof over their head. Crystal meth is a huge problem for people all over the United States, this book captures a glimpse into the horrifying affects of drugs and the secrecy that enshrouds people who produce and use them.”  That kind of statement is analytical, so I would have to go about it differently if I was making a summary. Something like “Ree is a young women who cares for her two brothers and her mentally unsound mother in the back woods of the Ozarks in southern Missouri. Her father is a meth cook and has a court date that if he doesn’t show up for, can allow the state to take possession over the land Ree’s family lives on. Her father disappears, and its up to Ree to find him ect.”

     I am not digging deeper for better understanding with a summary, I am just stating the obvious. So key things to remember when dealing with a summary is it tells you what happens in the story. Its detailed information about the events that took place, specific accounts of scenery and the characters within the story. Our English teacher Mrs. Cline simplified summaries as reporting. So if we look at it that way, its hard to confuse summary with analyzing. Mrs. Cline also gives us hints to recognize to decipher if it’s a summary or not, with words like “about”  and “is”. Also, we are told to ask the question “Can this be wrong?” if what your reading when asked this question, answers “No” then what you are reading is most likely a summary.

     Analyzing is wonderful for really obtaining a deeper understanding to something, whether a novel or a film, or short story, or newspaper article. Mrs. Cline refers to this as “close reading”. When we analyze something, we ask questions and find ways to dissect the text into basic parts, avidly trying to understand the context, the true meaning behind each element. Analyzing adds much more significance to events and context than summarizing, it’s the threshold before one can make speculation to what it is the author is intending. We aren’t looking at the story as a story anymore, we are looking at it as a formula, with complex molecules that when combined make up that story. I like to view analyzing as using a scientific approach to understanding what it is your reading or watching. We break apart those molecules (sections from the text), to unravel the atoms in which they were composed from (images, scenery, events, characters ect), then the tiny atomic particles that make up the atom(their significance, the meaning behind them), until we feel that we might have a sense to what the author was intending, what he/she was thinking. At this point we have what it takes to comprise an argument.

     Our instructor Mrs. Cline gives us many tools in her power point presentation describing the differences of Summary and Analysis. I hope you were all able to learn and benefit the abundance of knowledge she shared with us on this matter. One last thing, that I thought was important to remember is that a literary analysis is made from summary and description, then going to analysis, then enabling you to make your argument based off your analysis and observations.  In literary analysis you can’t have one without the other, they are chemically bound together. You need a little summary/observations to support your analysis/argument. Here is a helpful link that covers more about the differences and roles of a summary and a analysis. Thanks for reading and take care!

-David

Response to the reading of "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift

     I wanted to say before I begin answering the questions that we were appointed to do so for our week 2 blog post, that "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift has become one of my new favorite reads. Its raw, and has a lot of shock value with sarcasm and irony throughout. Jonathan Swift is writing during a time when a dark cloud of despair has fallen over his native country Ireland.This BBC website gives us more insight of what is happening around that time He vividly describes in the beginning of the article the Irish beggars roaming the streets wearing nothing but rags, persistently asking strangers for food or money. He describes these beggars as mainly female, and they are usually accompanied by many children. These children are troublesome, most likely to end up as thieves, sugar plantation slaves or an expendable soldiers for the Pretender. (A Modest Proposal par. 1) Swift seems very disappointed with the Irish people for their lack of will to do better for themselves, as well as the savage beast like cruelty from the English landlords of that time.

As you read more of his proposal, he mocks the Irish people and the English by suggesting that in order to solve the problem with the increasing number of poor, would be to eat their babies. It's not obvious right away that he is not serious about this, as he states "a healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout." (A Modest Proposal par. 7) Reading further his ideas become more clear, though full of sarcasm and irony. He is mocking the Irish for being so submissive to the English, that if they did have a chance to sell their own baby for profit that they probably would in order to pay rent and regain their sovereignty. It mocks the English for their cruelty to the Irish, its very apparent as he jokingly states "I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefor very proper for the landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children." (A Modest Proposal par. 8) 

His solution is logical in the sense that if the poor were given the opportunity to produce goods again (in his example their babies), that they would be self sufficient, able to support themselves once more, while also pleasing the wealthy. He begins listing reasons to support his claim, sarcastically stating it would decrease the Catholics which at that time Protestants were prejudice towards. When you understand the history behind that remark, it is rather hilarious because of the tension between the Protestants and the Catholics. Secondly, the poor would finally have something of value once again, being able to produce wealth to pay for their rent, since they lost their livestock and land already to the landlords. Thirdly, it will create a sort of monopoly for the wealthy. They buy the babies, which supports the family, and the beggars decrease saving the wealthy money in the long scheme of things. The baby is turned into a delicious dish, whether at the table of a wealthy gentleman, or at a gourmet restaurant, where people pay lots of money to have it cooked to perfection, thus the money is continuously circulating back to the rich. Fourthly, the parents will be relieved of not having to support their children after the first year because it will be sold for food, and the parents make a good profit too. Fifthly, the economy will increase as travelers will frequent taverns to eat dishes prepared with skill and knowledge by chefs. The owners can make the dishes as expensive as they would like, because people who aspire for good food are willing to pay anything to have it. Sixthly, it would increase marriage which at the time was either rewarded or enforced by law and penalties. It would also increase affection within the family. The mother and father would appreciate the child more since it is profitable, and the domestic violence would decrease. (A Modest Proposal pars.17-22)

After reading the article entirely, you finally realize what his proposal was really about. Swift shows us in a satirical writing that Ireland is being defeated partly due to the people themselves, and due to the English bestiality upon them. In answering what is to be done with the vast number of poor elderly people, he ironically states  "they are every day dying, and rotting, by cold and famine, and filth, and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected" (A Modest Proposal par.15) This paints a graphic picture to the reader, and adds more feelings of sympathy for the Irish. He continues on, and further sheds light on the problem with the young men during that time. "They cannot get work, and consequently pine away from want of nourishment, to a degree, that if any time they are accidentally hired to common labour, they have not the strength to perform it, and thus the country and themselves are happily delivered from the evils to come". (A Modest Proposal par.15) As a reader we get this gruesome picture of Ireland, sick and handicapped full of despair, poverty, death, prejudice, and merciless English landlords. His proposal is absurd if taken seriously, but if we put the absurdity aside and take from it the basic fundamentals he imposes, we can see that his proposal is sincere and logical.

I apologize for the length of my response on this blog post, but I wanted to be exact with my answers and really reveal what I feel Swift was trying to show us in his piece of writing. I love the sick twist he put into it, to show the brutality that the English inflicted upon the Irish. If you read the article in the link I provided, it really exposes us to what was really happening during that time from a historical stand point, and makes "A Modest Proposal" all the more fascinating and disturbing. I am glad I read Vlad Nabokov's "Good Readers, Good Writera" prior to reading Jonathan Swifts piece, because you really need to re-read it, have imagination, artistic sense, and most important, a dictionary. I found quite a few words that I didn't understand, but using the dictionary continuously enlightened me immensely and I was able to understand and enjoy the story that much more! I loved this writing, and I hope you did as well.

-David Hubbard

WORKS CITED

Schaefer, Brandon. A Modest Proposal. 16 Nov. 2010. Photograph. Flicker.com. Web. 18 Jan. 2012. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandonschaefer/5182142485/ >

Swift, Jonathan. "A Modest Proposal." 1729. Gutenburg EBook. 21 Dec. 2011. Web. 18 Jan. 2012
<http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm >

Response to Good Readers and Good Writers

     Vladimir Nabokov sought for readers to achieve a deeper understanding of the complex mechanics that writers present through novels. He descriptively compares authors to master artist, how a book is like a canvas, a work of art. Nabokov informs readers that to be a good reader they must have “imagination, memory, a dictionary, and some artistic sense.”(Good Readers and Good Writers Par. 1 pg. 615) For readers to gaze at art through a novel, one must re-read it over. Nabokov explains that when once gazes into a painting, the eyes are stationary. When one reads a novel, the eyes are moving left to right tiresomely, preventing the reader from fully grasping the world in which the author has made. Only when the book is re-read multiple times can one behave towards it as one behaves towards a painting.  Readers also must maintain aloofness, and try to view the authors world without bias from their own, staying slightly detached. He states “In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine.” (Good Readers and Good Writers Par. 2 pg 617)

     I agree with Nabokov, a good reader has to treat a novel like they would a piece of art. As readers we must perceive the world of the author without comparing it to our own when we are first acquainting ourselves with the new surroundings as this can taint our perception of the world that was created for us. Before, I had thought to be a good reader, one simply had to apply themselves to the novel. Take the big details and pass over the small. I was wrong with this philosophy. I believe  Nabokov when he says a good reader needs imagination, memory, a dictionary and artistic sense. I love to read, but realized after reviewing Vladimir Nabokov’s “Good Readers and Good Writers” that I am a bad reader. When I read, I try to find common ground, somewhere where I can relate to the author. I also love books that impose nostalgia upon me, so that I can reflect on myself within the book. After reading Nabokov’s piece, I am intent on changing the way I read so I can submerse myself into new worlds, unbiased and with a slight sense of disconnect from my own reality. I am grateful to have been enlightened by Nabokov, if I had not I may have never fully understood what it means to be a good reader. 
 
     As I said in my introduction video, my favorite culture is Japan. I practice various martial arts and always try to aspire to have the mental and physical discipline of the mighty Samurai's I have grown up admiring. In Japan, the fiercest of all warriors were the Samurais. Its surprising that they took education very seriously, especially literature. They valued literature as much as they valued martial arts, because if they were good fighters but were ignorant they could not govern if the chance presented itself. Interesting, even the mighty Samurai knew the importance of being a good reader and writer. I apologize that I am going to submit a wiki link as for the moment I can't find any links with a brief explanation of the Samurai and their value on education and literature comprehension. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai

-David Hubbard

Works Cited

Trade Show Samurai. np., n.d.Web. 21 Jan. 2012 < http://www.tradeshowsamurai.com/

Nabokov, Vladimir. "Good Readers and Good Writers." Norton Reader: An Anthology of Nonfiction.

11th Edition (nd): 613-17. Print.

David-San

Greetings!

     I am very excited to be able to take this English 102 course and feel that this will be a challenging yet rewarding semester. I am an avid reader, sometimes I could just read for days if life allowed me to do so. As far as English goes, I am infatuated with adjectives.. I love stories that are descriptive that make a detailed portrait for me to gaze into. I am a nerd, I have a small social life and go to bed around 9pm every night. My favorite way to spend a day is quietly with my wife.
     I love being outdoors, underneath the canopy of the trees, listening to the wind as it passes along the trees and the gentle chirping of the birds nearby. I love nature so much that I want to be a forester to protect it, and to educate others on the importance of its complex ecosystems that we tend to destroy for its valuable resources. For inspiration I often go to http://www.fs.fed.us/ and wonder about my future life.
     I am eager to learn new skills and techniques in English 102 that I can apply to my life and the rest of my college. Thank you for visiting my blog! I hope we all learn from each other and have a great semester.

-David Hubbard