Thursday, January 31, 2013

Close Reading of Bartleby

While reading Herman Melville’s, “Bartleby the Scrivener” there was a short phrase that stood out as important. This phrase read “I would prefer not to” (p21). While this might seem like a simple phrase the meaning of it contributes to the whole theme of the story. To get a better understanding we must first establish that Bartleby is a scrivener whom was hired by a lawyer. At first Bartleby is a good employee who carries out all tasks when asked for and does everything his job requires him to do. As the story goes on, however, Bartleby is not the same worker he once used to be. He refuses to carry out tasks by responding “I would prefer not to.”
This response might seem simple and meaningless but in reality it has a lot of meaning behind it. By saying “prefer” instead of outright refusing to do something Bartleby portrays himself as a polite individual. He doesn’t actually refuse to do the job, but instead he politely says that he would prefer not to do it. The response has such importance in the story that it leaves Bartleby’s employer “The lawyer” speechless. He can’t believe that an employee would actually refuse to do something, and also say it in such a polite and calm way. Throughout the story Bartleby continues to use this same phrase when asked to do something job related, and even later, he uses the same phrase when asked just about anything.
Bartleby’s use of the saying begins to drive the Lawyer crazy; it leaves him puzzled and confused. When the Lawyer catches himself using the word prefer in a conversation it bothers him immensely. Bartleby uses this phrase as a way to slowly distance himself from society and the world as a whole, and the Lawyer begins to question his own sanity when he utters the word prefer. The repetition of this phrase, by not only Bartleby himself, but by the Lawyer as well shows its importance in the piece. Though it may seem simple at first glance, it actually highlights one of the major themes of the story, Bartleby’s rejection of the workplace and society in general.
Link to the story http://www.bartleby.com/129/

Friday, January 25, 2013

Summary vs. Analysis

After watching the video on Summary vs. Analysis it became clear to me that they are two very different elements. They are like day and night. When wanting to give a simple briefing of a story one may choose to do so by summarizing it. A summary tells the reader the main point of text by telling what happened in a simple brief paragraph. This informs our reader as to what happened by talking about who, what, when, where, why, or how things happened in the text. Summaries unlike analysis, however, do not use critical evaluation.
An analysis creates an argument that breaks down the context of the reading and makes the reader further examine the elements of the text. By doing so one can come up with an arguable claim that will help further expand on what the main point or points of the story are. Analysis, unlike summary, goes deeper into the story and examines the elements that help us identify what the reading is really about.
Analyzing is thinking more deeply about what is being read. It could even be compared to doing detective work. One must look for the small details that put the story together. These details can be found by examining relationships, trends, patterns, roles of people, places, and objects, among many other things. Another way to creatively analyze a text is to look for a cognitive dissonance. This is looking for something within the text that doesn’t seem like belongs there, or it seems out of place. By expanding on this thought one can determine how it affects the story as a whole.
While a summary might be a good way to sum up all of the events in a story, it doesn’t tell the significance of the things that took place. When wanting to write a more informed or “sophisticated” paper it might be a better idea to choose the analysis method as this gives a better more complex briefing of the text.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Good Readers and Good Writers

Nabokov believes that a good reader is one that pays attention to detail and stays away from generalization. He also says that a good reader should reread the material so that they can appreciate the work more. A good reader according to him uses his/her imagination and tries to identify with the characters. Good readers in his eyes are also those who have a dictionary.

I do not agree that a good reader should have to reread the material. Personally I can read just about anything and are able to retain the information by reading the material only once. I believe that a good reader is one that pays attention to what they are reading. A good reader is also one that does the reading willingly and eager to learn. I would have to say that I consider myself an average reader because while I might not read all the time I do take some time to read and strengthen my literacy.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Well im doing this for ENG102 hopefully I did it right haha