| | |
|
BartlebyAnalysis 15 - 29 Mar 2012 - Main.CourtneyDoak
|
| | Bartleby—A Law Student's Analysis
This short piece addresses the reflection narrator sees of himself in Bartleby in Herman Melville's short story, "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street." | | | I found Jason and Courtney's perceptions that the narrator needs to get rid of Bartleby interesting because I had an opposite reaction to Bartleby. I felt the lesson learned from the story was that the narrator would never be rid of Bartleby, and instead he had to learn to incorporate Bartleby comfortably into the Narrator's office and soul. My first interpretation of Bartleby was that he represented the narrator's Freudian "id". Bartleby would simply prefer not to do real work. He wants to live in the office and subsist off of his co-workers, and store away money for use later. Turkey (who has a proclivity for drinking) believes Bartleby just needs to drink more. Other lawyers and professionals (perhaps representing the "super-ego") are disturbed by Barleby's presence; they are disturbed when confronted with the true desire of the narrator - somebody who prefers and chooses not to do work yet collects their money and ferrets it away in his desk. I felt like in order to restore cognitive peace, the narrator needed to stop shielding Bartleby behind a screeen, not make excuses for him (i.e. his eyes were ruined) and instead accept Bartleby for what he was - a naked manifestation of the narrator's true desires. Instead of running away from him the narrator needs to incorporate Bartleby into his office, and if he finds it too unbearable to be presented with such a figure, then he needs to change his id.
-- SkylarPolansky - 29 Mar 2012 | |
>
> | Skylar, I think that's a really interesting perspective that I hadn't fully considered in terms of restoring cognitive peace, so thank you for helping me be more precise in my thoughts. Like you, I saw Bartleby as a projection or a manifestation of the narrator's "id", and had the same idea that the narrator needed to stop shielding himself from Bartleby's presence, literally and metaphorically. I actually don't think our views on what the ideal next step is (i.e. get rid of Bartleby or incorporate him) necessarily conflict. What I was trying to articulate above was that after one recognizes the presence of Bartleby as a haunting force in their "office", they should strive to use that recognition to transform and become cognitively whole rather than rationalizing it away. Restoring that cognitive 'whole-ness' very well may mean incorporating Bartleby comfortably into one's soul, and before reading your post, I saw incorporation as synonymous with 'ridding oneself' of their Bartleby. Essentially in my post above I defined self restoration as the evisceration of the haunting force (whether through incorporating it or undertaking some other type of behavioral change). However, I appreciate you shedding light on the distinction between 'getting rid of' Bartleby (which I think I equated with incorporating Bartleby) and instead, in your words, "accept[ing] Bartleby for what he [is]", which is really a more accurate way to capture what incorporation really entails.
-- CourtneyDoak - 29 Mar 2012 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |