Final Presentation

 

<will be in this spot when youtube stops giving me errors during uploading, I type this on my way out the door to try doing it form a friends house, simply marvelous.>

 

 

Well, it's official, the video I recorded came out corrupted from my phone -I have no clue why-. I'm not expecting any points for this, but I'll just summarize so my input is at least present, offering the insight my video did.

 

In this class, I learned one important thing: how to write an effective thesis statement. Having taken several classes in the past involving communications and writing, I thought I was capable of writing a fairly well structured thesis. As it turns out, I was mistaken.

The break-down is fairly simple when you look at your proposed thesis in relation to these five areas.

1. Your thesis should essentially be a mini argument, if your reader cant counter your thesis, your thesis isn't effective. There needs to be an argumentative assertion of some kind, and if there isn't, write another one.

2. Your thesis should contain a sentence or two that describes the main theme (idea) of your paper.

3. Your thesis should offer a quick preview of what your paper's intention is, essentially, what point are you trying to make?

4. Your thesis should basically offer your conclusion to the audience without them even having to read it.

5. Your thesis should be direct, defined, and should not be in the form of a question.

 

Prior to taking this class, I certainly did write my share of thesis statements that were covered in questions. I tried to be vague enough to, "pull people in," and often found myself leaving out any points I thought were covered in the body of the paper in detail. Now I realize how insane all this sounds and am better for it. Trust me, when you start reading the rules on writing a good thesis, you'll want to argue with certain elements; resist this urge, and assume the Professor knows best.

 

Now picture this in the form of a video that features me and a hand puppet that fights me on all these points, offering instead his own version of what, "makes more sense." It was really good. I would love to re-shoot it but I'm well outside the realm of good taste in terms of the current time as opposed to when the assignments was due. It kills me to say it, but I quit.

 

So all that said, I offer this: I hope you all have a fantastic holiday of your choosing, and enjoy your break. Best of luck to all of you, and take care of yourselves and your loved ones.

reflection / uoıʇɔǝlɟǝɹ

    Ah yes, English 102, I will remember you fondly. If not your lessons last the waning remembrance of an old man, truly your yarns of bodily fluids and woe will endure.

    Okay, I'm kidding.

    This course has been a sharp reminder for me to work on my writing every now and again. Having to switch from a normal summarize and opinion form of writing to analysis was certainly difficult at times. While I did wind up with a great over all score in the class, there were certainly some deep indicators that I did not have some of the skills I'm leaving class with, or perhaps I did, but they were quite rusty. Throughout the essays I managed a high C low B on the first, A high B low A on the second, and a solid B on the last. Of course this didn't adversely effect my grade, but the fact that I'm used to nothing but A's made it a stern reminder of one simple fact: I am not perfect scholastically. You would think that that would be a negative thing to realize, when in fact my mediocre performance in some of the content of this class -and one other this semester- served to rekindle my interest in school. If anything, it welcomed me to a world where I don't have to kill myself over scholastic perfection anymore. I found two subjects I was good at, but not great at, and I've actually learned something for having gone through it.
    In regard to the literary choices and content, I didn't find that I had to force myself to get through it. It was nice to have a class that offered content that was brief, and meaningful. I -personally- despise having to read stories I don't care about, with characters I don't care about, In a time I don't care about, doing something I don't care about. Then add in the pure magic of having to write a paper about such a story? Breathtaking, just marvelous. Unfortunately this has always been a necessary evil in the majority of my studies, but not this time, I got one -whole- semesters worth of one class in which I didn't suffer this. To be honest that was probably my favorite feature of the class.
The other thing I found I really enjoyed was the blog format. I always intend to go back and copy a few things of BlackBoard real quick before they shut it down and I always forget to. At least in this form, it's always available for me to go back and look at, even if I make it private (which I probably won't). Honestly, the focus on maintaining a blog -I feel- helps you maintain cogency with your studies as well. You can simply scroll down and read something you stated in a previous post, and you find yourself agreeing or disagreeing with what you said only a week ago; based on the new information presented in the class the following week. Come to think of it, this was the first time that I've ever been able to so simply go through and look back at my work on any subject -ever-.
    All in all, this has been a great learning experience. I've sharpened up my use of punctuation again -sad how that atrophies when you don't practice- and also brushed up on several principals of writing. In the future, I'll obviously benefit from the practice, but I will also look at everything I read a little more carefully. That said, it's been a great year, I know it's not in the assignment, but I leave you with the most fitting graphic I could find on the entire internet. Have a great break, and good luck on all you set out to do.

More junk from knowyourmeme.com

Oh The Interweb

Made by me.

    For this week, we were given time to reflect on our use of technology for this class. I don't know if I mentioned this during my involvement in class, but I've been working as a computer and gadget repair tech for approximately ten years. Needless to say, I've seen everything we've used here and then some, and I deal with it daily. So while I can't speak on the topic of challenges from the technical standpoint, I will offer my views on the online experience.
    There are certain elements of working in an online environment that simply make sense for this type of class. If we had been in person, we would have spent just as much time analyzing and learning much of what we learned. Most of the content would have been similar, I'm sure, and many assignments would have been identical. The difference, however, would have been evidenced in my writing quality. If I were required to write a couple paragraphs in class, it would likely have been mediocre at best. The reason being, when I write I take a lot of time considering and revising even the most simple of statements.  I look at what I've written and will typically trash it about five times, in interest of conveying what I want to say effectively. This primarily stems from my thought process being a little, "different," in terms of communication and expression. If I were required to write a timed assignment, it would probably wind up being pure madness -as evidenced by my high school English class grades-. So while I may seem fairly articulate, I owe it to having the ability and freedom to edit my work as many times as I see fit.

    I don't see much difference in online versus in person classes for an English course in terms of content. I think that like everything else I've dealt with in school, it really comes down to your Professor. If you are lucky enough to be under the academic guidance of someone who really loves their subject, you will always take more away from it. Had this class been taught by someone that wasn't interested in English, it would have probably been nothing more than several quizzes to make sure we know the content, and a couple essays; and that is not hinged on rather the class is in person or not. The involvement required to have us set up blogs and make videos, is certainly not the norm; and someone who loves their class is always going to make a more rewarding experience for the student, rather it's online or in person. 

    I think that is enough rambling for now, so I will take leave of my keyboard. In closing I offer this: rather you have to learn new outlets, attend classes online, or in person; rather your Professors are involved, or treat you with all the concern one gives a stray cat: It will always boil down to us. In the end it's the student that decides what they are going to take from a class. Sometimes we learn things we will remember the rest of our lives, and sometimes the information is totally ephemeral,  but it's always up to the student to decide what they are going to truly learn.

I can't really think of a relevant link, so if you'd like to make your own silly comics, the site I used to make the above picture can be found here.

Revision -good times-

Image courtesy of http://knowyourmeme.com/

My writing process this time around has been absolutely hellish. I went to the table -via internet- Wednesday with a friend of mine who works as a columnist for several print magazines. I had two different versions of my essay for him to look over. This was quite an experience as he basically told me to start over again. So my revision comes in the form of yet a third version of my paper. So while I'd like to highlight my revisions, I can't, there aren't any. I'm basically looking at the individual components he said I, "may want to work with," and tossing the rest. I know the benefit of this is not turning in a wreck of a paper, but it's more than disheartening. So I suppose the revisions I'm planning aren't planned at all. I'm doing revisions on all new content -I actually took a break from that to write this post-. I think perhaps I brought the work to the wrong person, but I feel like he was just telling me what I thought. The fact is I can't seem to land on a topic I can effectively follow to any form of conclusion. It's not that I hate the story, far from it in fact, I just can't seem to form an effective essay on any of its themes. Well, as much as I love crying to the internet, I will have to take my leave and continue revising my final, final, final draft. I wish you all the best of luck on your essays, and have a great week.

Winter's Bone Thesis

Image courtesy of public records held by Arizona State.

In Winter's Bone, Woodrell gives an intimate view of a small rural community shrouded in secrecy and violence. In this tight-knit community lives Ree Dolly; a girl of just sixteen years forced to hunt down her absentee father in hopes of saving her home and family. While this relationship is one of some importance to the story, the real focus is set on Ree's relationship with her family as a unit. Through the entire story there is one theme that exists above all others, and that is Woodrell's depiction of kinship. This bond is all that keeps the story's protagonist going, and is the motivation for the entire story.

Methland

    "Methland: The Life and Death of an American Small Town" is a story about the effects of Methamphetamine on everyone, and everything it comes in contact with. Nick Reding doesn't simply illustrate the effects of Meth on Oelwein, Iowa; he sets out to examine its effects on its users, their communities, and our nation's small communities. Reding starts with an explainaintion of what brought the issue of meth to his notice, then expands to an explanation of both his concern and the disregaurd it was treated with by his peers. Reding goes on to tell specific stories of interviews with users and cooks; and then offers a grisly story of one Ronald Jarvis who suffered horribly at his own hands when his lab exploded.

Reding speaking at Emory University

    Although I haven't read the rest of his book -though that will change within the next three hours- Reding seems to be genuinely concerned for the conditions of our rural towns and communities. He even offers a story involving a small town he would frequent where he found the drug to be prevalent  While I don't yet know his full motivation, I will say this article has done much to sway me -with little knowledge of the whole story- to believe his actions are quite laudable.
    Redin's work relates to Winter's Bone almost blatantly. Reding's entire book is centered around the same type of community as Winter's Bone and talks -almost directly- about the real life equivalent to some of the books characters. I think that if anything, Reding's book can lend support the reality to the Winter's Bone's story, and thus make the book understandably less, "fictional." Rather Reding himself or his story lends credibility to my analyses, will remain to be seen closer to its completion.


Reding, Nick. Methland The Life and Death of an American Small Town. Bloomsbury, 2009 Print

"Nick Reding Image" Emory.edu Course Spotlight 28 Feb 2011. Web http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/images/issues/2011/02/methland-2-WEB.jpg

Winter's Bone -movie adaptation-

Well here I am slightly embarrassed by my previous post only six(ish) hours later.  After watching the movie adaptation of, "Winter's Bone" I can safely say that it is not the story that makes this book special. It really is entirely in the writing, and this is quite evident in the movie. When you remove the descriptions of events, internal monologues, and transitions, you wind up with a disaster of a story. The movie almost made no sense, and that was with an operating knowledge of what was going on after having read the story. When you take all the writing out, you wind up with an uninspired mess of a story about a fist full of characters you don't care about. Doing things that you don't care about. For  a purpose you don't care about. I take back anything I said about the book in my previous post. Granted the movie changed a few elements, lightened a few scenes up, and didn't include a drawn out close up of anyone urinating; but I have to insist that I will take the book as a complete work -hallucinogenic date rape of a minor and all- over this disorganized, soulless, train-wreck  It's very rare for me to say or type this phrase, but I was wrong -and for the record, so is metacritic-. How this movie got good reviews is totally beyond me. Perhaps they watched a movie with a similar title that wasn't wretched, and are simply confused? Trying to watch the movie and stay objective, it didn't have any flow and made very little sense. Then again, I suppose Superman 2 is in the top movies of all time according to metacritic, so perhaps their vote doesn't count anymore on the back of that alone.

Oh, and if anyone was considering watching the movie rather than reading the book I recommend the following: The book is short, just read it. The only other option is to punch yourself in the face, because it'll be a lot more pleasant than sitting through the movie.

Winter's Bone

Ah, "Winter's Bone," how I've derived a guilty pleasure in reading you; yet you stand as a reminder of why I don't care for the grimy style of storytelling so popular this past decade. 

Compliments of Amazon.com

Daniel Woodrell is the beginning of my problem with this book, but is also responsible for a lot of my enjoyment of it. Honestly the man has written some of my least favorite books, and I'm not just saying that to be a disagreeable. I won't get too deeply into my personal feelings, and instead try to stick to reviewing the book and not his writing style. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to get a little of that out of my system before I can write anything serious in relation to this book. As I have found with all of his books, I get sucked in to the story and tend to read them cover to cover over the course of a day. My problem is, I glaze over certain parts of the book that he spends way too much time on. For instance: Spending a paragraph describing urine hitting a wall; I'm not kidding, -for those of you that haven't reached that point in the reading yet- he gets into far too much detail on the subject. Now don't get me wrong, I'm far from a prude, and this isn't gross to me; I simply think it's a joke, and if it's not, it strikes me as poor decision making about the stories flow -no pun intended-. I understand that the very idea of the writing is to be very vivid and real, but I can think of a lot of books that are both; only they achieve this by being good, not by spending an uncomfortable amount of time describing bodily functions. This isn't my only issue with the book, but it serves as the best example. The story on the other hand, was fantastic -as it seems to be frequently with Woodrell-. I was instantly engaged, the man paints scenes beautifully, and I enjoyed about ninety-five percent of it. So while I can't say it was a bad book by any means, I can say that some authors should stick to what they're good at; and leave the grimy story telling to authors that are good at it. As a tangent note: I also have a personal distaste for gritty story telling. I don't know if it comes from having witnessed real human suffering and tragedy, or if I simply don't need more reality in my fiction; but I am never impressed by that type of writing. Perhaps I'm biased, I'm perfectly willing to admit that; but no matter how I feel about the content, I still enjoyed this book thoroughly.

Midterm Check-in.

Dear Laura Cline,  


    I can’t believe we’re already at our halfway point, can you? It seems like just yesterday I was filming that ridiculous intro video, and now here I am having just submitted my second major assignment.

    Thus far my biggest challenge has been recovering from years of being away from school in general. I’m almost thirty but I still find myself struggling with punctuation at times. Not that I have any real issue composing thoughts, I've just always lost something transferring those thoughts to paper. I suppose beyond that, there’s trying to wrap what I think when I read a given text into a coherent thought to write it out. Usually I can explain things verbally –to death some might say-, but again, in the written form I think of myself as a little, “lacking.” I can’t honestly think of any major successes other than refraining from saying anything too offensive in any of my papers or posts. I can tend to be a little crass at times… and by that I mean most all of the time.

    I know we have been reading some really good classical literature, and I applaud you for keeping it within the realm of single essays and the like. The readings haven’t really affected me in any particular way however. Honestly they are beautifully written bits of writing, but I don’t find they hold enough substance to really warrant too much analysis. I feel like at this stage in the class –even dancing around my admitted lack of writing refinement- it’s mainly just a matter of shaking your head at the right time to agree with the right things. I am, however, quite excited about reading this book that’s been sitting on my floor a month before class started. Hopefully it will have more flexible themes that I can enjoy and give some real analysis to.

    Analysis isn't different from any other type of thinking I frequently engage in, so I suppose it’s not really alien territory to me. Granted my ability to focus on the texts up to this point have been lacking at best –essay two being no exception-, but I hope for good things in this next section. It is different in the sense that I have to get my thoughts directly on the paper, which has proven challenging, but aside from that it’s basically just more of the same thing.

    My major goal for the second quarter is to get over the hurdle of disinterest in the text, even if I don’t find it interesting, and write a few good papers that actually reflect my abilities to write –although I guarantee nothing in its punctuation-. outside of that, I’d like to improve on my punctuation, it’s really bad -although I am quite familiar with the em dash; sometimes I fear it may take out a restraining order against me-.

    I pray I don't come off as negative in any of these musings about the first half, I assure you I am not in the least bit negative. I'm just tired, hungry, and need to go to the store to buy cigarettes before my head explodes into a puff of glitter and rainbows. Yep, sounds like something that might happen soon. Anyway, I hope you enjoy a fantastic week.

I never know which closing to use,

Chris

Tentative Thesis Paragraph

PDI provided by "Getty" - also oddly spooky.

    For my analysis of Swift I don't want to spend much time covering the condition of Ireland. Instead I chose to dig for his personal motivations in writing this essay. Rather than looking at it from the angle of a man defending the poor, I read this essay as the thoughts of a man that thinks very poorly of his intended audience. I think the following summarizes my impressions as best I can state them:

    In Swift’s writing “A Modest Proposal” he was not speaking to his countrymen. Instead Swift spoke to an oppressive force in Ireland that was strangling the life from the nation’s economy and people. Swift was not embarking on a crusade to implore the mercy of those responsible; this essay was not a mission of peace. Swift used his text to assault the very thought processes of those he saw responsible for the state of his home nation. In a single elegantly crafted essay Swift speaks to the state of his impoverished nation; using the careful wording of his respectable and proper opponents to make a travesty of their very rationale. Swift did not seek the enlightenment of these individuals to stir change. Swift sought to humiliate his targeted audience and to thoroughly illuminate their shameful actions and disregard for the people of Ireland.


 When looking for support for my argument I came across a very well written summary and analysis of Swift's essay by Howard Bromberg. I would suggest giving it a read if only for his wording. While it's not necessarily support for my views, I found it interesting.

A modest analysis of a proposal

Image credit: knowyourmeme

     In his essay, "A Modest Proposal," Dr. Swift is attempting to seize the audience’s attention and direct it toward the state of Ireland during this period in history. Swift wants the audience to understand Ireland’s poverty from three distinct angles: The number of poverty stricken people –which he cleverly inserts during the essay as statistics to support his idea-, the people he holds responsible, and why they are responsible. During the essay Swift’s underlying point hinges on the actions of the landlords present in Ireland at the time. Swift wrote the essay in a carefully worded well-constructed fashion to emulate the voice of the people responsible. The tone of which insinuates on its own how inappropriate the conduct and rational of the landlords was at the time. While Swift doesn't offer any singular solution, he does much to point out the attitude of the land owners involved in Ireland's woes. In the end Swift achieves what he set out to do: create an essay designed from the first sentence to make a joke out of the cultured upper-class while simultaneously pointing out the cold way they treat and view the poor. 

    “I grant this food will be somewhat dear and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.” (Dr. Swift) 

    Although Swift states that skinning and eating children is the best way to deal with the issue of Ireland’s impoverished; it is only with the intention of shocking his readers. He is using this extreme example to both express his views of the essay’s target, and to inspire these people to take a closer look at their actions. This is done by purposing that based on their current activities and efforts, eating children isn't completely far-fetched. 

    While Dr. Swift has a logical solution, its clearly not a rational one. During the essay he offers statistics and prices for all manner of elements in his plan. From the cost of feeding and clothing the poor, to simply how many poor he estimates exist in Ireland at the time. So while he does make an engaging argument, he also all but states his real thoughts. During the final paragraph Swift says he is simply writing the essay for the good of his country, and there is no greater support for that statement than this short quote: 

    “…Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants.” (Dr. Swift) 

    This is the theme and purpose of the paper summarized in one neat statement. Swift would like the Irish of the period to use their heads and avoid losing everything. Swift would also like the landlords to exercise mercy toward the poor. Granted this statement is in a paragraph about what Swift suspects may be objections to his plan, this is clearly the theme of the whole essay. 

    Swift, Jonathan. “A modest proposal.” 1729. Quotidiana. Ed. Patrick Madden. 19 Dec 2007. 01 Oct 2012 <http://essays.quotidiana.org/swift/modest_proposal/>.

    I would also like to point out that After watching the lecture, I read this whole paper -internally- in the voice of Stephen Colbert. At times I would laugh so hard I was forced to take a break to collect myself. I just thought I would share that experience, and encourage you to not read things in the voice of Colbert, it is unnecessarily difficult and very distracting.

Rhetorical Analysis

I feel that I need to add a small preface to my post, based on my reaction to this commercial so here it goes:

I've been told that I'm a bit of  a skeptic, and rightly so. I don't tend to just jump on board for anything, and I do a lot of research on most everything I consider. Now I'm sure this commercial simply failed miserably because I'm not in it's target audience; this is likely due to the fact that commercials like this are aimed squarely at the -lets call them- skeptically impaired. I can assure you I didn't pick this one looking for a flop. I had just been hearing how great Whole Foods is to patron and decided to see what the hype was about.

In all my years of life to this point, this may be the least effective marketing I've ever witnessed. For one, the emotional appeal seems to be aimed toward getting me excited to go shop for, "whole foods." This misses its mark based simply on my lack of sympathetic excitement; I've never been one to clap just because other people are clapping -unless it's purely in the interest of being polite-. The second glaring issue is its complete lack of establishing any type of credibility for the company that wants my money. I wasn't told how great their company is by the CEO, in fact I didn't even so much as see any of the food they are trying to sell me. All I have is the revolving banter about how excited strangers are about shopping at a store they frequent, that I have literally never seen -no thanks to the ad-. Finally there simply didn't seem to be any logical motivation to shop there presented in the commercial. They didn't purpose one singular reason I should actually walk through the door of the market, or even hint at what is in the store in a lot of respects. I get the idea that there is produce and some meat products, but that is essentially it. Therefore it seems to stand to reason that the commercial simply implies the following: One should be excited about Whole Foods because the people in the commercial are excited. You should shop at Whole Foods because these excited strangers say it's great. Also, you should pretty much just take their word for it, as they are very excited about shopping at Whole Foods. Sorry Whole Foods, I'll pass.

Essay #1

      When I read over the essay topics for the first time, I figured everyone would pick topic two; so in an effort to do something creative, I've chosen topic two. The reason being it was my first impression -ish?- of what was going on in the story. The fact of the matter is I read this as being far more sinister than some repressed, stubborn, inner self character. Maybe one day I'll write my interpretation for kicks, but for now, I chose number two.

Bartleby’s ghostly presence in the story is the result of a breakdown of the narrator’s mind. In fact, Bartleby does not exist at all as an actual scrivener, but instead represents a part of the narrator that he wishes to repress in order to become a more effective and industrious worker.

Below are some of my notes cut and pasted from my original drafts:

Through the entirety of the story Bartleby digs in his heals against anything important the lawyer wants to get done, he's a representation of the Lawyers id -the less socially acceptable Facebook version of ourselves-. Bartleby doesn't want to go away, he is the lawyers frivolous nature, desire to do mundane things. So when the lawyer knows he needs to get something done, he tucks that nagging feeling into a corner and obscures it from sight. The problem occurs when Bartleby starts fighting back, refusuing to be ignored. Suddenly the lawyer is forced to reason with the irrational side of his brain that wants him to stop doing things that he doesn't want to, hence use of the phrase "I prefer not to" time and time again. The lawyer himself needs to read over the copies, he needs to get his mail, the man is very busy, but deep down he "prefers not to." He would rather stare out a window, or just write copies.

The next main point I want to elaborate on is the way in which the other characters react to Bartleby, they are acting like a group of people forced to cope with their bosses new crazy -I word it this way intentionally-. They yell at Bartleby indirectly, they never speak to him, or actually interact with him. 

Another inconsistency with Bartleby being a real person is the way in which Bartleby engages the lawyer himself. At no point in the story is there any physical contact between them. The lawyer always seems to restrain himself from physically assaulting Bartleby, no matter how badly he wants to at times -as if he knows it wouldn't do any good-.

Finally there is the end of the story, the prison that Bartleby is locked up in, this is a representation of the lawyer having finally won, he locked away his less productive side. Even though he still cares about it, and wants to be a person of that sort, he leaves it to starve. Which is a huge tell about the setting of the whole story, and one that I will elaborate on in my completed essay.

That said, i wish all of you luck on your essay, and enjoy a cropped screenshot of the Great Pyramids via Google Earth -I know the pictures weren't required, it's just what I had open for another project-.

Bartleby, The Scrivener

Bartleby, The Scrivener (53)

From Wikimedia

"Nothing so aggravates an earnest person as a passive resistance. If the individual so resisted be of a not inhumane temper, and the resisting one perfectly harmless in his passivity; then, in the better moods of the former, he will endeavor charitably to construe to his imagination what proves impossible to be solved by his judgment. Even so, for the most part, I regarded Bartleby and his ways. Poor fellow! thought I, he means no mischief; it is plain he intends no insolence; his aspect sufficiently evinces that his eccentricities are involuntary. He is useful to me. I can get along with him. If I turn him away, the chances are he will fall in with some less indulgent employer, and then he will be rudely treated, and perhaps driven forth miserably to starve. Yes. Here I can cheaply purchase a delicious self-approval. To befriend Bartleby; to humor him in his strange wilfulness, will cost me little or nothing, while I lay up in my soul what will eventually prove a sweet morsel for my conscience. But this mood was not invariable with me. The passiveness of Bartleby sometimes irritated me. I felt strangely goaded on to encounter him in new opposition, to elicit some angry spark from him answerable to my own. But indeed I might as well have essayed to strike fire with my knuckles against a bit of Windsor soap."

I feel like there is much more going on in this passage than one might first think. Having read the story I have many feelings about what the text is meant to embody, but I will stick to the individual feelings I had about this particulars section -for the most part- (R.53).


I think Melville really wanted to convey his own distaste for the methods with which society approaches anything that falls outside the norm. The lawyer in the story is quite self righteous and arrogant in his viewing of Bartleby.  The story directly conveys the fact that he is driven more by the way people see him, than he is his own motivations.  I don’t think the lawyer is intended to seem malicious, I simply think that of his own explanation, he simply doesn't care about Bartleby in the least. Openly stating that he can “cheaply purchase a delicious self-approval,” it seems to indicate that to this man acts of charity are for the sake of one’s own feelings. It’s as if Melville really wanted to point out the fact that charity for  image sake is repulsive. The way he wrote the lawyer, saying things like “Poor fellow” about Bartleby imply to me that not only is the lawyer self serving and totally insincere; but also that he sees himself as possessing great intellect. As if he is some higher being looking down at his poor creations, so far removed from the thing he observes. In fact during the passage, the lawyer mentions what would happen to Bartleby had he "turned him away," the way it's worded, it's not about Bartleby's interests; it comes off as just another praise of his own intellect and moral high ground. I think we are supposed to detest the lawyer, like Melville is specifically writing a story about how not to think. I also go the impression that when the lawyer states that he “felt strangely goaded on to encounter him in new opposition,” he is being honest about how he really feels about Bartleby. Like Bartleby is literally a subhuman thing that he has a serious distaste for. Mind you he would never say such things aloud for fear of not seeming compationate, but a lot of the passage indicates that he isn’t really compassionate at all. I think the lawyer is an embodiment of what Melville views as society. I think he’s trying to point out the way we all act toward anyone or anything that rocks the boat. we feign the required interest, and go through the motions of making it look like we care. Then if that doesn't work, we get angry at whatever the subject is, for being an exception to the norm; we approach the disturbance as an adversary, there to destroy our very way of life. After that fails, we throw money at it, we ignore it, and finally we find a way to lock it away. We must of course do this in a way that leaves us with a clear conscience, so we do so, and then do our best to forget about it. These are all the things I see in the totality of the story. I believe that Melville really wanted us to take a look at just how poorly we handle anything different. This in turn makes me wonder if Melville himself isn't the outsider. As if in a really subtle way, Bartleby isn't just Melville's take on himself.


Bartleby, The Scrivener. A Story of Wall-street, by Herman Melville. First published 1853

On a totally tangent side note: I found this article by cracked.com strangely informative.

Summary and Analysis

“Ah summaries, may you never cease to bore me to death.”  --Me, just now-

Now I certainly understand summaries have a place and use. If I’m trying to decide on a movie after doing absolutely zero research, I am forced to wing it based on the brief rundown provided by the movie studios. Are they going to make it sound like a lot more than it is? Yes, they probably are. Are they going to at least make a rundown promising me “…thrills, chills, romance, and explosions…?” They most certainly will.  Every time I read this type of summary trying to sell me any type of media, I’ve learned to instinctively roll my eyes, and insist they take my money for the afore mentioned promises of entertainment. The action of rolling my eyes however, states my disbelief in what I’m being promised.   Why would I not just jump in head first clapping and giddy? Well it really boils down to my –at times annoying- need to analyze media.

Taken by and used with permission of my brother Jon Baker

You see, when I go to the movies modernly I try really hard to just tell my brain to shut up and watch the pretty moving lights; the problem is it simply refuses to listen. Through the course of the movie I’m usually keeping a mental inventory of each scene that really “stands out.” The reason I make an inventory of these scenes, be they good or laughably bad, is to afterward be able to step back and look at the movie as a whole. After recently being exposed –unwillingly mind you- to the new tween gem “TheHunger Games” I can assure you my inventory was flooded with mental notes by the time the credits started rolling.

If I were to sit here and retell you the plot line you would –fall asleep- probably think the premise sounded interesting, and possibly make the mistake of watching it. If instead I told you that the movie combined adolescent story telling stolen from a Japanese movie franchise, acting that I can only liken to nails on a chalkboard, and an overall premise that crosses the line separating creative and absolute silliness; perhaps you would be a little less inclined. The problem therein is that I still haven’t really provided any reasons why I feel that way. Take for instance my first line about “…adolescent story telling stolen from a Japanese movie…” this statement alone may invoke some curiosity, but it really doesn't do anything to sell you on my point of view.  Instead I should expand the thought, telling you that it’s literally a movie about a world without enough food, so the only logical outcome is society sets up brutal games in which people kill each other over rations. I should also mention that the premise for the movie is stolen primarily from a movie franchise called “BattleRoyale” from twelve plus years ago. Those are some observations that I can use to support my opinion, and while my opinions can be contested, so can my facts. Someone could easily –please don’t by the way, these are only a few examples of what I based my opinion on-  object, saying that Battle Royale was a totally different movie that just so happened to feature teenagers killing each other on an island. Someone could say that the story is the only way mankind could ever get by; I won’t offer anymore examples I just hope you see where I’m going with this.

The point is my “feelings” about the movie are based on my analysis of its components, and my feelings may not be right for everyone. So while I agree that a good analysis should be arguable, I think it’s important to also point out that most analysis is based on your feelings. Rather you think something is amazing, or totally beneath you in some way, I think a lot of it comes down to how you feel about the individual component. If you and a date go to watch Twilight 8 –or whatever one they are on now- you might watch a scene and think to yourself “did that really just happen? Dear God how long was this movie again?” Your date on the other hand may be thinking “He’s dreamy, how did I get suckered into a date with this guy again?” All jokes aside, it’s all in your reactions, the trick for me has always been simply asking myself why I reacted that way. If I think something is completely silly, the next thought to follow is usually a myriad of things that explain why I thought such a thing.

          Anyway, I realize long post is long, so I’ll leave it at that, and if anyone reading is a Hunger Games fan, it’s okay, I like Starship Troopers; and that is a guilty pleasure.

Good Readers and Good Writers

   Vladimir Nabokov

Source: http://www.ralphmag.org/CP/nabokov.html 

In my humble opinion –because let’s face it, following that reading it’s impossible not to be humbled- Nabokov wants us to understand that a good reader is both emotional and methodical. He explains in several different ways that we have to strike a balance between the two to properly read any given work. Nabokov expands on the idea of avoiding the pitfalls of simplifying works of literary art, by cheapening them with too much emotion; or glancing past their beauty with cold eyes working back and forth to simply take in the words.

I wholeheartedly agree with Nabokov's explanation of being a good reader. If you liken everything in a story to your own life, you've missed the trolley entirely. At that point you've basically turned beauty or tragedy into your own surroundings thus robing the author of the vision (s)he may have had at the time of writing to some degree. At the same time if you simply read the book as a set of organized words and don’t liken it to anything familiar, you are just reading words for the sake of optic nerve exercise. He is right; enjoying a great writing does require a difficult balance, which is itself  hard to explain.

I believe the characteristics of a good reader are primarily patience, and concentration. My definition of patience closely matches Nabokov’s explanation of “re-reading.” I find re-reading indispensable when I’m studying or reading in my free time, and let’s face it, re reading takes serious time and patience. The other feature I hold in high regard is concentration –for me at the very least-. I only find when I weed out the author in the writing. When my image of the author becomes clear –and I don’t mean the picture on the dust jacket- I start to pick out what they are picturing, and I get the whole picture, not my own iteration.

I consider myself a ghastly reader. I hold myself in the highest contempt for my lack of being able to entirely absorb a story or scene. Granted I've read many books in my life, but I fear that every time I put one of them back on the shelf; I’ve overlooked some key detail, some glaring premise that everyone to read the story before me picked up on during their first read through. I've been told time and time again that there is no mystery to an author’s writings. I find this statement to be comprised of pure insanity, I defend that every author is a liar; and a good one at that.

I fear I have gone way over the response size limit, for this I apologize – and thank you for reading-.

Found my “authors are liars” statement interesting? I found this article from 2009 that makes some good points about the subject during a routine Google search just now. I found it amusing.