1. In The Garden of Forking Paths by Jorge Luis Borges, does the narrator, Yu Tsun believe in fate, or destiny? If so, please you evidence from the text.
2. In Drown by Junot Diaz, would you say that Yunior’s interactions with Beto were purely romantic? Please explain using evidence from the text.
1. When in the text do you realize that Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”is a satire? Is there a specific line or phrase?
2. In Herman Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener, why was Bartleby never reprimanded for his actions? What is it about his catch-phrase (“I would prefer not to”) that keeps him safe from punishment?
Seeing as I have read this story before, I felt as though I had a certain advantage over everyone else. I was sadly mistaken. As much as I enjoyed Herman Melville’s little story, it confused me to no end. I felt as though literally every single word Melville chose served some ulterior motive and because of that I remembered that I must put delicate care into reading it. The story is long enough as it is but I had to read over it methodically again and again in order to even begin to grasp at the themes that laid within the lines (though in all honesty I feel like I was grasping at straws). With that being said, I’ve decided to take on the challenge Professor Kaufman laid out before us last class and tried cross-examining one of my favorite lines in an attempt to flush out one of those themes from the literary bushes.
The line I’d like to discuss is Bartleby’s all-famous catch-phrase “I would prefer not to.” Short, simple, and direct; when read in Bartleby’s politely droll tone, the recipient (and reader) of his phrase would be almost forced to treat Bartleby tenderly no matter the circumstance. Every time the narrator asked of something from Bartleby, he would hear the same response. At times he would become agitated, but it never escalated into anything serious. Now why is that? Is it because the narrator is too craven (#GameOfThrones) to chew out his own employee or is it because he pities him? I’m pretty sure it’s the latter. When the narrator hears Bartleby’s gentle retort, he feels almost guilty; guilty of pushing his own employee to do something. To do the work he’s being paid for! By using the word “prefer” it’s as if Bartleby is denying to do someone a favor and because of that the narrator feels as though he’s being too forceful. You could say that by words alone, Bartleby effectively neutered (almost) everyone he spoke to.
In regards to my title, if Bartleby were alive today I’m 100% sure he’d be a hobo on the streets. Literally no one in this day and age would take that “I would prefer not to” B.S. regardless of how polite he said it. Ain’t nobody got time fo’ dat.
After our last class session, I’ve come to the conclusion that Voltaire wrote Candide, Or Optimism as a sharp critique of society. I feel like he was really taking shots at people who don’t have the courage to be more open minded; people who would rather let their religion do all the thinking for them. Because of that, I believe he adds “optimism” to the title because it reinforces his idea that blind faith is worse than no faith at all. You can really see this idea in the first part of Candide, when he is kicked out of the Baron’s castle and the unfortunate events that occur to him afterwards. From his “STRANGER DANGER!” scene to Cunegonde’s #resurrection, Candide’s optimism never falters (he can thank his philosophy master Pangloss for that). What really drives the point home is the fact that the only characters who get resurrected in this story are the ones who have caused Candide the most grief: Pangloss gave him a flawed view of the world with his blind optimism; the Baron represents the absurdity tradition poses by being someone who still believes in the rules of the class system (and lineage rights). Lastly, the relationship he had with Cunegonde represents the shallow traits every human shares and the fickle tendencies of “love.” It took three important people to die and be revived for Candide to realize that the world isn’t as great as he thought it as. But why should we care about what happens to Candide?
Ultimately, what makes Candide such a huge success is it’s universality it’s ability to be understood by the masses (and not just the philosophy snobs). Candide is Voltaire’s representation of the human race. Candide is easily swayed; he reflects all of the ideas his the people around him represent. He’s optimistic to a fault and he’s shallow. The worst part is that things never get better for Candide. He still ends up with his girl (even though he didn’t really want her anymore) and “lives happily ever after.” What kind of message is a depressing ending like that supposed to send? Maybe he’s trying to say that people should rather depend on themselves than speculate over the actions of an omnipotent being. Maybe he wanted people to realize that a big part of life is it’s harshness? Or maybe he was just bored and he needed to spice his life up by taking shots at everybody? Whatever motivated him must have been real important if it caused him to right a whole story about it and consequently caused me to write about that.
The full title of the essay by Dr. Jonathan Swift is A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burden to their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick. Sounds like a pamphlet you would find at your doctor’s office, and it reads like that too. In it, Swift describes his “foolproof” plan for saving his Irish brethren from poverty. Basically, Swift believes that the Irish peasantry can alleviate their economic struggles by selling their children to the wealthy as food. Don’t worry, he knows what he’s talking about. He’s a doctor.
In all seriousness, Swift wrote this essay as a sharp criticism of the overall inhuman sentiments towards the poor in Ireland during the time (1729). He goes to great lengths to explain how it would be cost-effective to sell the children and even describes various preparation techniques for them. At this point he sounds more like a chef than a doctor, especially when he says “A young 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.” He continues on by taking jabs at the very people who would be feasting upon the children by saying “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.” Not only was this was a hilarious essay, it also got the point across. It forced the people of Ireland to realize that the way their economy was set-up was detestable and that the only way things were going to improve would be if they banded together to lead an honest, more wholesome method without abusing anyone in the process.
At the moment I’m listening to this song called “I’m On 2.0” by a bunch of rappers and the first verse is by Big K.R.I.T.. What really stood out to me from it was when he said “Today is the day I get out on my feet/Remove them chains, they shackled on me…” That phrase hits me deep. It’s the start of a new semester, a new year and that means that I have a fresh start. I definitely needed that seeing as I laid an egg last semester. So in my own way I’m trying to “remove the chains” I shackled on myself last semester by completely trashing my grades and I’ll get back on my feet.