great works ii – 2850 jta 12:25-2:05: love letters from the world

Your responses on March 10^th:

(Just a note: A few of you were listed on the group’s title, but did not provide a post. If you were in this situation, you did not receive credit for being present.)

You all make compelling arguments for both Bartleby and the narrator as different kinds of heroes.

Traditional Hero: Bartleby:  Jiwoo; Jorge M.; Bintou; Jorge G.; Muneeb; Tara; Nicole; Jacquline; Michelle.  Here Bartleby’s refusal can be seen, as Jiwoo says, “the least he can do.”  This is often cited for modern heroes, that they live in a world where they are powerless to do anything but simply refuse to participate in an invalid society. Bintou and Tara point out that this is a kind of rebellion and so an action. Jaqueline makes a very interesting comment about Bartleby as qualifying for Aristotle’s tragic hero, and she points to the trait of nobility as proof, as Bartleby “takes the high road” of non-violence in his civil disobedience.

The narrator can also be seen as a traditional hero, in the sense that he does in fact act, when he does not do what is expected of him, and that is to fire him immediately. It’s interesting, because here is a provocative question: Can one sometimes “act” without acting? I think one can, but I wonder what others think? Nicole points out that the narrator, however, can be seen as acting, when he offers to take Bartleby home with him, and this is a very specific piece of evidence for her case. Jorge makes the comment that Bartleby’s death actually pointing to the “futility of our existence” proves that Bartleby in fact completes the heroic journey (but Bartleby didn’t send a letter to the narrator).

Anti-Hero: Daphne; Aly; Joseph; Farhan; Songyun

Bartleby can certainly be seen as the anti-hero, and his refusal, rather than being perceived as an act of civil disobedience, can be seen as simply giving up and doing nothing.

The narrator can, as well, be seen as the anti-hero. Yes, as Daphne points out, he connects Bartleby with humanity (and that is a very telling last line of the narrative). In other words, he sees that to be human is to be somehow already defeated, and the narrator, like Bartleby, can be seen as helpless here in this world. Joseph points out that the narrator, although seeing the deeper problem, never actually does anything, but just leaves his own offices. Farhan points to Bartleby’s isolationism, but the fact that his actions are inscrutable, makes him at best an anti-hero. Songyun puts Bartleby into this category, because he does not have the courage to act.

Satanic/Byronic Hero: Susanna; Keauna; Maria; Francesca; Joaquin; Onu;Rebecca;

Here, Bartleby’s refusal can certainly be seen as socially unacceptable, as Rebecca points out, and to defend this stance properly, one would have to show that his refusal could actually be potentially harmful for the society at large. Maria points out that Bartleby actually dies for his cause, and I wonder what others think? Francesca and Keauna make interesting comments, when they say that Bartleby is indeed rebelling, and even succumbing into Nihilism (which often could be said of the Satanic/Byronic hero). Joaquin sees Bartleby’s refusal as childish, and therefore socially unacceptable. Onu sees Bartleby’s behavior and actions as unjustified.

Other: Preston; Jamie

Preston makes a compelling argument for Bartleby being no hero at all, when he says that Bartleby acts “nonchalantly and without purpose.” Does Bartleby actually say anything to make us believe that he, in fact, in acting in a purposeful way? Are his actions enough to make us believe that? Just questions to think about. Jamie says that this is simply the case of a depressed individual, who cannot bring himself to live a viable life.