Sunday, April 27, 2008
Don't we "prefer not to"?
A majority of the posts exuded some level of anger for the current plight the United States finds itself in with the war in Iraq. There was a universal concern for why we are still over there and when enough fighting is indeed enough. On the fifth page of the Bartelby reading I found that Bartelby's threshold was reached. Bartleby had the occupation of writing - the reading even brings out that he did an "extraordinary quantity of writing" - but his hands had grown weak and when he was asked by the narrator to take on another task for him, he retorted "I would prefer not to" (Bartleby, 5). Indeed, as a nation the US is slowly, but surely coming to this same conclusion that they "would prefer not to" be in Iraq. This similar theme of preferring not to be at war was a common focal point amongst a great multitude of the blogs in the first week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think this is partially because it is human nature to be impatient as it is to complain. We simply do not like the feeling of waiting for an expected outcome to occur.
I agree with you on the notion of our country "preferring not to" be in war, but if our country acts as Bartleby did, in a very stagnant and unproductive manner, then "preferring not to" be in war will simply be a mere attitude. Nothing will stem from attitudes, where as something will stem from action.
The country cannot "prefer not to" be in the war and leave it at that can they? The motive of the idea doesn't reflect the purpose (which could be interpreted as our country remaining motionless, actionless, with arms pouted and a frowned face...)
As Shakespeare once wrote in King Lear: May nothing come of nothing. "Preferring not to" could simply result in nothing coming of nothing - a stalemate in the war.
Post a Comment