Annotated Bibliography Please read the two Bartleby critical articles attached, and write a one page summary of each article. Follow format attached in reference section

Annotated Bibliography Shusterman, David. "The" Reader Fallacy" and" Bartleby the Scrivener"." New England Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 1, 1972, pp. 118-124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/364228. Shusterman’s article is a critique of Liane Norman’s interpretation of the text ‘Bartleby the Scrivener’ originally written by Herman Melville. In this text, Shusterman critiques Norman’s methodological interpretation of Melville’s text by stating that what Norman has done is a reader’s fallacy or an affective fallacy by which he means that Norman has constructed by her review in the minds of her readers a confusion between the original text and its results. That, Norman has taken a stance in favour of the Lawyer, i.e., the narrator of the text and diminished the point of view of the other lead character of the text i.e., Bartleby. That, in her review, she has propagated a view that is laissez-faire based, democratic, and stands on Christian codes of values which she believes in which might not be true for many other readers. By the term reader’s fallacy, Shusterman means that a reviewer, i.e., Norman in this case cannot give supremacy to their view as the only important view that mostly all other readers relate with, as a text is an original text which can have varied interpretations by varied readers with no one point of view holding the dominant value. He states that Melville himself has written the text in such a way that it is ambiguous till the end by which he gives his readers a choice to take any stance they relate with. Thus, in totality Shusterman has argued by quoting Newton Arvin’s words that Bartleby is both a setting of a Wall Street house law office and a cosmic madhouse as it has the quality of suggesting varied meaning none of which exhausts its connotativeness. Page Break Pinsker, Sanford. "" Bartleby the Scrivener": Language as Wall." College Literature, vol. 2, no. 1, 1975, pp. 17-27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25111055. Pinsker’s article reviews the text ‘Bartleby the Scrivener’ originally written by Herman Melville through the medium of language and walls. Pinsker argues that a text like Bartleby with a disaffected character Bartleby and a disaffected author can be only understood through the prism of its narrator the lawyer whose interpretation is crucial in understanding the story. That, a text like Bartleby can be only understood through the medium of language its narrator uses as the text is less concerned with directly offering any convictions or possibilities to its readers and is only marked with demonstrating barriers that hinder the process. Further, he says the element of ‘walls’ is another central motif to understand the text, displayed through the subtitle ‘A Story of the Wall Street’, seen between the walls between different characters, seen in the incomprehensibility of the narrator to interpret Bartleby and also seen through walls of language that makes difficult to understand humans and their interpretations. He argues that the language of Bartleby is not the major concern of the text, rather the language of the narrator and his experiences and views on the entire situation is the key focus of the text. That, the views of the narrator display a self-serving rhetoric and not an existential reality, seen in his attempt to describe Turkey and Nippers, seen in his explanations describing Bartleby as a difficult intruder and being incomprehensible, overall displaying the bureaucratic mind as its peak functionality of the narrator. Thus, in totality, Pinker through this article argued how language is a medium of control that simultaneously imposes and creates reality and how this text displays a dilemma between rhetoric and existential reality.