Þýtt og endursagt af Nínu Rúnu Kvaran

Afhjúpun lygarans:
Listin að koma upp um lygalaupa

Í kvikmyndinni ,,True Romance”, rétt áður en Christopher Walken skýtur Dennis Hopper í höfuðið fyrir að skrökva, þá heldur hinn illi Walken fyrirlestur yfir fórnarlambi sínu um hinar 17 aðferðir Sikileyinga til þess að sjá hvort að maður er að ljúga. Hvort þetta er sikileysk staðreynd eða aðeins uppspuni handritshöfundarins Tarantino skiptir kannski ekki sköpum, en það er aftur á móti staðreynd að það er hægt að koma upp um lygalaupa.
Fylgist með handahreyfingum
,,Lygarar reyna alltaf að leggja áherslu á orð sín með ýktum handahreyfingum. Það dregur athyglina frá andlitinu og gerir orðin áhrifameiri”, segir David Taylor sálfræðilegur ráðgjafi. ,,Þetta er ósjálfrátt varnarkerfi sem á að vinna gegn því að upp um fólk komist en er í raun mjög uppljóstrandi ef menn eru meðvitaðir um það.”
Hlustið á takt orðræðunnar
Þegar fólk lýgur þá afbakar það vanalega á einn eða annan hátt sína eigin vanalegu orðræðu. ,,Setningar sem leiða að lyginni eru oft sagðar í flýti þar sem fólk er oftast óþreyjufullt að koma sér að sjálfri lyginni”, segir Diane Kingsley talmeinafræðingur. ,,Að lyginni lokinni fellur taktur orðræðunnar aftur í eðlilegt horf.”
Prófið minnið
,,Tilgangur lyganna er að koma fólki úr vandræðum og þegar lygin er sögð þá á hún það til að falla fljótt í gleymsku”, segir þjónustufulltrúinn Alice Mulcahy. ,,Ef mig grunar að fólk sé að ljúga í viðtölum hjá mér, þá legg ég atvikið á minnið og varpa því síðan fram seinna og bið fólk að segja mér nánar frá því. Ef viðkomandi var að ljúga þá man hann oftast ekkert eftir því sem ég er að tala um.”
Hlustið á raddblæinn
Diane Kingsley talmeinafræðingur segir enn fremur: ,,Þegar fólk lýgur þá er því hættara við að vera meðvitað um sína eigin rödd og þá er sterk tilhneiging fyrir því að raddblærinn breyti um tónhæð, þó ekki sé nema í sekúndubrot. Það að tala er okkur vanalega svo eðlislægt að við tökum ekkert eftir því, en augnabliksálag með þurrk í munni og örari hjartslátt getur haft djúpstæð áhrif á röddina og valdið því að hún titrar örlítið eða brotnar jafnvel alveg.”
Leiddu lygarann í gildru
,,Við beitum okkar eigin blekkingum”, segir Simon Newman. ,,Þegar ég var í Devon & Cornwall lögreglunni þá þurftum við stundum að eiga við náunga sem komu frá London til þess að selja fíkniefni. Ef við tókum þá niður á stöð tiil yfirheyrslu þá áttu þeir það til að gefa okkur fölsk heimilisföng í nágrenninu til þess að sleppa. Þá sögðum við stundum: ,,Já, ég veit hvar þetta er, þarna rétt hjá keiluhöllinni?” Og þeir sögðu: ,,Já, einmitt” og vissu náttúrulega ekki að það var engin keiluhöll í bænum.”
Fylgist með augnsambandi
Það er óvenjulegt þegar fólk á í samræðum við einhvern og myndar ekki augnsamband, jafnvel þó ekki sé nema af og til og það staðfestir toll-og landamæravörður nokkur sem er orðinn gamall í hettunni: ,,Það er alltaf tilefni til tortryggni ef fólk myndar ekki augnsamband. Einu sinni lenti ég í því að maður sem ætlaði að keyra sendibíl í gegnum hliðin hjá okkur, bara myndaði alls ekkert augnsamband þegar ég talaði við hann. Hann virtist undrandi þegar við stoppuðum hann og báðum hann að fylgja okkur inn í tollskýlið en þegar málið var rannsakað frekar þá fundum við heilan farm af kössum fullum af tequila í bílnum”.
Varist flóttalegt augnaráð
,,Mitt starf felst mikið í því að hlusta á lygarnar í fólki”, segir einkaspæjarinn Tony Barnes, ,,en ég er með nánast 100% öruggt próf til að koma upp um það. Um leið og menn fara að skjóta augunum til vinstri þá veit ég að þeir ljúga. Fólk reynir að þykjast vera upptekið við að horfa á eitthvað en í raun er það bara að koma upp um sig.”
Hlustið eftir óhóflegum smáatriðum og staðreyndum
Simon Jodrell lögreglusálfræðingur hefur þetta að segja um málið: ,,Undir venjulegum kringumstæðum þá flæða staðreyndir eins og nöfn og staðarheiti eðlilega og hóflega fram í samtali. En í samræðum sem byggjast á blekkingum þá ræður lygarinn ekki við þörfina til þess að skreyta frásögn sína með einhverjum áþreifanlegum staðreyndum. Þannig að það sem þú heyrir er oft algjörlega ofskreytt og fullt af ónauðsynlegum upplýsingum sem troðið er inn í lygina til þess að gefa henni raunveruleikablæ.
Varist ofnotkun orðatiltækja
Með þessu er átt við að menn ættu að taka eftir mikilli notkun orðatiltækja eins og : ,,Þú veist hvað ég meina”, ,,sko” og ,,eða þannig”. Þau eru notuð til þess að fylla upp í þá þögn sem getur myndast þegar lygarinn tapar þræðinum vegna truflana eða skorts á þekkingu á því sem hann lýgur um. Þegar fólk lýgur og bullar þá vantar það oft þann grunn sem liggur í því að segja sannleikann og þarfnast tíma til þess að hugsa upp lygina og þann tíma fyllir það upp með tilgangslausum orðatiltækjum.




Composition II: February 20th 2002
Eva Heisler


Bartleby
Nína Rúna Kvaran

Most of us have at one time or another experienced the sensation of hyper self-consciousness. The feeling of being watched by everyone or even being the victim of some kind of conspiracy has probably made itself familiar to all of us at some period in our lives. Many go through times of insecurity and paranoia, thinking the whole world is against them. It’s a miserable feeling of alienation and often afflicts those who have low self-esteem and a poor self-image.
The purpose of this essay is to look at the point of view of the narrator of Herman Melville’s short story “Bartleby the Scrivener” and show how it influences the development of the plot and theme as the story unravels. The intention is to demonstrate how the narrator’s lack of assertiveness contributes to a chain of bizarre events that create the most uncommonly and unacceptable circumstances and lead him to a state of paranoia.
“Bartleby the Scrivener” is one of the first American stories that take place in an office. It’s a 1st person narrative, the narrator being a lawyer of about sixty and the employer of four rather peculiar characters. Turkey is a red-faced elderly gentleman who works best in the mornings but gets gradually more irritable and useless as the day runs its course. Another copyist is Nippers, a young piratical-looking man that suffers from “indigestion” (most likely hangovers) in the mornings and isn’t really up to speed on anything until in the afternoon. There is also a twelve-year-old office boy that goes by the name of Ginger Nut, not to mention the eponymous character, Bartleby.
Bartleby is an excellent copyist at first, but then the narrators carefully describes how he starts “preferring” not to do things, eventually succumbing to an almost immobile state. The story deals with the narrator’s evasive reactions to Bartley’s behaviour and how his constant avoidance of conflict leads to him moving his whole office rather than being assertive enough to throw Bartleby out.
Melville wrote “Bartleby the Scrivener” in ca.1853 and the story is a good example of what professor Martin Regal calls “Melville’s compulsion to write about the un-interpretable”. When one reads the story for the first time, it’s easy to assume that Bartleby is the most important character. Of course there wouldn’t be a story to tell if it wasn’t for his peculiar existence but in fact we know almost nothing about him. He is the “un-interpretable” factor in the story because he lacks everything. Bartleby is a blank page. The only thing we know of him is the fact that he worked at a dead letter office. He is distant and cold and seems to have no emotional or social needs and even though he works very well in the beginning, these strange characteristics are already evident: “But he wrote on silently, palely, mechanically”. We know nothing about his motives or what exactly lies behind his astonishing behaviour. One day he simply starts saying “I would prefer not to” and he gradually uses that sentence more and more, eventually not doing any work and “preferring” not to leave the office! We have the descriptions of the narrator and since his behaviour has considerable influence on the plot, I think it’s justifiable to think of him as the main character.
The narrator is an easy-going fellow with a meek temperament, which is not surprising since his life’s motto is “that the easiest way of life is the best”. He explains to the reader that despite being of the infamously energetic and neurotic law profession, he has rarely let anything disturb his peace of mind. He is an extremely tolerant boss and has accepted the eccentricities of both Turkey and Nippers in the most compliant way. Instead of becoming furiously annoyed by their abnormal work ethics he tries to make the best of the situation and convinces himself that they compliment each other because when one is being useless the other one isn’t. To use his own words: “This was a good natural arrangement under the circumstances”.
It’s easy to assume that the narrator is just being a diplomat because the ability to compromise is very important for a boss. But his leniency towards Turkey and Nippers has created a situation where he is getting the work of one man for the price of two and his constant avoidance of conflict gets him into serious trouble when he has to face the most eccentric and difficult employee of them all, Bartleby.
Concerning the robot-like character of Bartleby, it’s difficult to say what exactly Melville ment him to stand for. We only know the aforementioned; that he worked at a dead letter office and that he’s an excellent copyist. In that information we have two horrible notions for any writer. Firstly, the idea of writing something that will never be read as is the fate of all the letters in the dead letter office. Secondly, the idea of never having an opportunity to be creative in writing, but to constantly copy the works of others, as is the fate of the office workers in “Bartleby”.
But whether Bartleby is a symbol for frustrated writers or not, is not the main issue here because what he represents to the narrator is more important. Is he the ultimate test for a man that constantly avoids conflicts of any kind? There seems to be a considerable amount of self-denial going on in the mind of the narrator. He tries to claim that had it been anyone else other than Bartleby, he would not have been so lenient. The truth is that he has already demonstrated that he’s extremely tolerant towards his employees and I’m sure that he would under no circumstances fly “outright into a dreadful passion” as he puts it himself, no matter how badly provoked.
Another example of his insecurities is how he constantly asks his other employees for advice on how to handle Bartleby when he first starts to refuse to do certain assignments. He says: “Accordingly, if any disinterested persons are present, he turns to them for some reinforcement for his own faltering mind.” These are the first symptoms of paranoia starting to sink in. The narrator is so flabbergasted by Bartleby’s impudent and continuous refusals that he starts to seriously doubt his own appreciation of the situation. Even when Nippers, Turkey and Ginger Nut all agree on that Bartleby’s behaviour is unacceptable and outrageous, their boss is still not courageous enough to simply let the man go or at least reprimand him. Instead he convinces himself that Bartleby’s eccentricities are involuntary and that surely he means no harm with his “preferring “ not to do things. He decides to try his best to befriend the “poor fellow” and even refers to his own, and in my opinion, very natural inclination to give Bartleby a peace of his mind, an “evil impulse”, as if standing up and using his lawful right as Bartleby’s boss to reprimand him, was something quite horrible and unthinkable.
As the situation evolves, Bartleby comes to a total stand still. His boss discovers that he is living in the office 24 hours a day but his pity for Bartleby is so great that he has immense trouble trying to fire him. It’s almost as if he believes that doing anything to upset the drone-like tranquillity of Bartleby might bring some disastrous misfortunes upon himself. As he contemplates Bartleby’s inevitable dismissal he says to himself: “…nevertheless I strangely felt something superstitious knocking at my heart, and forbidding me to carry out my purpose, and denouncing me for a villain if I dared to breathe one bitter word against this forlornest of mankind”.
Another interesting example of the increasing paranoia of the narrator is when he realises that the word “prefer” so obstinately used by Bartleby, has started to manifest itself in his own dialogues with Turkey and Nippers, almost as if it had a mind of its own. As he puts it himself: “I thought to myself, surely I must get rid of a demented man, who already has in some degree turned the tongues, if not the heads of myself and clerks”. The word “prefer” has come to symbolise all his problems with Bartleby and his own involuntary use of it is eerie, to say the least. As if Bartleby’s special kind of dementia is rubbing off on the others, spreading like an incurable infection of emptiness.
When Bartleby finally decides to give up copying all together, making himself completely useless as a scrivener in the process, but having no intention of leaving the office, the narrator finally takes the plunge and fires him, realising that Bartleby has become “…a millstone to him, not only useless as a necklace, but afflicting to bear”. He generously gives Bartleby six days to remove himself from the premises, which of course he does not. This casts another spell of hysteria over the narrator as he imagines what might happen if the situation is left to thrive like this. He sees himself being ridiculed by peers of the law profession and his reputation in ruins. He even contemplates the possibility of Bartleby “outliving him, and eventually claiming possession of his office by rights of perpetual occupancy.” The narrator has let his fears bring himself to a miserable state of paranoia but despite that, he does not face his fears but rather moves his whole office to another building so as to escape having to physically throw Bartleby out or set the police on him.
I think that there is a definite theme of how not facing one’s fears can diminish ones sense of self-worth, not to mention damage the view others have of one’s character. I’m not sure whether a different reaction from the narrator would have made any difference to Bartleby who eventually ends up in jail where he slowly starves himself to death. But as has been stated before, I don’t think Bartleby is the main issue in the story but rather how people around him handle his amazing behaviour. The narrator is so afraid to take definite action against his “office problem” that he rather goes through immense trouble avoiding conflicts and humiliates himself in the process. I doubt that anything could have been done to “save” Bartleby, his way was doomed to be a dead end almost from the start, but the narrator could have handled the situation in a manner that was more respectable for his own person. He eventually runs away from the “problem”, leaving it for others to solve, knowing full well that the police would eventually be called for. His behaviour is in fact no less perplexing than Bartleby’s. There are likely many things that can be interpreted from this story but I think that there is a moral to be found in it. It isn’t always good to be too kind and lenient to people because excessive leniency can backfire. To be able to stand up for one’s right is very important for the self-image and one is not necessarily doing people any good by constantly humouring them.