“Bartleby, the Scrivener” — Annotation Reflection

While I do believe that annotations are supposed to help the reader, I found them overwhelming and distracting during this assignment. Throughout the whole experience, on both sets of the annotated versions, I felt obligated to look at all the annotations. In some cases, it was interesting to see how certain lines or words referenced a historical moment or an outside literary piece, but at the same time, it felt like information overload. Almost every annotation seemed like a mini essay on its own. Furthermore, it was difficult to simultaneously process the main story, and then try to connect it to what the annotation described. However, that is not to say I did not learn more about the piece because I definitely did. I enjoyed reading the interpretations of the lines, especially the annotations specifically addressing Bartleby and his behavior. While reading the story I was a bit confused by Bartleby’s behavior, but after seeing annotations on Bartleby paired with someone else’s explanation helped clear some confusion. With all of this in mind, I am ambivalent towards these types of annotations. On one hand, the annotations do offer clarity and new perspectives, on the other a number of annotations and the thoroughness of each one can be too much to work with all at once. A positive factor from looking at these annotations is that they are good examples to reference when I have trouble annotating for an audience– which I am still having trouble with. The annotations on the Slate version were more formal, while the annotations on Genius had a more collaborative effort. However, seeing examples of both types helps me see how to go about annotating for other readers, not just myself.