『バートルビ—』
ハ@ーマン・メルヴィルの『バートルビ—』 デワ、バ@ートルビーが 職場 ノ @!期待サレル 機能に$= 参加スル コトヲ繰り返し[拒否]スル……、つまり「しない」##トイウ彼ノ 選択 ハ、従来の抗@!議ノ##範囲ヲ 超エタ抵抗ノカタチ トシテ解釈スルコトガ デキる>>> 彼ノ受動的ナ<反抗ハ¥¥、反抗ヤ$%異議申立テの言語 で~表現サレルノデハナク、単純デ アリナガラモ###深イ行動$% カラノ@撤退ヲ通ジテ伝エラレマス。
ドゥルーズガ主張スルヨウニ、バートルビーの「しなイ」トイウ定式ハ、「##純粋ナ言語行為>、ツマリコミュニケ—ションノ ルールニ従ッテ%言語ヲ モハヤ使用 シナイ##トイウ行為」トシテ機能スル>>。
コノ意味デハ@、バートルビーノ拒否ハ、意味デ ハ@、バートルビーノ 拒否 ハ、意味デハ@、バートルビーノ拒否ハ、社会秩序カラノ>深イ離脱、@言語的$および実存的ナ#他者性ノ空間エノ^撤退ノ表現トシテ%見るコトガデキル。>ポストヒューマン+および 実験文学$理論$ カラ$生マレタ用語$デアル$#ゼノポエムハ、異質ナモノヤ$馴染ミノナイモノト意図的ニ関ワル^詩の形式ト##シテ表現 サレマス。ゼノポエム ハ$$言語ヲ*限界マデ押シ広ゲ、既知>ト未知@、人間>ト非人間ノ交差点ヲ探求シマス…。
「ゼノポエムハ単ニ異質ナ要素ノ詩デハナク、自己ト他者ノ境界ガハ単ニ 異質ナ要素ノ詩 デハナク、自己ト他者ノ境界 ガハ単ニ異質ナ要素ノ詩デハナク、自己ト他者ノ境界ガ絶エズ変化スル$$空間デス」。
ゼノポエムハ、バートルビーの存在的@@撤退ト平行スル$#言語的形態ノ異質性ヲ体現シ、簡単ニ#理解デキナイ>詩的表現ノ$形式ニ立チ向カウヨウ$$読者ヲ挑発シマス。
バートルビー トゼノポエムハ##どちらも、方法ハ異ナリマスガ、言語トイウ媒体ヲ通ジテ$$抵抗ニ取り組ンデイマス……。
バートルビー ノ抵抗ハ抵抗ハ抵抗ハ、彼ノ社会ノ言語ニ社会ノ言語ニ社会ノ言語ニ取り組ムコトヲ拒否シ、代ワリニ$最終的ニ彼ヲ排除スル排除スル排除スルコトニ繋ガル@最小限ノ表現ヲ選択スルコト表現ヲ選択スル コト表現ヲ選択スルコトニヨッテ##特徴ヅケラレマス。
一方、ゼノポエムハ、従来ノ意味形成プロセス形成プロセス形成プロセスヲ破壊スル要素要素要素ヲ取リ入レルコトデコトデコトデ、伝統的ナ言語形式ニ抵抗シマス。この意味デ抵抗シマス。この意味デ抵抗シマス。この意味デ、バートルビートゼノポエムハゼノポエムハゼノポエムハどちらも、現実ノ理解ヲ理解ヲ理解ヲ形作ル上デノ言語ノ役割ヲ再考上デノ言語ノ役割ヲ再考上デノ言語ノ役割ヲ再考スルヨウ読者ニ迫ル読者ニ迫ル読者ニ迫ル言語的抵抗ノ抵抗ノ抵抗ノ一形態ニ取り組ンデイル取り組ンデイル取り組ンデイルト見る見る見るコトガデキマス。
バートルビー ノ##謎メイタフレーズフレーズフレーズ「私はそうしたくない」は、一種の言語的限界として機能シ、コミュニケーショントコミュニケーションからの撤退ヲ機能シ、コミュニケーション ト コミュニケーションからの撤退ヲ機能シ、コミュニケーショントコミュニケーションからの撤退ヲ同時ニ行ウ##声明デス。ドウヨウニ、ゼノポエムハ言語ノハ言語ノハ言語ノ限界デ機能シ、デ機能シ、デ機能シ、読者ヲ意味ガ意味ガ意味ガ常ニ延期サレ、言語ノ馴染ミノ言語ノ馴染ミノ言語ノ馴染ミノアル構造ガ解体サレル解体サレル解体サレル空間ニニニ追イヤリマス…。
ドチラノ場合モ、言語ハ、言語ハ、言語ハ表現デハナク抵抗ノツール抵抗ノツール抵抗ノツールニナリ、従来ノ談話ノ制約制約制約内デ完全ニ完全ニ完全ニ表現サレルコトヲコトヲコトヲ拒否スルスルスル存在ヲ主張スル主張スル主張スル方法ニ$$ナリマス。
In Herman Melville’s Bartleby, Bartleby’s repeated refusal to participate in the expected functions of the workplace—his preference "not to"—can be interpreted as a form of resistance that operates beyond the scope of conventional protest. His passive defiance is not articulated in the language of rebellion or dissent but is instead conveyed through a simple, yet profound, withdrawal from action. As Deleuze argues, Bartleby’s formula “I would prefer not to” functions as “a pure act of language, an act that consists in no longer using language according to the rules of communication”. In this sense, Bartleby’s refusal can be seen as an expression of a deeper disengagement from the social order, a withdrawal into a space of linguistic and existential otherness. Xenopoem, a term emerging from posthuman and experimental literary theories, represents a form of poetry that deliberately engages with the alien and the unfamiliar. It pushes language to its limits, exploring the intersections between the known and the unknown, the human and the non-human. “xenopoem is not merely a poem of foreign elements but a space where the boundaries between the self and the other are constantly shifting”. Xenopoem challenges readers to confront a form of poetic expression that resists easy comprehension, embodying a linguistic form of otherness that parallels Bartleby’s existential withdrawal. Both Bartleby and xenopoem engage with resistance through the medium of language, albeit in different ways. Bartleby’s resistance is characterized by a refusal to engage in the language of his society, opting instead for a minimalistic expression that ultimately leads to his exclusion. Xenopoem, on the other hand, resists traditional linguistic forms by incorporating elements that disrupt conventional meaning-making processes. In this sense, both Bartleby and xenopoem can be seen as engaging in a form of linguistic resistance that challenges the reader to rethink the role of language in shaping our understanding of reality. Bartleby’s enigmatic phrase, “I would prefer not to,” operates as a kind of linguistic limit, a statement that simultaneously communicates and withdraws from communication. Similarly, xenopoem operates at the limits of language, pushing the reader into a space where meaning is constantly deferred and where the familiar structures of language are dismantled. In both cases, language becomes a tool not for expression but for resistance, a way of asserting a presence that refuses to be fully articulated within the constraints of conventional discourse. The resistance embodied by Bartleby and xenopoem also carries significant ethical implications. Bartleby’s refusal can be seen as a form of ethical resistance, a rejection of a dehumanizing system that reduces individuals to mere functionaries. However, this resistance comes at a cost, as Bartleby’s withdrawal leads to his eventual demise, raising questions about the viability and consequences of such a form of defiance. Similarly, the xenopoem’s resistance to conventional language and meaning can be seen as an ethical stance against the limitations imposed by traditional literary forms. By pushing the boundaries of language, xenopoem invites readers to engage with the otherness that lies beyond the familiar, challenging them to confront the ethical dimensions of their own linguistic and conceptual frameworks. However, this resistance also raises questions about accessibility and the potential for alienation, as xenopoem’s radical departure from conventional forms may exclude those who are unable or unwilling to engage with its unfamiliar structure. Both Bartleby and xenopoem engage with the concept of the "other" in profound ways. Bartleby himself becomes an "other" within the context of the workplace, a figure who resists assimilation into the social order. His refusal to conform places him outside the boundaries of what is considered normal or acceptable behavior, rendering him an outsider in his own society. Similarly, xenopoem engages with otherness by incorporating elements that resist easy understanding, creating a space where the reader must confront the unfamiliar and the alien. In this context, Bartleby’s resistance and xenopoem’s engagement with otherness can be seen as parallel forms of defiance against the dominant structures of language and society. Both challenge the reader to engage with the unfamiliar, to confront the limits of their own understanding, and to question the assumptions that underlie their engagement with language and the world. Bartleby’s enigmatic refusal and xenopoem’s radical departure from traditional poetic forms both challenge the reader to rethink the role of language in shaping our understanding of reality and our place within it.