Bartleby_the_Scrivener

"Bartleby, the Scrivener" by Herman Melville "Bartleby, the Scrivener" is narrated by a Wall Street lawyer who deals in investment opportunities for wealthy clients. The story centers on a "scrivener," (law-copyist) for the law firm and the strange behavior he exhibits during and after he is employed by the lawyer. The first thought I had about this story was "why'" Why did the lawyer keep Turkey and Nippers when they caused him so many problems' What is the reason for Bartleby's unusual behavior' Why did the lawyer feel so strongly for Bartleby' Why did the lawyer allow Bartleby to "prefer not to"' Why didn't the lawyer have Bartleby forcibly removed by the police or committed to an insane asylum' What is the meaning of the use of all the walls in the story' Is the lawyer sincere about his charity towards Bartleby, or this charity self-gratifying' A few of these questions are answered below. Urban society in the late 19th century is one of the major themes of this story. It was important then, as it often is now, to conform to a certain role in order to be recognized. The lawyer is described as a "rather elderly man" who is generally level-headed, industrious and has a good mind for business. The lawyer is "a man who, from his youth upwards, has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best" (Melville, 878). The lawyer not only wants a contention free life for himself, but is willing to permit others the same privilege of a similarly contention free life. The lawyer adjusts himself to his clerks peculiarities and rarely comments or tries to regulate them. Critic Thomas R. Mitchell stated that "the restlessness and turbulence of Nippers and Turkey cannot disturb the narrator's peace; ironically, it takes Bartleby's quintessential passivity to do that. Bartleby's passive refusal to be reasonable to be accommodating, to be anything really but a cadaverous spectre of a man, disconcerts the narrator and forces him out of his 'snug retreat'" (Mitchell, par. 15). Mitchell discusses in depth in his article that the lawyer "is anything but conventionally 'prudent' and 'methodical' in his willingness to tolerate disorder and eccentricity, that indeed he is willing to be at the mercy of his employees as long as he can reach an accommodation he can rationalize" (Mitchell, par. 14). Mitchell is correct and "rationalize" is exactly what the lawyer tries to do... with everything. "No conservative businessman who truly loves peace, professional reputation, and profits -- then or today -- would keep two obstreperous, half-productive employees when he could easily replace them with two less troublesome, fully productive employees" (Mitchell, par. 11). The lawyer, by his own admission, is an apathetic, tranquil, creature of habit. He chose this line of work simply because it was the least turbulent and did not require a great deal of effort on his part. Those who know him, consider him to be an "eminently safe man" (Melville, 878). The lawyers apathetic attitude is reflected by the way he manages his employees. The shortcomings exhibited by Turkey and Nippers would cause most employers to immediately dismiss them both. The lawyer, however, would "prefer not to" be bothered with the task of confronting them. Instead, he keeps the arduous employees, reasoning that they are valuable to him in many ways. Critic Mark Elliott brings up the point that "[in] Bartleby Melville created a highly ambiguous symbol that cannot be reduced to a single meaning or interpretation... All the reader knows about Bartleby is learned through the point of view of the lawyer. Thus, it may be worth considering that what Bartleby 'really means' is not as important as what he means to the lawyer" (Elliott, 2,3). The lawyer is fascinated by Bartleby's mysterious behavior. He's also furious and frustrated by the behavior. The lawyer empathizes with Bartleby, which symbolizes his own tendencies to withdraw and isolate himself from the outside world. Elliott's critique reminded me that what we are seeing of Bartleby is not necessarily an objective view because it is being told by the narrator/lawyer. Bartleby starts out as an excellent copyist. The lawyer is thrilled to have a "man of so singularly sedate in aspect" in his employment to counteract the volatile nature of his other employees (Melville, 882). The lawyer initially appreciates Bartleby's quiet, consistent and "mechanical" work ethic, because it's exactly like his own. When Bartleby is asked to examine his work for errors and he replies that he "would prefer not to," the lawyer is "stunned." He's sure that he must have misunderstood Bartleby's reply (Melville, 883). The lawyer became increasingly annoyed with Bartleby's refusal to do his job, but there is something about Bartleby that both "strangely disarmed” and “in a wonderful manner, touched and disconcerted” him (Melville, 884). The more Bartleby "prefer[s] not to," the harder the lawyer tries to negotiate with him. It's almost like it becomes a game to the lawyer -- he wants to see what it would take to break Bartleby. Thomas Mitchell stated, "if he is immobilized by Bartleby's passivity the first time, he is genuinely moved to sympathy on the second occasion" (Mitchell, par. 16). Bartleby's preference "not to" causes the lawyer to embark on a journey of self-reflection that gradually alters his perception of himself and of the world. The lawyer's actions show an unusual consideration for his employees. Critic Walter Anderson believes that "the good in the lawyer is mere appearance, his failure in charity is the reality" (Anderson, par. 2). Anderson goes on to explain that "even in testing a most tolerant and sympathetic man, one inevitably reaches the point when charity gives way to self-preservation" (Anderson, par. 7). I believe the lawyer is both protecting and gratifying himself. The lawyer has a reputation to uphold. He doesn't want to lose all he's worked for, just to protect Bartleby. He also has other employees' livelihood to consider. Anderson stated: The spontaneous intermixing of benevolence and self-profit in reflections of this kind is more normal and natural than we would like to admit even to ourselves. Before emerging, charity usually meets conditions set by prudence and common sense, as proved by anyone who immediately accompanies his charitable contribution with the satisfying thought that not only is his conscience appeased and a good public or self image cheaply purchased, but it is tax deductible. That man has made charity a part of his social existence, even as he makes it serve his self-interest, is nothing less than a spectacular development which, while not separating him from his primordial roots, places him far above them (Anderson, par. 15). When the lawyer moves his offices to a new location instead for forcibly having Bartleby removed, he was again protecting both himself and Bartleby. He was also protecting himself from Bartleby (at least he believed he was). Leo Marx explained the lawyers charity when he stated, "were it not for his professional friends and clients he would have condoned Bartleby's presence indefinitely" (Marx, 7). By the threat to his reputation, the lawyer returned to his previous office to reason with Bartleby. When the reasoning failed, the lawyer even offered for Bartleby to live in his home. This charity was not completely selfless; I believe that the lawyer was trying to hide Bartleby to avoid further public embarrassment while he figured out what to do. The lawyer was also trying to save face with his colleagues by removing Bartleby and thereby temporarily solving the problem (Melville, 900, 901). "Bartleby the Scrivener" is an entertaining, but somewhat puzzling story. Bartleby is every employer's nightmare. Most of us have worked with a "Bartleby" who slacks on their job so other's have to pull their weight. The lawyer's compassion for his employees is somewhat understandable. Turkey, Nippers and Bartleby are all underdogs. The lawyer has sympathy for the underdogs. Turkey and Nippers cancel out each other's eccentricities, but Bartleby takes eccentric to a new level. Eventually someone must put their foot down to ensure that everyone pulls their own weight. The lawyer can't hide from this forever. This story has helped me pay closer attention to and better understand the literary process. I tend to just read a story and take it at face value instead of looking beyond the words. I tend to "prefer" to read whatever it is I need to and to get on with my next task. It's ironic that the characters in the story began to echo the word "prefer" without really being aware of it. By definition, when we prefer to do or not to do something, we are making a choice. Turkey and Nippers echoed Bartleby's words, but ironically, never made any choices. Bartleby chose not to participate in his job at the law firm or in any aspect of life. The lawyer chose to avoid conflict and take the easiest path possible. We've all chosen the easiest path and would "prefer not to" once in a while. In the end, there's a little bit of "Bartleby" and the lawyer in all of us. Works Cited: Charters, Ann. "Bartleby, the Scrivener." 2011. The Story and Its Writer An Introduction to Short Fiction. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 878-904. Print. Anderson, Walter E. "Form and Meaning in 'Bartleby the Scrivener'" Multi-Subject Database. Houston Community College System. Web. 29 Oct. 2010. Elliott, Mark. "An Overview of 'Bartleby the Scrivener'" Literature Resource Center Database. Houston Community College System. Web. 29 Oct. 2010. "Bartleby, the Scrivener Melville, Herman - Leo Marx (essay date 1953)." Short Story Criticism. Ed. Drew Kalasky. Vol. 17. Gale Cengage, 1995. eNotes.com. 2006. 8 Nov, 2010