Entry 3

“Bartleby, The Scrivener”

   “Bartleby, The Scrivener” is a short story written by Herman Melville.

     Bartleby is one of Melville’s most debated short stories. It has been discussed by many critics throughout the years but there is not one correct answer or interpretation. We can only point out the possible interpretations there can be and understand Bartleby through our own reading. Much of this is due to the fact that we know so little about the character. At the same time we know how much “he prefers not to”, which is perhaps, the key to try to understand him.

     The only thing we know about Bartleby is that he had worked in a “dead letter office”. Perhaps he thought that job was meaningful or perhaps he read some letters. Reading letters, which he knew would never be delivered, might have made an impact on him – the fragile and mortal side of life and people.

    This short story is marked by the power of saying “no”, the power of choice, the idea of resistence but also about how deeply can someone be affected by life and society. Bartleby is depicted as “forlorn”, “pale” and reserved. Melville’s description of the surrounding walls is a clue to understand Bartleby’s mind. In my opinion, he was tired of life. He saw the walls growing around him as if we was being “boxed in”. This can be interpreted along with the subtitle “A Wall Street Story” – the rise of a commercial society and of dehumanizing labour which Bartleby did not want be part of. He died to prove the strength of his will and died alone, immersed in is individuality, his willingness but at the same time with the weight of the world crushing him down.

I will try to answer three of the questions that are in the study guide in this site: http://www.whatsoproudlywehail.org/

·         What do you think of the lawyer’s treatment of Bartleby? Is it commendable? Deplorable? Understandable? Or something else? Is there anything else the lawyer should have done? How would you act if you were in the lawyer’s place?

The first thing I thought was that no boss would tolerate such an attitude, especially nowadays. But the narrator also had a funny personality, in the sense that he wanted to be supportive and understanding, more to feel good about himself, than anything else. Due to Bartleby’s emotionless manner, I find it difficult to see how the narrator could help him or react in a different way.

The narrator points out frequently how disarmed he felt towards B. behavior. I think this is interesting. I often think about people who are so direct and confident that we do not know how to react towards them. For example, if a person, who does nothing wrong, who does his job perfectly well, but at the same times looks fragile and lonely and yet has the “courage” to say “he prefers not to” with such calmness and willfulness we are then surprised by their courage. Or we explode with that person or we just don’t know what to say and how to react because often that person is doing so because he has a reason, we just don’t know what reason is it. This is the reason why the narrator felt disarmed and did not react towards Bartleby.what disarmed the narrator and that is why he took so long to react towards B.

·         Why does Bartleby “prefer not to” perform more and more actions throughout the story? Does this say more about the nature of the work or more about the state of his soul?

I believe that Bartleby is not only making a social statement. I believe that he is in a very fragile state of mind but he has the strength to hold on to his individuality, which is probably all that he has. We should keep in mind that he always said “no” as a preference - he did not just answer the narrator with a straight “no”, which would have changed the entire meaning of the story, but rather that he “preferred” not to. This might state the power of having a choice and he prefers not to. I think this is a clear evidence about our freedom of choice and our willfulness in refusing something. The difficulty here is to find out what moves Bartleby.

     The fact that he works nonstop in the beginning and that the narrator points out how much he admires his good service (although his manner is rather strange), gives me the idea that he wants to say that he can do the job very well, without any difficulty and with the utmost efficiency but because the work is so automatic and non-creative he starts doing less and less in the office. Here we can see the social message (which has, of course, an implicit personal side to it). Nobody forced B. to be a scrivener and perhaps we can assume that he knew what the job would be like. So I am really starting to think that he wanted to prove something but in a rather odd way. It seemed odd that he kept saying “no” but did not actually do anything, meaning he did not rebel against something in a practical matter and in the end he just dies. Maybe just saying “no” was rebellious enough. On the other hand, I can understand why there are critics who say that he might have been a troubled person. Maybe he took individuality to the extreme.

What do you make of his “profound conviction” that the easiest life is the best? Do

you share this conviction?

Like many, the layer prefers security above all. He prefers to have “prudence” and “method”. Personally, I do think that prudence can be a good quality and a bad one. Perhaps that is way Melville presented us such opposed personalities (lawyer and Bartleby). Bartleby proved not to be so prudent or even “a safe men”, but he had something that his boss did not have: courage and the will “to take the road not taken”, the road only few take. Personally, the easiest way of life often doesn’t fill my soul. I discovered that fighting for something tastes much better than when things are too easy accomplished. I understood that accepting is not always something to be proud about and throughout my life I understood how difficult saying “No” is and at the same time how necessary it is.

To conclude, the lawyer is touched by Bartleby’s death. I think that he understood that it takes a lot to be a Bartleby but at the same time, due to his personality, he does not feel bad for leading the life he did and by thinking that life should be easy.