Bartleby the Scrivener is a classic in literature, one whose name I was already familiar with before diving into the story proper. I enjoyed this story, even if Melville’s pacing is sometimes a bit too stagnant. I loved how the lawyer, despite his increasing frustration with Bartleby, would skirt around conflict in the interest of not making waves. I saw that as stemming from his overtly compartmentalized lifestyle, being perplexed by Bartleby’s behavior to the extant that he simply doesn’t address it in any assertive way.
While I enjoyed the comical nature in which Bartleby held onto his position, I was admittedly a little annoyed by him too. I suppose it’s because I was raised to have a good work ethic, and watching someone brood all day instead of attending to their job would be too much for me. But I understood Bartleby to be a man drained of any facility for the illusions of the modern business world. He came from the Dead Letters Office, and likely must have had his demeanor beaten down after such a dismal occupation, which would make it hard for him to genuinely care about coping legal documents.
When it came time to analyze the story, I kept coming back to the images of Bartleby’s motionless stare and the prominence of bricked up views out every window. With Bartleby standing motionless and in a somewhat perpetual malaise, he becomes the outcast from his busy-body coworkers. He stands outside of progress, of efficiency, and so acts as an anchor on all those around him who are happy cogs in a greater machine.
Bartleby would prefer not to do what us asked of him, and this perpetually perplexes the Lawyer. What I found interesting was how the Lawyer kept thinking himself a charitable man for keeping Bartleby on in his employment, yet he never truly helps him beyond the ramifications of his passive aggressive behavior. The lawyer also never asks just what it is Bartleby would prefer to be doing, which I think may have been a key question.
I couldn’t help connecting Bartleby to a couple of other pop culture appearances the titular character seems to make, specifically Jeff Smith’s epic Bone. This is a series of fantasy comics my wife and I read to our son. It’s a kind of Lord of the Rings-style book for kids, and in it there are a race of vicious-yet-bumbling monsters known as “Rat Creatures”. One of these rat creatures–a baby who has not yet learned to hate humans as the older ones have–ends up joining up with the group of good guys to help in the fight against evil. They name him Bartleby. Though its a bit of a stretch, I can see some parallels between the two characters. What I found more interesting, however, was how by simply naming a him after a famous character in literature Bartleby (in Bone) takes on more depth and symbolic meaning. The same kind of logic could be said for characters named “Judas”, as a more obvious example of the kinds of stigmas or traits that can be associated with a name. I saw how the Bartleby in Bone came to represent the outsider traits of Bartleby in Melville’s story, and I think it gave greater depth to the source material.
I love that in reading more classical literature I can make connections to more familiar modern day repercussions that stem from the same source. Once something becomes a familiar piece of a culture’s history, its effects trickle down into places you would never expect to find them (like in a children’s fantasy comic book).
I feel like there’s more going on here beneath the surface. Bartleby is a bit of an enigma. The clues about his past at the Dead Letter Office help to fill in some blanks, but I think the fact that his character cannot be neatly categorized is what makes the story interesting to read. What was Bartleby up to in the office when no one else was around? Why was Bartleby the only main character would had a proper name, or at least was acknowledged by it? Why is it the general rule that one who won’t “go with the flow” must be eradicated or assimilated?
Hi Tim,
I’m glad you posed questions at the end of your entry. “Bartleby, The Scrivener” was a really difficult story for me to analyze. I found myself being very frustrated throughout the entire story and exhausted with it by the end. I was frustrated by Bartleby’s apparent apathy and by the lawyer’s inability to actually get Bartleby to do something other than what he preferred to.
I think the end of the story did allude to the cause of Bartleby’s indifference which was his role in the Dead Letter Office. I don’t see Bartleby as lazy, but more as a product of his environment. He was used to a job which was repetitious and monotonous and thus it was nearly impossible for him to do anything other than that task.
As for the Lawyer, he too was extremely frustrating. I felt that he lacked the strength, drive and resolution to properly deal with Bartleby as an employee. The further the lawyer progressed with his inability to change the situation, the worse it became. I was astounded that the lawyer physically moved offices rather than report Bartleby to the police. I don’t think his actions of allowing Bartleby to live in the office, allow him to refuse work tasks, or have him physically removed from the office were due to being charitable. I believe the lawyer suffered more from avoidance issues and lacked the ability to take necessary action.
-Carrie
Yes! He was quite avoidant, wasn’t he? Though the same could be said for Bartleby, and I guess the two traits furthered emphasized each character in their “stuckness”, to quote from Meg.
“I don’t see Bartleby as lazy, but more as a product of his environment. He was used to a job which was repetitious and monotonous and thus it was nearly impossible for him to do anything other than that task.”
Such a thoughtful observation. Might we take it a bit further to acknowledge the way Bartleby harnessed what (seemingly miniscule amount of) power he had to completely disrupt the machine by which others were profiting from his work? Bartleby has become somewhat of a symbol for passive, nonviolent resistance. *Effective* passive, nonviolent resistance.
As someone who spent ten years working in retail, I can whole-heartedly sympathize with Bartleby’s predicament. I suppose I wasn’t so much annoyed with Bartleby as a worker, but more as a character because I wanted to know more, see more. Melville and I have had our arguments about this…
It hadn’t occurred to me before you mentioned it that Bartleby was the only one with a proper name. Perhaps the answer to why that is, is as simple as the fact that he seems to be the main character. Everything in the story happens around him as a result of his inaction, his stuck-ness. The lawyer in the story feels sorry for him and feels a responsibility to him, and fancies himself a charitable man…though I feel like it is more that he has no real idea what to do with Bartleby, or what to do about him either. It isn’t that he doesn’t have the heart to kick Bartleby out, it is more that he feels like his hands are tied by some invisible rope. You raise an interesting point when you ask why the lawyer never asked what he would prefer to do instead. Could that have changed the outcome? It is very possible.
I keep thinking about all of the things that go unsaid in this story. We’ve all had those moments where we have the instinct to hold our tongues, but the lawyer seems to live his life by that feeling, always speculating internally but never taking any initiative to change the situation. I kept wanting to urge him on, to go to Bartleby and help the poor bastard. But what’s funny is that I also began to feel the same thing for Bartleby, first empathetic and then downright repulsed and angered by his behavior. I’m still trying to make sense of it.
From the original blog post: “The lawyer also never asks just what it is Bartleby would prefer to be doing, which I think may have been a key question.”
I think so too. Historicizing this story, in the 1850s (toward the beginning of the industrial revolution in America), we see a situation in which more and more people are reduced to cogs in a machine that benefits and profits people *other* than the ones doing the actual work. I want to ask whether Bartleby is perhaps resisting something that he thinks is bad for him, for humanity. Something that is alienating him from the product of his own work, from his own creative rights, from nature, from connection. Something that, because of his historical placement, circumstances, and a propensity for quiet reflection, he might have a historical ability to see better than we do.
This makes me think of the Proles in Orwell’s 1984. They don’t seem to see (and this goes for all others in Bartleby’s station in life) that while they are the exploited class, they are the ones who truly hold power. The power of the masses, and the power of refusal. I suppose Bartleby could be seen as refusing for humanity as a whole, but I think that’s reaching. If he truly wanted to affect change, he would have tried to spread his idea, to perpetuate his “preferences”, if you will. Instead, he focuses only on his own plight, and his own position therein, and while I respect his decision, I still feel somewhat like he just laid down to die and let them win. It’s not that Bartleby’s attitude was incorrect, but that the attitude of the machine will never learn from such perspectives. Capitalism does not have a conscience, and unfortunately doesn’t often succumb to reason.
“I suppose Bartleby could be seen as refusing for humanity as a whole, but I think that’s reaching.”
But but! The last line!
*facepalm* Touché!
When I looked further into this story many sites were saying that Bartleby was the only one with a proper name so that they are defined more by their function, which I thought made sense. I found this story quite frustrating just like Carrie. It was quite difficult to understand what the underlying themes were. For me the story had a lot to do about selfishness. The Lawyer is only “helping” Bartleby because he enjoys feeling like he’s such a nice man, and he can still make use of him.
I am so happy you mentioned being annoyed at his brooding. I was also raised with a strong work ethic and have intense issues with idleness. He drove me nuts!
About the general rule that one who won’t “go with the flow” must be eradicated or assimilated. It is funny how people today feel like we are so much more accepting than we were at the time these works were written, when we still feel a need to make people conform. Like Meg’s social experiment about how we would feel about her tattoos. If we were a society that was accepting and didn’t make people go with the flow, there wouldn’t be a negative opinion of people with tattoos.
These stories have such timeless themes. It really is what makes literature great.
I appreciated certain aspects of this story, but overall, I didn’t enjoy it. Maybe it was my lack of empathy for Bartleby, or maybe it was Melville’s composition; I’m not sure. The nagging question for me – which you mentioned – is what would Bartleby prefer to do. I’m sure Melville avoided this question for interpretation. If there were more references to a *clear* answer, perhaps I’d be more invested in the story.
It seems like Bartleby symbolizes apathy, or maybe the growing apathy that Melville felt. Bartleby felt helpless in a changing world. He couldn’t identify with the changes and so, chose to give up. He didn’t do what the Lawyer asked because he didn’t feel like it made a difference. The story almost suggests that Bartleby was too precocious and knowing for his own good. I also get the feeling that this story was anti-conformity, and that challenging the status quo is recommended; that it should be a constant thought.