For today’s blog, please respond to Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener.” Here are some questions to get you started thinking:
- How does the narrator in “Bartleby, the Scrivener” describe himself in the opening three paragraphs? Do you like him? Do you find him a sympathetic person in the story? Do you think his point-of-view is entirely reliable?
- What is a “scrivener”? What are the working conditions like for the scriveners in this law office? Does this story have anything to say about the rags-to-riches, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps, Horatio Alger version of the American class system? (Why all the emphasis on walls, for example?)
- What are we to think of the figure of Bartleby himself? Why is he so pale and passive? Do you think he has symbolic meaning in the story? If so, what is it?
The narrator starts the story by stating that he is an elderly man and he goes on to talk about his occupation as a lawyer. He describes himself as a man “with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best” and despite the energetic/nervous nature of his occupation he does not let those feelings invade his peace. From the first few paragraphs the narrator seems like a calm, quiet, and peaceful person. From this description I like the narrator and trust him in what he is telling us. He has a good job and seems to be a well-respected individual which should mean that he is a reliable person and we can trust what he says about Bartleby and the other scriveners. Just from his actions in the story I think the narrator is a very sympathetic person, as he doesn’t force Bartleby out of his office, rather he lets him linger in his office even after he refuses to do work. The narrator seems like a non-confrontational person as he is never explicitly mean to Bartleby and he just wants him to contribute to his job because that’s what he is supposed to do. The narrator even tries to give Bartleby money so he doesn’t feel guilty for kicking him out into the streets, but Bartleby refuses. All-around the narrator seems to care a lot for Bartleby and his well-being, despite not knowing anything about him. Even though he does state that he is kind of stuck with Bartleby, he still tries to make sure he is well off by letting him live in his office, giving him money, and checking on him even after he moves offices. Overall, I thought the narrator was very sympathetic to Bartleby and he really seems like a reliable person.
Bartleby is such a unique character all around, that even the narrator in the story has a difficult time understanding him and undergoes a journey to do so. Because of this, I think what we are to think of Bartleby also undergoes a similar journey to the narrator as we learn about him at the same rate. While on a basic level, he is described as pale and passive, the narrator provides a deeper insight into who Bartleby truly is. At first, the narrator describes him as “pallidly neat, pitiably respectable, [and] incurably forlorn” (1163). However, as the story progresses and the narrator’s interactions with Bartleby start to cause tension and conflict in the story, he becomes much more. Bartleby lacks “anything ordinarily human about him” (1164), which is reflected in his actions as everything he does and says seems so calculated and robotic. This can also be a reason for why the narrator feels that “there is something about Bartleby that not only strangely disarmed [him], but in a wonderful manner touched and disconcerted me” (1165). Despite Bartleby’s inhumane nature, the narrator assures the reader that he is immoral. Rather, the narrator uncovers the deeper meaning behind Bartleby’s actions and character; his internal mental suffering. The narrator realizes that Bartleby suffers from solitude (friendlessness and loneliness). “It was his soul that suffered” (1171). This realization and character development shines a different light on Bartleby and provides reasoning for his “pale and passive” characteristics.
In the first few paragraphs of the story, the narrator says that anyone who knows him would be apt to describe him as “safe.” He also states, “I am a man who, from his youth upwards, has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best (Melville 1158)”. From this, we can assume that he has taken the path of least resistance in life, which definitely is not glamorous. However, if it works for him, who am I to judge? I myself am guilty of living my life in such a way that one could draw a comparison between the narrator and I’s habits. With that being said, I don’t exactly think putting in minimal effort into your endeavors is a great way of getting people to be on your side when things go wrong. For example, I couldn’t force myself to feel bad for the narrator if I wanted to. Why should I? Bartleby is essentially doing what he did, living his life the easiest way possible. It almost feels like karma that the narrator is plagued by a parasitic copier who I assume acts in a manner much like that of his employer.
From just reading the first paragraph, I already found that I trusted the narrator, just by the way he spoke and the credibility that he gave himself. He described himself as an elderly man and used examples of his experience in his job that made me immediately trusting of him. While it was hard for me to see if he was a sympathetic person by the first few paragraphs, the narrator’s actions throughout the story show me that he definitely was. If I was the narrator, I would’ve kicked out Bartleby the moment he didn’t do something that I asked. But the narrator didn’t. He was passionate and kind time and time again. I found this very interesting and I think it says a lot about both the narrator and Bartleby.
I don’t really know what to think of Bartleby’s character. He ultimately came off as very strange and a mystery. How does one person go from being the perfect worker to a homeless, and eventually, dead man? If I had to try and give his character some symbolic meaning, I think he could possibly be an example of the narrator’s alter ego/self. The narrator is sympathetic and gracious while Bartleby is anything but. I think he also could be an example of the typical American worker, and how jobs like scriveners can wear someone down.
The narrator in “Bartleby the Scrivener,” describes himself plainly in the first three paragraphs. He calls himself, “rather elderly,” who works as a lawyer with an odd set of underlings as scriveners. The narrator remains nameless throughout the story but, other than that, seems very reliable in his manner of speaking and his perfect honesty, even going as far as divulging one of his morals “the easiest way of life is the best. For these reasons, I found the narrator to be the most agreeable character while the others seemed to play heavily into one trope or another. I think that the narrator was sympathetic, or he tried to be on. many occasions which speaks volumes about his character. Even when Bartleby was appearing to be insufferable at times, the narrater would continue to let him get more chances at redemption even at the cost of productivity at his workplace.
I can honestly say I really enjoyed the Bartleby story up till the end but I have absolutely no idea what I just read. At the beginning I found the story rather light hearted and fun learning about the office dynamics and being introduced to this odd character Bartleby. I thought perhaps the direction it would take would be that the narrator would somehow get Bartelby to explain why he always answers in preference statements or that he would find some trick to get him to not respond as such. Or I thought we would eventually learn about Bartelby’s past which would somehow explain why he is the way he is. Or I considered that the narrator would end at that point where he just accepted that things were the way they were and Bartleby would live out his days in the office. Then once the narrator was basically peer pressured into moving I thought maybe it’ll take a scary turn and Bartelby will appear in his new place like a ghost. When he didn’t I thought maybe he had some sort of dark terrible past in that building and that was why he couldn’t/didn’t want to leave. But when he died at the end it left me completely at a loss, and the last paragraph which I feel is somehow meant to help guide thinking and tie up the loose ends just made me even more confused.
In the opening paragraphs of Bartleby, the Scrivener, the narrator describes himself as an elderly man. He seems passive and overall, like he is good at observing without judgement. He seems to see the details of people and does not let his own judgements influence his writings to the point where it is unreliable. I trusted the narrator from the beginning. I think this is mostly because he comes off as passive, like he is not trying to convince the reader of anything. He is simply writing what he observed. Also, he is experienced at his job which makes him more reliable. The narrator seems like he is in amazement of Bartleby, “While other lawcopyists I might write the complete life, of Bartleby nothing of that sort can be done. I believe that no materials exist for a full and satisfactory biography of this man. It is an irreparable loss to literature” (Melville 1158). I believe this means that the narrator does not think that his writing and account of Bartleby would do him justice. The narrator thinks that Bartleby is so incredible that, even with his experience, he cannot write Bartleby’s biography well enough. I think this shows that the narrator is telling the audience that there is something different about Bartleby that other people he has written about. This shows some positive bias towards Bartleby, but I do not think it is enough to make the narrator unreliable.
My early exposure to Herman Melville left me completely traumatized so, I wasn’t too enthusiastic to this title. But, to my pleasant surprise, diving into a shorter story of Melville’s four years later, I was engrossed in his vivid imagery, intense vocabulary, and lingering tone of absurdity sprinkled throughout the piece. The most compelling part was Melville’s strong characterization of the narrator that projected a selfish and insolent morality then became drastically contrasted in his desperate and ridiculous attempts to claim unwarranted responsibility. Just as the narrator continuously described his perplexing emotions to his strange attachment to Bartleby, I too found myself completely perplexed throughout my reading. The incorporation of deep philosophical questions regarding predestination, capitalism, status, social normalities, and charity required me to think deeply about my personal preferences. In short, this text was not driven by its plot but rather deep postulations regarding interactions between man and society.
In Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener, I would say the narrator is relatively trustworthy. He introduces himself within the first three paragraphs as a simple, elderly, old man with a job position as a lawyer. He goes about his life in the easiest way possible and doesn’t seem to cause any trouble. He is also quite successful, as his position is that of the Master of the Chancery Court, which is a state-appointed position, deeming him rather intelligent and skilled at what he does. The narrator does not seem to mention any family or friends, and his job is simply a part of his daily routine. He’s a bit of a plain character, an average Joe if you will, with just a dash of arrogance (which, again, is most likely due to his prestigious title). However, we learn that the narrator has a bit of an issue in regards to dealing with conflict. The narrator’s employees are rather awful at their job, and he cannot even bring himself to fire them. Bartleby is said to have been doing lackluster work (if any work at all), and the narrator still doesn’t speak up. I believe the narrator is sympathetic and feels a bit responsible for the actions of Bartleby and the others. He comes across as compassionate, just with a few conflict issues.
In Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener, I would say the narrator is relatively trustworthy. He introduces himself within the first three paragraphs as a simple, elderly, old man with a job position as a lawyer. He goes about his life in the easiest way possible and doesn’t seem to cause any trouble. He is also quite successful, as his position is that of the Master of the Chancery Court, which is a state-appointed position, deeming him rather intelligent and skilled at what he does. The narrator does not seem to mention any family or friends, and his job is simply a part of his daily routine. He’s a bit of a plain character, an average Joe if you will, with just a dash of arrogance (which, again, is most likely due to his prestigious title). However, we learn that the narrator has a bit of an issue in regards to dealing with conflict. The narrator’s employees are rather awful at their job, and he cannot even bring himself to fire them. Bartleby is said to have been doing lackluster work (if any work at all), and the narrator still doesn’t speak up. I believe the narrator is sympathetic and feels a bit responsible for the actions of Bartleby and the others. He comes across as compassionate, just with a few conflict issues along the way.
In the first three paragraphs, I noticed that the narrator was very honest. He described himself as an “old man,” “unambitious lawyer,” and “a safe man.” He could have easily described himself as young instead of old and ambitious instead of not. However, his dedication to the truth paints him as a trusting person who not only wants to do right by himself but for others as well.
Also, his phrasing throughout the paragraphs suggests that he is trying to be as unbiased as possible. He is just writing what he’s observing. Thus, he seems sympathetic, down-to-earth, and overall a good person.
Therefore, in the first three paragraphs, I like the narrator. So far, I haven’t been given a reason not to like him. After all, he’s a man who’s worked tirelessly at his job and now telling his account of his dealings with Bartley. He’s not forcing the audience to believe him. He is simply writing what he witnessed and leaving it to the audience to understand and figure out.
In the opening paragraphs, I believe he is a reliable narrator. Since he recognizes his own biased towards Bartley and admits it, he doesn’t lie about his feelings. Rather his admits his feelings and tries to put judgment aside to write what he witnessed clearly and plainly.
The narrator describes himself as a peaceful man. Despite being a lawyer, he does not let it disturb his peace. He purposefully chose to be a legal documents lawyer so that he wouldn’t have the stress of jury. He seems like a very sympathetic person especially when describing the downfalls of his employees but adding why they are useful and defending that for half of the day each they are good employees. He is especially sympathetic of Bartleby’s situation even when most would not be. He even at one point expressed fears that if he fired him, that the next employer would be impatient and be rude to him and let him starve. A scrivener is a law copyist who copies papers and examines them. From what I understand, they must stand at tall desks all day facing the walls. It doesn’t seem to me (except in the case of ginger nut) that there is any room for moving up from scrivener, for example Nippers is 25 has outward ambitions and is a scrivener and turkey is 60 and STILL a scrivener. Bartleby in my mind represents the struggle between our own ego (wanting Bartleby to leave because he doesn’t work) and rational sympathy (The narrator’s sympathy for Bartleby and rationalizing that he is quiet and not getting in the way). He also could be seen as an embodiment of passive aggression and the annoyances of it as well as the sad place it comes from.
The narrator, an elderly man, seems a dandy fellow indeed. He describes himself as a man who thinks that “the easiest way of life is the best.” He is a lawyer, and despite how high-paced and exciting his occupation is, he says he tries not to let all the energy disturb his daily peace. I think that is a very noble profession in itself, but even more noble when you read about the way the narrator views said profession. That being said, I’d say that, as a reader, one could certainly trust the narrator. He seems like a kind, pragmatic guy. Even though Bartleby refuses to do any work, the narrator remains patient and kind.
Bartleby is a strange guy, but I can’t help but like him. He’s pale, callous, and almost robotic, and for a dude that old I don’t even really blame him. According to the narrator Bartleby was lonely and suffering, and that illicit a feel-bad response from me and other readers…
Joshua Wood mentioned that Bartleby was doing the same exact thing as the narrator, in living his life as easily as he could. I didn’t think of it that way, really, but upon pondering it now I would say I agree. It was an interesting point of view I thought I’d comment on.
A scrivener is someone who copies documents in a law office. The author describes the copying styles of both Turkey and Nippers through their temperaments and efficiency of work in the office. He describes Turkey as an older man who works hard in the morning and gets messier and angrier by the afternoon. His work becomes sloppy and ink blots fall onto important papers. Nippers is Turkey’s opposite. Nippers struggles in the mornings, constantly readjusting his work space and expressing distress with his inability to be comfortable. In the afternoon, however, Nippers is a quick worker with good handwriting and a lot of ambition. The juxtaposition of these characters highlight their strengths and weaknesses. It would be interesting to study whether or not the author was trying to discuss the fundamental differences between generations, or if he was simply creating eccentric characters to make the story more interesting. Nippers’ ambition and Turkey’s reluctance to accept gifts or help from the narrator could be examples of the rags-to-riches theme.
The narrator seems to hold a charismatic tone throughout this reading, shockingly, as he holds the position of being an employer for what seems to be like a law-firm. The lawyer introduces us to his employees one by one, lending us pros-and cons for them. Turkey, an older worker who has a hard time pacing his work ethic through the day, was even offered by the Lawyer to go home for the second half of the day. When we are introduced to Bartleby, we are instantly met by his “mechanically” personality and work ethic, followed by a gradual realization of Bartlebys robotic and sensibleness. He shows little emotion, however turns his copies into the narrator, which although were pretty dry, worked. The Lawyer constantly assigns Bartleby tasks throughout his time at work, which he always responds to with “I prefer not to”. This seems weird at first not only to us but the Lawyer as well, who is caught off guard by Bartlebys behavior. This could be from his preferences, but also because his other employees are all unique, and possess character. Eventually, the Lawyer stops asking Bartleby for tasks as he understands he will be met with the seem response by him. I think the Lawyer shows alot of care and respect throughout the reading (atypical to a stereotypical lawyer business owner), trying to best accompany his employees in many ways, no matter how robot-like, old, young, or uninterested.
I think this story is a wonderful blend of criticism, irony, and characterization. Each character introduced has something unique about them, yet they’re repressed into the same soul-sucking position. The strange names for each character show how out of place they are in such a job, that their potential would obviously flourish elsewhere. The blatant age gaps between the employees is also a testament to this; it shows how they’ll be stuck in their positions without possibility for moving up. Our narrator is much too comfortable with his isolation and lofty position to make that change. The Lawyer is a representation of the lazy, pompous, leaders on Wall Street who are more concerned with the productivity of others rather than their own. His language and introduction is consistently padded with adjectives and adverbs, showing he’s resistant to saying anything blunt for fear of offence and consequence. It also represents his job as a whole, comfortable and unimpactful. This serves as a good juxtaposition to Bartleby’s light responses of “I would prefer not to.” It’s the same soft language being used against The Lawyer, serving to reflect the true lack of ambition on Wall Street; how little work-and how much money-it takes to hold a business position.