- Is Bartleby merely a lazy person who decides he no longer wants to work? And in this way does the story show what happens to people who isolate themselves from the world? (a variation on the theme present in "The Fall of the House of Usher").
- Is Bartleby a kind of victim? Is he someone who, through years of dehumanizing and monotonous work, has been turned into a human machine, and the story shows what happens when such a machine malfunctions?
- Is Bartleby a kind of failed industrial, modernized romantic hero? In this sense, his romantic self has been so battered and oppressed by years and years of dehumanizing labor that the only thing left is a tiny, mouse-like "I'd prefer not to." At some point he is described as being "like the last column of some ruined temple." Maybe Bartleby's "I'd prefer not to" functions as the last death rattle of romantic expression, Whitman's "Yawp" reduced to a faint cry of self-assertion just before the grave. Yeah? Maybe???
All food for thought. You might have an entirely different idea. The main question I want you to get at is... What's wrong with Bartleby?
Bartleby...Bartleby...Bartleby...What a complex character. Throughout the story I pictured Bartleby to be a barnacle on a ship. A barnacle that needed the ship to serve as his home for without it the barnacle would be lost at sea. As Mr.H said there are many directions that one could take on assessing Bartleby's character. I think that Bartleby is a combination of a hardworking person that has been overworked and isolated for too long. Bartleby copied works over and over again monotonously for years. He was enclosed in a dimly lighted room, as described by the narrator, which, as it would on anyone, had dehumanizing effects. Imagine living inside of a dimly lighted office where all you did all day was copy papers. How monotonous would that be? At least you can decorate a cubicle... Adding on the dehumanizing aspect of working at a boring job, repeating tasks like DNA, one would become a machine. Working solely on those few tasks would accustom the mind to doing your job and your job only. This is exactly what happened to Bartleby. To say that Bartleby was a "victim" of this "monotonous work" is a bit of a stretch. Bartleby could have left his job at anytime he pleased and could have left the office if he truly had wanted to. He was not a slave to his job, but he was not lazy either. Bartleby worked hard, as the narrator described, and while, he remained true to his profession. Bartleby, I believe suffered from the same disease all of us would if we worked long monotonous hours in a depressing setting, loneliness. After a while, work would consume us and we would become nothing but our jobs and organs.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike Val says Bartleby is a complex guy, very very complex. To answer the second question, I do feel as though Bartleby is a victim. Bartleby who is brought to the lawyer’s office at the beginning of the story is kind of shoved into work. At first he seems diligent, working on to the late night hours, and always obeying orders. But when he is asked to review an important document he says the famous line “ id prefer not to” the entire story takes a turn. This point in the story proves that there is something wrong with Bartleby.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe Bartleby is lazy or insane I think he is stuck in the same work and filled with exhaustion and he has been made into a victim of Wall Street. For some reason I believe that the main lawyer, who brought Bartleby in, was some sort of a collector. He chose Bartleby, Turkey, and Nipples, to be characters in his Wall Street collection. A quote form the story says “I have known very many of them and, if I pleased, could relate [diverse] histories, at which good-natured gentlemen might smile, and sentimental souls might weep." This quote shows that Bartleby, then, is the "prize" of the Lawyer's collection. However as piece of this collection, Bartleby is shown to be something a little different, which is why he is wanted.
Bartleby is a reflection of the discontent in the world-a world in which nothing was expected of him but rote, tedious behavior. He is misunderstood and cannot express his feelings and emotions to others. This limits his ability to make others understand his true needs and desires. He retreats into his own "world" in his mind. This world is locked and no one is allowed in. Like Val says, he has been isolated. This makes him seem the same as a machine, stuck in the same routine. When he states the he would not like to do a job- “id prefer not to”, he is the malfunctioning machine.
Wall street at the time was filled with greed and need for capital. Many men would push other out of way and continually work because they believe they had to. But Bartleby shows that not all people have to be stuck on this money driven path. If people were to break away from capital then maybe things would change. Bartleby resistance is sort of a break in the machine. If other machines were to malfunction as well, Wall Street would not move smoothly, just like Bartleby does not move smoothly. However, he seems of be an almost heroic figure to economic control. But because Bartleby is so strange, the story does not convince the reader that the market is necessarily at bad thing, rather something that can still continue, but not necessarily be lifted up.
When I read the story about Bartleby, I was shocked by not just his actions (or lack of), but of each characters interesting characteristics. This story in not necessarily only "what is wrong with Bartleby" but what is wrong with all the other copiers. Both Turkey and Nippers have their slotted times before or after midday where they actually work. I realized that each has very drastic characteristics, and each is a very static character. I believe this is more about human nature than anything else. By showing us one very polar side of the spectrum, we see just how changing true humans are. We cannot relate to any of the characters, because none show true human emotion besides the author.
ReplyDeleteSo, what really is wrong with Bartleby? Absolutely nothing. Because Bartleby was never made to be a dimensional character, let alone take the place of a real person. Bartleby is just an example of what is right in humans. Just as Valerie stated, if we did many long hours of work we too would be consumed by its toll. However, something breaks us from it, whether it be a reminder of life or a memory of our old ways. Bartleby never was consumed by any such thing. He had the option to leave the office, countless times in fact. But he didn't, proving that he is just an example by the author of part of our human nature that we have the depth and ability to change from.
Bartleby was a very confusing character. I definitely don't think that he was lazy in any way, for he was perfectly capable of carrying out monotonous and exhausting work day in and day out. Bartleby did not seem to have any close relations or relations of any kind. He didn't show any emotion towards anyone and didn't, for all that we know, have any life outside of his work. For this lack of normal social interaction, I think that, as Mr. Harrington said, Bartleby shut down. He was unable to function because he did not have anything or anyone to go to with his wants and worries. The narrator did try to give Bartleby this much needed human contact by talking to him and trying to unearth the reasons for his strangeness. But, towards the end of the story, Bartleby became an unfeeling, unmoving thing that was in the way but was to be ignored, like an ugly rug that everyone trips on. Bartleby was reduced to becoming an object. I think that Bartleby needed human contact, but, before the narrator met this scrivener, something must have happened to Bartleby that blocked his ability to interact normally with other people.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Marly said up north, I would agree that Turkey and Nippers are both incredibly static characters. Turkey works well in the morning, and poorly in the afternoon where as Nippers works poorly in the morning and well in the afternoon. With both of these characters the lawyer has the ability to target the king of work he can give them, and when to give it. Bartleby is a dynamic character throughout the story. I believe that there isn’t anything wrong or right about his character, he merely represents truth. He shows the true perils of monotonous work that many people face daily, and the way that some people can be helpless and unable to stand up for themselves. Then again, he did protest, but in a passive (ish) way as to not arouse any ill feeling in the lawyer. He simply says that he would “prefer not to”. How is that wrong?
ReplyDeleteBouncing off of Matt, I don’t think he was lazy in any way either. He worked perfectly fine in the beginning, but eventually, he stopped being so diligent. That happens to the best of us, especially in high school. I also think that he shut down because his life was his work, or lack thereof… more like his office… He is a classic example of a man who gets tossed into the cycle of intensive work and can’t get out to provide for any previous relations he may have had. Due to this fact, he probably shut down, because what is a life without people who care about you? Many people would shut down if they didn’t have any outside relations which is what happens to Bartleby.
word.
How miserable would it be to live as unhappily as Bartleby lived? He was discontent and unfulfilled. His office space was cramped and uninspiring even his window had only a view of a wall. His job, copying the tedious legal contracts others wrote, is not satisfying in any way. His passive aggressive behavior is a reflection of his discontent with life, a life in which nothing was expected of him but rote, tedious, and repetitive actions. I think the author is using Bartleby’s motto of "I would prefer not to" as a way to express his own feelings of the tedious and unfulfilling parts of his life. Bartleby could appear to be crazy, but in fact I think he is merely misunderstood. I do not think that there is anything “wrong with Bartleby”, he is merely depressed and unsatisfied with his condition. Bartleby may have great potential; however he is unable to achieve his full potential do to the remedial jobs that he is given. He is stuck in an office doing work he objects to doing. Bartleby is not lazy, nor is he crazy, in my opinion. He is clearly misunderstood and cannot express his feelings and emotions clearly to others. This severely limits his ability to make others understand his true needs and desires which thus provokes him to react in the only ways he knows how, retreating into his own "world".
ReplyDeleteI agree that on a purely individual basis, Bartleby is a capable worker, if not one to be preferred. However, I believe that maybe Bartleby's character carries greater significance than that of the individual.
ReplyDeleteIn class, we discussed how each of these literary movements, transcendentalism, romanticism, and realism, acted in response to the trends of the time. We concluded that often, these stories live as direct reactions to continuing industrialization in American economics and society. Perhaps Bartleby represents something along these lines. Yes, his monotonous life as a copyist could represent the mindlessness of factory work. That he goes crazy - or whatever happens - is significant, but the effects of his insanity (I prefer not to..), and their relations to the causes (up for interpretation), may be even more significant. His passive resistance may reflect a passive resistance which could be easily implemented by workers in industrial society. Let's try this:
The main character relies heavily, at first, on Bartleby's diligent work, just like industrial systems may rely on the mindless diligence of individual workers. This means that when Bartleby rebels, the main character (the boss) can not do anything but give in. He does not wish to risk the loss of such a diligent worker. In the industrial system, this could represent the idea of a successful strike. In this way, Bartleby may represent industrial workers as a whole.
Later though, Bartleby "prefers to do" less and less. Going along with the above metaphor, this would represent a strange sequence of events, resting on principles such as factory workers' continuing demands and administrators' growing feelings of pity towards workers. Eventually, this would end with the fall of the industrial system. Or, in the story, Bartleby's death. Seems a bit dramatic... but possible? Who knows.
I absolutely agree with Val – Bartelby is not a victim by any stretch of the imagination. Bartelby was the one who chose to answer the lawyer’s advertisement. Bartelby was the one who chose to remain in a post that he seemed to dislike. Bartelby stayed at the lawyer’s office even though he was offered a (paid, mind you) way out. He cannot possibly be a victim because, throughout the story, he was presented with numerous opportunities for escape. He had options. He could choose! But he decided not to. I looked up the definition of victim on the internet, and I think Princeton’s Wordnet says it best – “a person who is tricked or swindled”/“an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance.” (I’m sure we can all agree that “swindled” is an awesome word. ‘Nuff said.) First of all, Bartelby wasn’t duped into taking the job. He saw the advertisement, came in for an interview, accepted the post, and started doing the work. If he truly hated the post that much, he could easily have resigned, no questions asked. Furthermore, I wouldn’t consider Bartelby to be suffering “from some adverse circumstance” because his choice in work was self-inflicted. And honestly, I don’t pity him. Granted, it is terrible that he seemed to not enjoy his job, but he picked it.
ReplyDeleteI think that through the irritatingly static Bartelby, Melville may have been trying to allude to the importance of recognizing when you have a choice, and seizing such an opportunity. Given the emphasis on making good choices in Western literature (from the snake in the Garden of Eden to Pandora’s unfortunate box), I think Melville’s story may have been intended to serve as a sort of parable to his contemporaries, teaching the value of recognizing when decisions must be made. Perhaps Melville is also trying to uphold one of the core principles of the American dream – one must work hard. Clearly, Bartelby is a foil to this theme!
Though I think Bartelby was a little bit crazy because of his insistence on keeping a job that he refused to fulfill, I think I can understand where he might have been coming from. Bartelby did have something wrong with him, as I came to understand by re-reading the last paragraph of the story. Melville writes, “these letters speed to death.” Perhaps, like the letters at the Dead Letter Office, each letter/character that Bartelby copied brought him closer to death. Goodness knows he did not behave like someone who is truly alive.
To answer the first question, I don't believe that Bartleby's lack of willingness to work is rooted in laziness. Even though he possessed diligence with his work in the beginning, he was eventually worn down by his conditions over a period of time until he snapped.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the second question, I have a similar opinion to Valerie, in that I think calling Bartleby a "victim" is going a bit far. Although I can definitely see how his dehumanizing and monotonous work negatively affected him to the point where he comes off as almost mentally ill, I agree with Valerie in that before he reached that deep level of insanity, Bartleby did have the opportunity to leave at any time that he preferred. With that being said, I do see how he can be compared to a machine that has recently malfunctioned. I know that I, personally, would not be able to maintain complete sanity if were under those working conditions for a long period of time.
To attempt to answer the overall question of this story (What exactly is wrong with Bartleby?) is difficult. Although I am now thinking that he is the manifestation of the quintessential overworked person of the time period, I also believe that his problems can't simply be defined by one straight answer. I feel like the only way to truly figure out what is wrong with him is through deep discussion, so hopefully tomorrow we can gain some more insight into this interesting character!
Bartleby is not lazy, he is just sick of working to the point where his mind cannot function because he didn't interact with life outside of the office enough. But there is nothing else he can do. He can physically run away from his job, the office, ect, but he could never run away from work, the need to work.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with anybody above that says Bartleby is not the victim. Bartleby was the victim. Bartleby knew he could leave at any time. This is true. But no matter where he went, everything would be the same. He was a good lawyer, and that was his job. that is what he is good at. No matter what law office he goes to, he would be mentally imprisoned. If he changed professions, the same thing would eventually happen. the cycle does not end until retirement or death. So when Bartleby is in prison, society has completely made him its victim. Mentally he was imprisoned, and now physically he was too.
haha oh val...doing bio homework??
ReplyDeleteAnyways, going back to the point, i would have to diagnose bartleby as "burnt-out" with a side of depression, because, quite honestly, there's only so long you can do something that is neither fruitful nor enjoyable, like how he has. To start with, when ur working in an environment like the Dead Letter Office, your surrounded by death, and a bunch of well intentioned letters, that, when it boiled down to it, were pointless. mix that together with the monomoty (not a word, but i cant really think of a better replacement) of doing nothing but burning those very letters all day would definately make anybodies mind wander, and probably not in a good way.
What happened to Bartleby is very much similar to what happens to kids who start playing a sport on an instrument at a young age. They're parents decide that they would like some superstar child, and enroll them in club soccer, or whatever. next thing you know, the child only goes to soccer practice because it's routine and they get an icecream cone after. finally, when they're old enough, they realize "hey, so that was kinda fun, but i don't really want to do that," and when they're parents ask if they want to sign up for club soccer next season, the answer is "id prefer not to"
For me, Bartleby is trapped in the cycle of constant work and not trying to be individual. He wants to work because he applied for the job opening, but he must have had some type of epiphany or something midway through when he said that he prefers not to review the document. He confuses me because I have absolutely no idea what kind of person he, what his purpose for refusing is, and what he wants out of his opposition to the lawyer. I don't think Bartleby knows what he really wants in life. He should just read some Emerson or Whitman to find himself. For me, he just seems completely lost in society.
ReplyDelete