The narrator in this story is a lawyer, and he mainly deals with the legal documents of the business of the rich people. He does not take many risks in his profession and in his life, so he is leading a comfortable and happy life. The narrator is a nice and kind-hearted person who always cares about the staff in his office.
On Wall Street, the lawyer knows exactly what society expects of him. He is content with himself and his sense of conventionality and considers himself a representative human being. The narrator considers Bartleby to be representative of humanity. He states, "For both I and Bartleby were sons of Adam" (Melville 143).
The narrator of this work is the unreliable lawyer. The lawyer admits in the work that he makes assumptions, so when we see other characters' actions, …
The narrator of this work is the unreliable lawyer. The lawyer admits in the work that he makes assumptions, so when we see other characters' actions, they are coming through his lense. This point of view increases the mystery of Bartleby's behavior.
It is interesting to note that the narrator remains unnamed, even though the other characters have either names or nicknames. This makes the narrator a bit of an everyman, and allows the readers to see the story through his eyes. It also puts the narrator on the same level as...
The Lawyer learns some of Bartleby’s qualifications —the most he learns about Bartleby in the entire story —and he fails to share it with the reader (another example of language being unreliable). The layout of the office is a clear example of the disconnected modern workplace: the boss sits in a separate room from his employees, and even when he places Bartleby near him, The Lawyer puts a screen around the scrivener so that he cannot see his employee.
At first, Bartleby provides The Lawyer with an enormous quantity of writing, working nonstop all day and not pausing for lunch. The Lawyer notes that he would have been quite delighted by this, if not for the fact that Bartleby writes “silently, palely, mechanically” rather than with any delight. The Lawyer then mentions that an important part of a scrivener’s job is to re-read what they have written in order to check for mistakes. Traditionally, when there is more than one scrivener present, they help each other with their corrections, and, because it’s tedious, The Lawyer believes this is not work that someone like “the mettlesome poet, Byron,” would be willing to do.
The Lawyer trusts Bartleby fully despite not knowing anything about him, and he cannot figure out that the fact that Bartleby arrives early to and leaves late from the office is caused by his condition of living there. This epitomizes how disconnected the office is, as well as how sharing language has failed to create a close-knit bond in the office. Additionally, Bartleby’s passive resistance becomes even more controlling of the office, changing The Lawyer’s habits and leaving Bartleby’s unchanged.
Although Bartleby spends literally all of his time in the office, The Lawyer is unable to get to know him better, and the only member of the office Bartleby interacts with is Ginger Nut, a twelve-year-old boy. Though The Lawyer could potentially learn about Bartleby from his young employee, he never ventures to ask Ginger Nut about his elusive scrivener. The Lawyer’s strange thought-process about Bartleby’s diet is derived from the Theory of Humorism, and its nonsensical conclusion is another example of language (and logic) failing to illuminate the truth.
In the past, The Lawyer says that he has helped with correcting copy himself, and one of the reasons he placed Bartleby so close by was so that he could easily call him over to go through this correcting process. However, on the third day (The Lawyer thinks) of Bartleby’s employment, The Lawyer hastily calls Bartleby over to correct a paper he is holding. He holds the copy out for Bartleby to take, but Bartleby never comes to his desk, instead calling out from behind the screen, “I would prefer not to.”
Next, The Lawyer details his employee Nippers, who is also a scrivener. Nippers is about twenty-five years old, has yellow complexion, wears a mustache, and, in The Lawyer’s view, is “victim of two evil powers—ambition and indigestion.”.
Even before his usefulness wanes, The Lawyer is already skeptical of Bartleby because he doesn’t take joy in his work. However, because the office is so personally disconnected, he chooses not to discuss this with Bartleby at all. Additionally, The Lawyer stating that an important part of a scrivener’s job is to correct copies is in itself an example of the imperfection of language: even those whose job it is to write exact copies all day often make mistakes.
a massive factor for writers in the 19th century, as Herman Melville explores in “Bartleby, the Scrivener.” In "Bartleby, the Scrivener,” Herman Melville presents Bartleby as an employed scrivener. He is the person that copies documents for the narrator in the story. This work was not uncommon for someone like Bartleby in the 19th-century society. The society approved of the male professional writer, but Bartleby refused this profession and through his "I would prefer not to" statements, he challenges
Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener” and Willa Cather’s “Paul’s Case” present the complexity of both the experience and interpretation of loneliness by providing two antithetical lenses through which to view the title characters’ isolation. The end of “Bartleby, the Scrivener” is consolatory in nature, for Melville’s narrator sympathetically transfigures Bartleby from a symbol of difference to one of commonality. Melville implies that there is comfort to be sought in placing Bartleby within a larger
In “Bartleby, the Scrivener” the author, Herman Melville, uses indirect references to hint to many historical, literary, and biblical events. “Bartleby, the Scrivener” contains many allusions about important events that help connect this fictional story to actual events in Melville’s time period, before, and beyond. Melville uses allusions frequently throughout “Bartleby, the Scrivener” to help build connections with the real world and the fictitious world of this short story. One of the biggest
Ironically, the most striking feature of their vision was its kinship- with the emerging voice of the individual. (Strout 1) Herman Melville depicts the struggle for individual sovereignty in his short story "Bartleby the Scrivener"; through the actions and the attitudes of the elite narrator in the story, the deceptiveness of democracy is evident. The ideology of
The Lawyer: The lawyer is the narrator of this story. He is about sixty years old, holds the office of Master of Chancery, and is well known in the Wall Street community. His attitude towards life is simple: he believes the easiest way of life is the best one, seeing work as a central component of this life. He finds controversy scandalous and therefore uses bribes, withdrawal, and logical arguments to make controversy go away. His insistence that he is an honorable man throughout the text make him less trustworthy as a narrator. He maintains a detached relationship with his employees relatively successfully until he meets Bartleby. His emotional entanglement with this scrivener breaks his professional detachment, revealing his own disillusionment with the isolation of the American workforce.
in. Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street. Bartleby: The lawyer hires Bartleby to be a scrivener, a scribe who copies court and legal documents, for his law firm. While initially a prolific worker, Bartleby slowly begins to resist direct instruction, repeating the phrase “I prefer not to” when asked to do something.
Bartleby’s comment is perplexing for two reasons. First, Bartleby defends his refusal to work without any explanation and yet assumes the lawyer would understand. Second, Bartleby asks whether the lawyer does not see the reason, which is particularly strange because “his eyes looked dull and glazed.”.
The narrator’s love for Astor indicates that he is of the upper class. Caitlin, Owl Eyes Staff.
If the absence of Bartleby’s biography is an “irreparable loss” then the ensuing tale about Bartleby must be an essential part of literature. In this way the lawyer compels the reader to continue reading and suggests that his short story is already great literature.
Bartleby has repeatedly stated that he “prefers not to” join the others in reviewing his proofs. The lawyer’s response here is one of the few moments in the narrative when he explains his rationale for allowing Bartleby to have his way rather than follow the orders of his superior. Since the lawyer decides to humor Bartleby, he ends up giving more work to his other employees and himself. What would be easier for him is to have Bartleby perform the work required of a scrivener. This contrasts with how the lawyer originally presented himself as someone who is “filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best.”
The double meaning of the relationship between the narrator and Bartleby must be taken into consideration considering the environment the narrator describes he lived in for most of his adult life. His employees, the only people he introduces as his entourage, appear to be suffering from the alienating effects of their profession.
So when Bartleby appears at the office and interviews for the job, the narrator thinks that Bartleby will tone the office down some because he was so different than the others. Everyone else worked in a separate location to the narrator, so Widmer believes that the narrator places Bartleby in his office so that he can control him ...
The Relationship of Bartleby and the Narrator in Bartleby, the Scrivener. Herman Melville’s short story, “Bartleby, the Scrivener,” has provided readers and critics with enough material to speculate upon Bartleby’s condition and the message the writer intends to send through the peculiar character. Bartleby’s unique character was so mysterious ...
Barley is frightening to the narrator because he highlights the meaninglessness of work, something the narrator believed in. Once a message is taken out of context, it may become useless for those who are trying to discover its meaning. In this case, one accepts Weinstock’s proposal to consider “Bartleby, the Scrivener” a mystery story.
Furthermore, he portrays himself as a person who finds a way to go through life avoiding complications, perfectly just into the rules and laws of society, and always choosing the easiest way out of any potential problem. He further describes his lack of ambition as a virtue that helped him keep safe and sound through the years and retainage of wisdom, speared of any turbulence .
For the contemporary reader, Bartleby’s existence could have a double meaning: an alter ego for the alienated person who is living under circumstances completely different from what nature intended it to be and a choice of passive response to societies compulsiveness to adjust and submit to a strict simple but deceptive rules.
Melville’s exploration into the limitations imposed by an artificial and apparently absurd and purposeless life goes deeper into the depth of human mind and psyche. The development of the narration gives the reader the possibility to make all kinds of speculations, thus bringing the story closer to being a mystery story.
The double meaning of the relationship between the narrator and Bartleby must be taken into consideration considering the environment the narrator describes he lived in for most of his adult life. His employees, the only people he introduces as his entourage, appear to be suffering from the alienating effects of their profession. The head of the office seems to be perfectly aware of their flaws and wise enough to make the best use of their hindered capabilities. On the other hand, he lives and works in the same circumstances therefore, making himself subject to similar alienation effects.
Barley is frightening to the narrator because he highlights the meaninglessness of work, something the narrator believed in. Once a message is taken out of context, it may become useless for those who are trying to discover its meaning. In this case, one accepts Weinstock’s proposal to consider “Bartleby the Scrivener” a mystery story. His conclusion would be that not only phrases, but also human beings taken out of context are likely to become useless or, otherwise meaningless.
Furthermore, he portrays himself as a person who finds a way to go through life avoiding complications, perfectly just into the rules and laws of society, and always choosing the easiest way out of any potential problem. He further describes his lack of ambition as a virtue that helped him keep safe and sound through the years and retainage of wisdom, speared of any turbulence .
The development of the narration gives the reader the possibility to make all kinds of speculations, thus bringing the story closer to being a mystery story. Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock starts his analysis of the story with the consideration that it is indeed meant as a modern mystery short novel, pointing out the meaninglessness of some human actions: the conclusion or lack thereof of Bartleby’s points to the unsettling realization that every letter is potentially a “dead letter”- that, as famously proposed by Jacques Derrida, a letter can always not arrive at its destination meaning can always go astray. If this is an inherent possibility of language, then “Bartleby” finally raises the question of what is meant to be.
In closing, other well-known writers such as, David Shusterman agree that Herman Melville did not write the short story with a “hero” in mind. Shusterman feels like even though there is not hero identified, a character to take note of is the lawyer narrator. The narrator goes out of his way to appear like the good guy but his intentions may not be so pure. He wants to be the hero but many believe he takes on a more antagonist role.