(Bartleby can be seen in many ways. Below are some possibilities. After you have read the end of the story, pick the following interpretation you prefer and write a brief comment about how some aspect of the end of the story fits with that interpretation.)
Artist/Writer? Melville himself had great success with his early, fairly conventional sea-faring novels (Typee, Omoo, etc.), but his later, more idiosyncratic books were commercial failures, and eventually Meville pretty much stopped writing. You can see "Bartleby" as a self-portrait of Melville, a writer who didn't want to do any more "copying" of standard styles, a writer who preferred not to follow the conventions and needs of the marketplace. If we see the story in this way, how does the end fit in? Be specific.
Transcendentalist? You can see B. as a parody or ideal of the philosophy of Emerson and Thoreau: he drops out of the world of commerce and follows his own whim entirely. (In Emerson's essay, "The Transcendentalist"--in which Emerson outlines what his idea of a transcendentalist is: a person who is not a "materialist" but an "idealist"--Emerson says that there can be no such thing as a "pure" transcendentalist, but what he says about transcendentalists is surprisingly similar to Bartleby: "they are not good citizens, not good members of society; unwillingly they bear their part of the public and private burdens ... [The Transcendentalist says:] Unless the action is necessary, unless it is adequate, I do not wish to perform it. I do not wish to do one thing but once. I do not love routine. ... we do not like your work. ... I can sit in a corner and perish, (as you call it,) but I will not move until I have the highest command." If we see the story in this way, how does the end fit in? Be specific.
Political Protester? It is possible to see Bartleby as the first member of Occupy Wall Street." He exercises passive resistance in a Gandhi or MLK-like way, refusing to take part in a system that relegates him to meaningless drudgery. If we see the story in this way, how does the end fit in? Be specific.
Philosopher? We can see Bartleby as a Schopenhauerian precursor to the existentialists, one who has perhaps unconsciously pondered the first sentence of Albert Camus's essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus" ("There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide") and has answered it in his own peculiar way. The highest form of wisdom, according to Schopenhauer, is renunciation, not of life but of will, as in the holy ascetics--which perhaps brings us to Bartleby as a...
Jesus-figure? The parallels are in the story: Bartleby's arrival is referred to as his "advent"; the narrator decides not to deal harshly with Bartleby by recalling Jesus's teachings: "the divine injunction: 'A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another.'" The narrator denies B. three times, just as Jesus is denied three times by Peter. And so on. If we see the story in this way, how does the end fit in? Be specific.
Foil for the narrator? Some people see the narrator as the main character, and B. as important mainly for the light he throws on the narrator, who is in turn our representative: when we read, we see things more or less through the narrator's eyes and react more or less as he does. Bartleby, then, shows us things about ourselves that we aren't normally aware of. If we see the story in this way, how does the end fit? Be specific.
Diagnosable Patient? Do you see Bartleby as having a diagnosable condition? Is he clinically depressed? (or is he melancholic?) Is he "on the spectrum"? If we see the story in this way, how does the end fit? Be specific.
Of all of these options, I see Bartleby more as a political protester than anything else. Bartleby was stubborn and very committed to his ideas (whatever they might have been). Throughout the story, Bartleby essentially has his own agenda and refuses to do pretty much everything asked of him; he won't examine, he won't write, he won't move and, finally, he won't eat. So many famous political protesters were similar in the sense that they wouldn't comply with the demands of people just because they had power. Bartleby and many political protesters were committed enough to an idea that would sometimes lose their life from it, as Bartleby did. Even though Bartleby didn't necessarily have reasons (that we know of) for his lack of compliance, he was stubborn and held his ground. He carried his stubbornness to his grave by refusing to eat while in prison.
ReplyDelete"I would prefer not to comment"
ReplyDeleteTo me, the most convincing way, if not the most-thought provoking way to view Bartelby is as a severely depressed scrivener. To call him a protester or a philosopher implies that he has reasons for his actions, even though he is not forthcoming with them. Bartelby appears to have no interests or desires whatsoever. He spends the majority of his time in the office staring at the wall. The only time he ever shows a hint of emotion is when the other employees come crowding into his improvised cubicle and he asks to be left alone. As long as Bartleby is free, he makes the minimum effort required to keep himself alive. But imprisonment is apparently enough to break even his last attachment to life, whatever that may have been, and he kills himself by simply doing nothing except wait for the inevitable.
ReplyDeletewhile it is difficult to determine Melville's exact intentions in writing this story, the connection that I can see most clearly is that to the transcendentalist ideology. In transcendentalism, the key idea is that people are inherently good at birth, but can be corrupted by the world through institutions such as government, church and economy. Transcendentalists such as Emerson believed that the only way to avoid these corruptions was to embrace a life of simplicity by forfeiting all leisure and excess. It is easy from there to draw the connection between a forfeit of excess to Bartleby's life. As the reader might observe, Bartleby resigns himself to a life in which he survives (although in the end not so much) off of the bare minimum. He dines infrequently, has no taste for money and he refuses simple tasks that require even slight exertion. In essence, he is the ideal transcendentalist. He has found a way to be self-reliant and independent (although one could argue that he relies heavily on the compassion of the narrator, he is completely independent in monetary terms) by only indulging in the necessities of life. In a sense, Bartleby has found himself in the woods, and his garden produces ginger-nuts and cheese exclusively. One can also connect his refusal to be budged or work to the transcendentalist idea espoused above when the transcendentalist says that he will not be moved except by a greater power. In terms of Bartleby, he will not be moved by the narrator and it is not until he is forcefully removed from the premises of the office building (greater power?) that he is finally moved. Of course this interpretation has its faults in that Bartleby ultimately sacrificed his life by refusing to even accept the most essential elements to survival but overall I would say that this interpretation is sound and that it is likely that Melville had some intention relating to this idea when he wrote the story.
ReplyDelete-James Wronoski
Colby Ko
ReplyDelete- Situation (x) vs. Response (y) Graph
-
-
-
-
-
________________________________________________
-
-
-
-
- l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
Situation Response
Asked to examine copies I would prefer not to
Asked why he said no I would prefer not to
Asked to compare papers I would prefer not to
Asked to deliver mail to
the Post Office I would prefer not to
Asked when he was born I would prefer not to
Asked to tell anything
about himself I would prefer not to
Asked to be reasonable I would prefer not to
Asked to leave I would prefer not to
Data set from the Bartleby lab suggests an acute Lazyselfishitis that manifests in un-enthralled unwillingness to function as a contributing member of a group. The negative control, being asked to leave his job, led to the expected negative result, “I would prefer not to,” because humans trend towards not wanting to be rejected. This suggests that he wants to be part of the scrivener group on Wall-Street. In the seven experimental treatment situations the dependent variable, Bartleby, exhibited a constant trend that remained negative at “I would prefer not to” irrespective of reasonable, harsh, caring or indifferent controlled variables from the lawyer aimed at causing a positive response (in other words getting him to do his job). When compared to the negative control results, these data suggest he has an affinity for his position and the sense of belonging, pay and benefits that go with it, yet is equally unwilling to perform the tasks needed to attain such a position. In the field of Colbycompletelyjustmadethisup science, the unwillingness to do work is defined as Lazy. Additionally, there is a new found diagnosis for laziness at the expense of others called Selfishness. Often, as in this case study, one may join with the other resulting in a virulent and violent reaction (that simply gets worse over time) referred to as Lazyselfishitis.
Out of all of the options, I see Bartleby as being extremely depressed. He seems not in control of all of his actions and choices, but influenced by a greater power in his mind that separates him from the world in a way. The end fits with this as he begins slightly depressed but able to work, this seems to add some sort of purpose to his life, something he is great at. But as he loses his vision, he sinks deeper into his state of depression, until he is removed from the one place he has become accustomed to, the office on wall street, and is placed in jail. This move seems to be so mentally shocking for Bartleby, he even snubs the narrator, something he has never done before. His death at the end seems to show that he has finally surrendered and now is free from the world where he never fit in.
ReplyDelete-Kate Rhodes
I see Bartkeby as a transcendentalist, partly because of his actions but more as a process of elimination of everything else. I do not see him as a writer or artist because he does not seem to have a single interest, nor do I see him as a protester, because the narrator did treat him very well throughout the story. He didn't really have anything to protest. I also don't think he's a philosopher, because I truly don't think he thinks about much. It seems as if he sleeps a lot, and generally just sits around. I obviously have no proof of what goes on inside the man's head, but it just didn't seem likely to me that he was doing a lot of deep thinking during his stay in the office or the prison. It also never occurred to me that he was a Jesus-figure, mainly because he made not a single religious reference, and gave no indication that he was connected with any higher power. The idea that he had a diagnosable illness definitely occurred to me, but I don't believe it would've been a severe mental illness because he was clearly competent at work when he wanted to be, and I also believe a good conversationalist when he wanted to be. It clearly was more an issue of 'want' than 'can' with Bartleby. I think he was the most like a transcendentalist purely because he rejected the norm of society, and didn't care at all about material things. And the quote from The Transcendentalist, "Unless the action is necessary, unless it is adequate, I do not wish to perform it," may as well have been his personal mantra.
ReplyDeleteI think Bartleby is more of a patient that we can categorize as mentally sick with something like depression. The reason I think this is only because I don't exactly agree with any of the other choices. I don't see him as an artist/writer and I don't think he is a Transcendentalist because he prefers to do absolutely nothing, whereas a Transcendentalist would want to do something, even if it was menial. Bartleby doesn't want to do anything, ever. I also don't think he is a Jesus figure because Jesus was supposedly fighting for some greater cause whereas as Bartleby just sits around the office and does no work at all. He isn't a political protester because there is nothing for him to really protest. I also don't think I have learned anything about myself by reading the story of Bartleby, I have just leaned that being incredibly lazy will lead you nowhere except prison and eventually death...This leaves me with no other option than to assume that Bartleby is depressed for some unknown reason and over time loses interest and the drive to do something with his life. This would make sense with the end of the story because even when the people who were the closest to him moved away, he didn't care at that point. He didn't care about anything and all he did was sit in stairwells in silence until he was forced out. Someone who was depressed would slowly lose interest in everything going on around them which is what seems to be happening with Bartleby.
ReplyDelete-Bianca Dempsey
For me, the "artist/writer" one makes the most because I think a parallel can be drawn between Melville and Bartleby. For Melville, his more ideosyncratic books spelled his doom, and he lost interest in writing. For Bartleby, his prior occupancy as a death letter clerk made him, simiolarly, lose interest -- he lost interest in the nuances of life. Surely, reading stories with no recipient was depressing, just like abysmal book sales for Melville. Thus, I think think this makes the most sense of all the topic
ReplyDeleteAll through Melville life he had a succeeded in achieving his goal in writing books and getting a lot of money just like Bartleby was a great copier in the beginning and he wanted to stay and work he even wanted to work all night to achieve his goal in copying. But as the story progress you can notice Bartleby slowly and slowly not wanted to work anymore even wanting to quiet, his boss goes up to him asking him how he can survivor if he quiets but he just answers with no comment. This connects to Melville because after his “stardom” in writing stories that people bought and read and enjoyed he started writing stories more in the philosophic way and he know that people wouldn’t want to read them, but inside of him he knew that it was, what he wanted to do and that’s similarly to Bartleby story because, he knows that he is going to lose money and his job and everything he owns but he wanted to quiet because he was tried of having a null copying job.
ReplyDeleteThe last comment was by Shira Hartman
ReplyDeleteI believe we're being shown Bartleby through the philosopher type of perspective. He is often being portrayed through witty comments and insightful ways. He talks about man being corrupted and guided by business in the final paragraph. The mood of the paragraph then shifts completely and the paragraph is then speaking of life and someone's own personal calamities. All of these themes being mushed together in the last straw of the story leaves me with the impression that the author wants us to see Bartleby through a insightful, philosopher point of view.
ReplyDelete-Julianna Goldring
I think that Bartleby was meant to be seen as a foil for the narrator. In the beginning of the story, the narrator seems to not understand the dullness of the scrivener's job, describing them as these really interesting people that have so many stories to tell. He doesn't acknowledge the dullness of their daily lives. He is used to simply summoning his scriveners, holding out a copy for them to look over, and having them take the paper without a word. However when Bartleby comes along, he is forced to look at these people in a whole knew light. Bartleby refuses him and it is not until then that we see the narrator ask for the opinions of his other employees. The narrator's view of the people around him begins to shift after Bartleby's arrival. Throughout the story the narrator's only significant encounters with other people are largely centered around Bartleby. The end shows the culmination of Bartleby's effect on the narrator as he exclaims "Ah humanity!"
ReplyDeleteI see Bartlbey as a political protester. All of those political riots that have been occuring all over the world such as the Occupy Wallstreet or even the Occupy "Tel Aviv" in israel don't have one specific aspect that they want to change. Instead of saying for example, I want a hight minimum wage, they say, I want a change- That's good but not sufficient. Bartlebey also acts this way, he simply refuses to take orders, without saying why. This relates to his death as well because just like in the Occupy Wall Street, they were shut down without any gain, Bartleby didn't not explain what he wanted, and died with no one able to help him.
ReplyDelete-Keinan
In reading Meville's story I was it more of a comentary on the narrator than on Bartelby. We are told only what the narrator thinks sees and feels. The story adresses peoples inability to handle those with special needs. The narrator does what he does for Bartelby only really becuase he feels sorry for him not becuase he genueinly likes him and I think that a lot of the time people who are scared by disabilities feel sorry for the people but still manage to distance themselves. Also, the other way Bartelby is delt with is by being locked up. In earlier years, instead of having programs to help people with their disabilities and allow them to live a normal life they were locked up in jails or insane asylums because people didn't really want to deal with them or just didnt know what to do. And that is exactly the case with Bartelby. The people didn't know how to get through to him, or to get him to do anything even if he "prefered not to" do it. So in the end he ended up in jail locked out of sight so he would stop causing problems.
ReplyDeleteElla MacVeagh
My interpretation of Bartleby's character is that he is "clinically depressed", but not necessarily a able to be cured from this. As we have seen throughout Melville's story, Bartleby has a very strong and obstinate character. I think that the only way that Bartleby would be cured of his depression is by his own will. Bartleby does what he wants; the things that he does aren't to please or impress others. We see the demise of Bartleby's character as he gradually stops doing work, eventuating in his complete lack of work. He has no motivation to work, which is a huge sign of depression. Although his boss and other people try to encourage and make him work, he still doesn't change. This shows that other people's words mean nothing to him, and the only way that he'll change is on his own accord.
ReplyDelete- Becca Robinson
As I arrived at the end of the story, I though that Bartleby's character could be interpreted as diagnosable patient. Specifically I would say that Bartleby is suffering from some sort of depression, that I think was caused by his rumored job. At the end, Melville tell us the readers that Bartleby used to deliver dead men letters in Washington. That is a incredibly tough job to do going through these letters and burning them essentially and doing whatever else is required. This could have caused Bartleby to develop depression, because his everyday job involved death. Heck, he might have even cracked and became crazy in the head. As we read the story, we saw that Bartleby ignored authority and at one point stood by the window and ignored the boss. Bartleby sounds like a person who lost his marbles. When Melville tells us about the rumor about Bartleby's previous employment it kind of makes the story clear to me. Now we know that his previous job may have caused him to lose his mind and start acting obnoxious.
ReplyDelete-aYaN nOyAn
Of all the options, Bartleby is most like a parody of the transcendentalist. Transcendentalism as a philosophy promotes simplicity in an effort to avoid the corruptions and excesses of society. When looking at the story in this way, Bartleby is the ultimate transcendentalist, living a life of Thoreauvian simplicity in which he is at least financially self-reliant. He barely eats anything and does less and less office work--he gets by with the bare minimum of everything. It seems that Melville's criticism of transcendentalism becomes increasingly clear as the story progresses since Bartleby has no clear reason for refusing to do work; Melville may have believed that transcendentalists were foolish and without reason. In this way, the end fits in perfectly. By living a life of "simplicity" and refusing to do anything, Bartleby dies--when looking through the story through this lens, Melville appears to be a strong anti-transcendentalist.
ReplyDeleteAs I continued to read the story Bartleby the Scrivener the parallels between Bartleby's resistance to work and the protests of Occupy Wall Street seem to become more apparent. The "Occupy" protestors are notorious for protesting for change however they aren't sure what kind of change they are looking for. This uncertainty is exhibited in Bartleby's behavior. Bartleby at one point was a diligent worker who strove for perfection, however he abruptly quit and didn't articulate for what reasons. In the "Occupy" protest many workers (some diligent) quit their jobs to be a part of the movement for "change" however none can articulate what kind of change they are looking for.
ReplyDeleteAfter Bartelby's consistent refusal to perform the menial, demeaning labor that ti seems the world has assigned to him, i see Bartelby as a political protester. As such, i feel that his death in the end is almost fitting in that, at this time, is only work in life is to sit and wait for someone to decide to release him. As such, i think that the only way to protest that he had left was to die.
ReplyDeleteArtist/Writer.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the idea of comparing the author to Bartleby, since both experienced the pressure of society to simply copy their expectations in order to succeed. What I think B and the author have in common is that they both know that money is not a factor, what matters is their individual will. For instance, an author who writes from the heart doesn't mind the sacrifice of money, as long as he is doing what he prefers, like Bartleby. Even when B was threatened with loosing his job (and income), it did not change the way he perceived things. What I find interesting is that the author allows B to die an unpleasant death that leaves the reader knowing that B spent most of his life chasing after what he "preferred" and died without completing the task of true happiness. I'm not sure what this is saying, but it could possibly be that people like the author may follow their dreams and act on inspiration, however, know that that may not be what get's you happiness in the sense that people will respect you for going against society's norms.
-Corrina
Bartleby is the epitome of political protest. No matter what simple task the narrator asked him to do, Bartleby peacefully refused. He refuses to relent to the pleadings of the narrator, the new landlord, or any of the tenants when they try to convince him to leave the premises. Even when he was taken to jail, Bartleby did not fight to stay in the building - like a true nonviolent protestor. In jail, Bartleby still refused to acknowledge the system. He refused to eat meals; another silent protest. When he dies, Bartleby could be viewed as a martyr. Bartleby died from resisting authority, as he would not accept any food from the prison or Mr. Cutlet.
ReplyDeleteClaire Meyerovitz
I think that the best way to view Bartleby is as a non-violent protestor, even though we don't know exactly what it is he' protesting. No matter what the narrator Bartleby will refusing to undertake the task, and instead continues, to only reply with " I would prefer not to" . No matter if the narrator, shouts, reasons, cajoles, Bartleby never gives in. Bartleby refuses to listen to the narrator even when he tries to fire Bartleby, and goes so far as to roam the hallway long after the narrator has left. Bartleby puts up no fight, but neither will he leave. This draws some pretty ironic parallels to today's occupy wall street movement,as Bartleby literally occupies the narrators office and building.
ReplyDelete-- Gabby St Pierre
Although I am not entirely sure where my take on Bartleby would fit in, I believe that Bartleby could possibly be seen as a foil for the narrator. The attitude that Bartleby possesses is one that relates to innocence; he does not see himself as doing anything wrong in staying there, and this translates to the narrator's frustration with figuring out what to do to make him leave. The narrator, as a result, feels like he would be doing something wrong in getting rid of someone who is strong in will but, in the narrator's eyes, helpless in all other areas of life. When Bartleby is eventually removed to the prison, the narrator comforts himself by telling himself that he did all that he could to try to help Bartleby avoid this complete expulsion. While Bartleby's stay in the jail, as the narrator tries to point out, is not physically very different from his "preferred" stay in the Wall Street office, it is different because he is confined and has been forced into being there. With the denial of what he once obtained through his strong will, Bartleby allows himself to waste away. The self-comfort that the narrator had managed to obtain, as a result, is completely denied as well.
ReplyDelete-Amanda Farman
Bartleby has clearly shown himself to be a complex character and he arguably possesses most if not all of the traits listed.However I thought the one that described him best was Foil the narrator. It is clearly noticeable that B. always responds in the same manner, by rejecting whatever the narrator asks of him. Had he ever done anything besides always disagreeing then I might have chosen something else. The story is really about B. despite the fact that the narrator is telling the story. The only logic reason for this is that B. not being the narrator furthers the story. I think that the two characters are supposed to represent similar people who have diverged to near opposites. The narrator never likes to answer a question directly and explains things very long and uncertainly. B. on the other hand seems to only answer yes and no questions (though always with a no)and does so decisively and briefly. The narrator's life is boring and uneventful. B.'s life is more interesting. B.'s whole existence in the story seems to just be opposing the narrator and getting in his way, while we can speculate why this much is clear. B. disrupts the boring average life of scriveners. At the end he causes the narrator a lot of annoyance and even after he is removed he continues to plague the narrator who can not seem to stop thinking about him.
ReplyDeleteI see Bartleby as most likely a protester, but definitely not a rioter. He takes a very indirect approach to his "cause". But like some other "protests" occurring right now, Bartleby says what he doesn't want as opposed to he does want. He says "I would prefer not to" as opposed to "I would rather prefer to...". And on top of this indecisiveness, he seems very shy about it, he's not brave enough to elaborate. He takes a very passive and indirect approach to his protest.
ReplyDelete-Sam P.
I think Bartleby is a passive protester and helps the narrator see the world in a different liight. Even in jail, he doesn't want to eat dinner ever, or participate in any activity that other people tell him to. He is definitely not an active protester as he doesn't actually say anything to support whatever protest he's making, which completely contradicts the point of his passive protests.
ReplyDelete~ Josef Shohet
Obviously we can't come to a clear conclusion of what Bartleby is or what he thinks about. But from his actions I am inferring that he was a Transcendentalist. I don't think he was a political protester because he wasn't refusing to copying for any reason besides he didn't want to. As Jacob Dana said earlier, I don't think Bartleby is a real deep thinker, I believe he does things for himself and he has no interest in copying. As said in the Transcendentalist quote, "unless the action is necessary, unless it is adequate, I do not wish to perform it", and i believe Bartleby didn't want to copying anymore. This quote also states Bartleby's disinterest in busy-work, and passion for routine, "I do not love routine. ... we do not like your work. ... I can sit in a corner and perish". I just don't see Bartleby thinking deeply about what he does, but instead just doing what he wants to do.
ReplyDelete-Jack Corcoran
I see Bartleby in the mold of being a sort of autobiographical character for Melville. Melville too had brilliant early work, and soon it became unappreciated and he ceased to work, like Bartleby. Melville came from an aristocratic background and as such was likely raised with a set of principles that he stuck to- like Bartleby. Bartleby is always polite, like an aristocratic man would be; he is just very specific. Towards the end, he is solely insistent on existing in the same place- to me Melville is saying something along the lines of "Fine, if you don't want me, don't read me. But I'm not going anywhere," meaning he may stop working, but his literary voice and his ideas will stay present, even if no one is reading his works.
ReplyDelete~Daniel Krane
As everyone above me has said that bartleby is a protester. Even the most simple tasks his boss asked him to do he refused. But he did it in such a way that it wasn't rude, it was a nice refusal. But I think a nice way to end or appropriate to end the story with him saying his final protest to everything by dying. As we talked about it remind us of occupy movement. He never made any demands he just protested it all
ReplyDelete-Marisa najarian
I see Bartleby as a transcendentalist because of his civil disobedience. While Bartleby is not resisting the government, he still is resisting a higher force and while he is not a “pure” transcendentalist he is fairly close. The ending in my eyes fits in to Bartleby’s transcendentalism because, ultimately Bartleby hates the routine of being a scrivener, refuses to continue being one, and sits in a corner (jail) and dies. This progression of actions is parallel to Emerson’s description of a transcendentalist and is very befitting for Bartleby.
ReplyDeleteCorey Grill
Based off the previous evidence listed above and other sections of the text, I found the interpretation of Bartleby as Jesus particularly interesting. Though I don't know as much as I would like to when relating the ends of both of their stories, there are some stark parallels. Like with Jesus, they both take a pacified approach in their lives, while remaining firm in their own beliefs despite the views around them. Both of them are forcibly removed from their home and standing by a furious crowd. For the both this would represent their demise. However, though neither of them resist their removal, Jesus still incurs a more physically painful death. They suffer mentally from a betrayal, or in Bartleby's case, a supposed betrayal.
ReplyDelete~Rebecca
For me, I think the political protester makes the most sense. With this said, he is a peaceful protestor, which makes his boss even more angry than if Bartleby was being rude or loud about it. Bartleby wants change, even though we don't know the exact change, but he wants to be passive about it.
ReplyDelete-Lindsey Pearlstein
To me, Bartleby seems like a diagnosable patient. Initially his actions seemed as though they were intended to be a form of political protest, however, his strike appears to be of both mind and body, and lasts throughout the time period in which his employer switches offices. Were this some form of protest, it would seem that demands would be made, or some other goal would be in mind, however Bartleby simply lives at the office, not asking for anything bot peace until he physically dies after being removed.
ReplyDelete-JD Nurme
Artist/Writer
ReplyDeleteWell, considering what we know about Melville and how he gave up writing towards the end of his career, the ending shows a sort of creative- non realistic twist on his life. Because his books and much of his literature was not too popular, it only makes sense for Melville to feel like, by the end, his creativity had basically disappeared. Bartleby was as good as dead by the end (or did he die? I'm not too sure) which paralleled the death of Melville's enthusiasm in his writing. As people went against and did not understand Bartleby, people rejected Melville's books and his creativity. Society did not accept them both, in a way, which led to the sad ending of nothingness.
I don't think Bartleby was at all a political protester. I don't think he was making a statement of any sort, it makes more sense for him to have a medical condition than to actually be protesting for a cause. In my opinion.
-Danielle Balanov
I think that based on the views of Melville and understand certain pieces of his life you are able to further understand the character of Bartleby. Because of this I see Bartleby as the artist/writer. Melville's own ending to his life as a writer and sharing stories can be reflected by Bartleby's character. Bartleby when in prison, refusing to eat, he was chosing to give something up that would end his life. These actions may have reflected Melville's thoughts as an artist that he was not able to convey through his own actions. Bartleby's actions even though they were seen, they were not explained. Melville's books became less creative and less popular, and we see this in his works and as he stops writing eventually, but this downfall can not be fully understood and explained similarly to Bartleby's actions. I think that Melville was using Bartleby to express his lack of understanding of himself as an artist/writer, since he was not able to do so on through his own personal expression.
ReplyDelete-Chloe Fishman
Throughout the story, it seems to become more clear that Bartleby is actively protesting, however it seems to become increasingly unclear why Bartleby is protesting. Just like many of the protesters that take place in "Occupy Wall Street", Bartleby has no real agenda, other than not wanting to work. This parallels with the Wall Street protesters actively going against the social norms primarily because they don't want to pay taxes. Bartleby knows what he doesn't want to do, but can never clearly specify why he doesn't want to work. This ties in very clearly with the end of the story because Bartleby was pretty much drowned out, he refused and refused and ended up in jail and dead. Just like Bartleby, the Occupy Wall Street protesters can and will try and try to change society and Washington, however they have not and will not make any progress, and eventually they will be drowned out, over looked, and washed out.
ReplyDelete-Jordan Bayer
There is a strong connection between the story of Bartleby and the writing career of Melville. Both Bartleby and Melville had great success in their respective positions and were highly regarded by the poeple around them. However, Melville's later writing was not appreciated as much as his previous works and he likely felt that this was a result of his new, more intellectual style of literature. This is reflected in the outlook of Bartleby. He was appreciated by his superior until he stopped conforming and doing what those around him expected. Melville also ceased to conform to the common style of writing that his readers had become so accustomed to. There are many obvious parallels between Bartleby and Melville throughout the story but perhaps the most important and dramatic is the ending of the story. Bartleby dies in the end of the story after being put in prison for his protests against conforming. This can be related to the death of Melville's writing career after being imprisoned within the disappointments and expectations of his readers.
ReplyDelete-Jamie Lamoureux
When Bartlby was first introduced I was under the impression that he had some sort of disorder and his odd behavior could be attributed to that. However after reading more Bartlby no longer strikes me as some one with something that can be diagnosed. The story I more saw as a pondering as to what happens when people just say no. In general people say yes, or at least say some variation of yes, even if it is insincere, unless they are passionate about something. I thought that the story provided an interesting insight into what happens when some one just mildly says no in a society where it is not expected. ~Marie Kolarik
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Bartleby seems like a diagnosable patient. in the beginning of the story, Bartleby's decisions were like he was challenging something. By the end of the story his protests have taken over his body and his mind and he won't listen to anyone. Bartleby doesn't even move when the lawyer switches buildings. I think Bartleby has gone completely mad. He doesn't do anything accept stay/live at the office. He refuses to do anything and later when he's in jail he even refuses to eat. Bartleby's absolute madness makes him end up in prison and eventually suicide from self-starvation.
ReplyDelete-Jared Videlefsky
I can see Bartleby as a transcendentalist. He is the definition of a "go-with-the-flow" person. His inner workings and thoughts are kept completely secret throughout the story and as a result he appears to us as even more of a mystery as time goes by. The conclusion that the reader may draw is that no matter how much prodding the lawyer may have done, and no matter the circumstances, Bartleby is satisfied with doing exactly what he wants. In this sense he is also a tool with which the author describes the Lawyer to us. Though Bartleby is made to seem like the main character, the person we truly know and learn to identify with is the narrator.
ReplyDelete-Mike W
To me, Bartleby definitely comes off as a transcendentalist. This is because he possesses the simple traits of being anti-culture and society. From the very start we look at Bartleby as a sort of icon for cultural rebellion or lunacy. We don't go very deep into his mind, the author lets us keep our distance, which in turn only strengthens Bartleby's anti-structural notion. Overall, Bartleby could definitely be perceived as a Transcendentalist.
ReplyDelete-Chris
I view Bartelby as a transcendentalist because of his calm yet rebellious persona. In society, when a superior gives an inferior an order, they will do it, usually for fear of the consequences. In this context, bartelby disregardes this concept, and doesnt take orders from anybody. Maybe if the lawyer had done something about it the first time he disobeyed his demands, then this would not of happened. Bartelby has no fear of the consequences, because he never seems to care about anything.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Bartleby can be interpreted in many ways, if the story is viewed as a self-contained piece work of art, he is best seen as reflection of the narrator's own interesting personality. Throughout the story, it is made clear that Melville is purposefully describing the narrator's life as bland and meaningless, marked by routine work with other people's money. He is lazy both physically and emotionally. He has no will to truly succeed and evolve. Bartleby can be seen as nothing more than a physical reflection of this characteristic. His existence is marked by a passive inaction. It is not so much laziness as a lack of will to go on. He lies to himself that he is comfortable where he is, and maybe he is. Very similarly, the narrator seems to ignore the his own lack of meaning. Like Bartlby in the Dead Letter Office, he has spent his life destroying hypothetical emotion and has thus sacrificed his own. This is perhaps why he feels so drawn to Bartlby throughout the story. The second half of the story foreshadows the narrator's own end - he would get tired of copying, tired of meaninglessly laboring away, and he would remain a sad shell of a person. Finally, he would be destroyed by his own inaction and his lac of will to go on.
ReplyDelete