This was my second time reading Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener" (after we read it in high school, everyone responded to the teacher by saying "I would prefer not to" to everything). As was the case the first time I read this story, I found the Lawyer's tone towards "his" scriveners off-putting. The passage "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" exemplifies what I find discomfiting. The Lawyer sees and treats the scriveners and Ginger Nut like objects to be observed, managed, and to provide amusement. To him, they are just anecdotes to recount for "good-natured gentlemen" who, unlike the scriveners, are the Lawyer's equals. Turkey, Nippers and Ginger Nut do not even have real names, which further contributes to the impression that they are mere oddities and not real people. Bartleby, meanwhile, is dehumanized as he practically becomes a piece of furniture in the office.
While I dislike the Lawyer, I still don't know where I stand on Bartleby. Is his passive resistance profound or is he just a terrible employee?
I really want to dislike Bartleby because his consistent "i'd prefer not to" response would make me angry if I were his boss, but I also have some sympathy for him. As annoying as he is, I picture him as a gloomy and lonely man with not much inspiration to live for. Although it's not a dramatic story and I'm not really sure what he is supposed to represent, I do find it is some sort of tragedy. We don't know a lot about him, but he essentially has a downfall and it leaves me questioning if he is supposed to represent the author in some way or if that assumption is completely inaccurate.
ReplyDelete"I would prefer not to" is of course the best response to any essay prompt on "Bartleby," though now that I've said it here, it would be unoriginal if any of you try it. Whatever it means, it is a lovely phrase--so polite, but also expressive of free will.
ReplyDelete