|
BartlebyAnalysis 15 - 29 Mar 2012 - Main.CourtneyDoak
|
| | Bartleby—A Law Student's Analysis
This short piece addresses the reflection narrator sees of himself in Bartleby in Herman Melville's short story, "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street." | | | I found Jason and Courtney's perceptions that the narrator needs to get rid of Bartleby interesting because I had an opposite reaction to Bartleby. I felt the lesson learned from the story was that the narrator would never be rid of Bartleby, and instead he had to learn to incorporate Bartleby comfortably into the Narrator's office and soul. My first interpretation of Bartleby was that he represented the narrator's Freudian "id". Bartleby would simply prefer not to do real work. He wants to live in the office and subsist off of his co-workers, and store away money for use later. Turkey (who has a proclivity for drinking) believes Bartleby just needs to drink more. Other lawyers and professionals (perhaps representing the "super-ego") are disturbed by Barleby's presence; they are disturbed when confronted with the true desire of the narrator - somebody who prefers and chooses not to do work yet collects their money and ferrets it away in his desk. I felt like in order to restore cognitive peace, the narrator needed to stop shielding Bartleby behind a screeen, not make excuses for him (i.e. his eyes were ruined) and instead accept Bartleby for what he was - a naked manifestation of the narrator's true desires. Instead of running away from him the narrator needs to incorporate Bartleby into his office, and if he finds it too unbearable to be presented with such a figure, then he needs to change his id.
-- SkylarPolansky - 29 Mar 2012 | |
>
> | Skylar, I think that's a really interesting perspective that I hadn't fully considered in terms of restoring cognitive peace, so thank you for helping me be more precise in my thoughts. Like you, I saw Bartleby as a projection or a manifestation of the narrator's "id", and had the same idea that the narrator needed to stop shielding himself from Bartleby's presence, literally and metaphorically. I actually don't think our views on what the ideal next step is (i.e. get rid of Bartleby or incorporate him) necessarily conflict. What I was trying to articulate above was that after one recognizes the presence of Bartleby as a haunting force in their "office", they should strive to use that recognition to transform and become cognitively whole rather than rationalizing it away. Restoring that cognitive 'whole-ness' very well may mean incorporating Bartleby comfortably into one's soul, and before reading your post, I saw incorporation as synonymous with 'ridding oneself' of their Bartleby. Essentially in my post above I defined self restoration as the evisceration of the haunting force (whether through incorporating it or undertaking some other type of behavioral change). However, I appreciate you shedding light on the distinction between 'getting rid of' Bartleby (which I think I equated with incorporating Bartleby) and instead, in your words, "accept[ing] Bartleby for what he [is]", which is really a more accurate way to capture what incorporation really entails.
-- CourtneyDoak - 29 Mar 2012 |
|
|
BartlebyAnalysis 14 - 29 Mar 2012 - Main.SkylarPolansky
|
| | Bartleby—A Law Student's Analysis
This short piece addresses the reflection narrator sees of himself in Bartleby in Herman Melville's short story, "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street." | | | And so the next issue I began to ponder is how to assure we are not haunted similarly; how to identify our own Bartleby's if confronted with them rather than rationalizing their presence away, whether by "charity" to clear our consciences, or by other means. I suppose a starting point might be to at least strive to become conscious and aware if/when "something splits" in ourselves. Ultimately I think coming to inner resolution, avoiding a life haunted by a Bartleby-esque projection of yourself, is first identifying that you're being haunted, and subsequently committing to using that revelation to "inspire change in the face of self-realization and human awakening" as Meagan suggests. So Meagan, I guess I'm not entirely sure whether Bartleby catalyzed a metamorphosis in the narrator, but I am at least hopeful that Bartleby has the capacity to serve as a ghost of Christmas future, if the person he is haunting is able to recognize that he is being haunted.
-- CourtneyDoak - 29 Mar 2012 | |
>
> | I found Jason and Courtney's perceptions that the narrator needs to get rid of Bartleby interesting because I had an opposite reaction to Bartleby. I felt the lesson learned from the story was that the narrator would never be rid of Bartleby, and instead he had to learn to incorporate Bartleby comfortably into the Narrator's office and soul. My first interpretation of Bartleby was that he represented the narrator's Freudian "id". Bartleby would simply prefer not to do real work. He wants to live in the office and subsist off of his co-workers, and store away money for use later. Turkey (who has a proclivity for drinking) believes Bartleby just needs to drink more. Other lawyers and professionals (perhaps representing the "super-ego") are disturbed by Barleby's presence; they are disturbed when confronted with the true desire of the narrator - somebody who prefers and chooses not to do work yet collects their money and ferrets it away in his desk. I felt like in order to restore cognitive peace, the narrator needed to stop shielding Bartleby behind a screeen, not make excuses for him (i.e. his eyes were ruined) and instead accept Bartleby for what he was - a naked manifestation of the narrator's true desires. Instead of running away from him the narrator needs to incorporate Bartleby into his office, and if he finds it too unbearable to be presented with such a figure, then he needs to change his id.
-- SkylarPolansky - 29 Mar 2012 |
|
|
BartlebyAnalysis 13 - 29 Mar 2012 - Main.CourtneyDoak
|
| | Bartleby—A Law Student's Analysis
This short piece addresses the reflection narrator sees of himself in Bartleby in Herman Melville's short story, "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street." | | | The character of Bartleby, I think does not go any further than a literary symbol to show the weakness of the corporate culture and the power of noncooperation. He does not exemplify the solution and his preference not to do anything obviously goes too far as he presumably starves to death from preferring not to eat. The eating motif figures prominently in the story. The first description of Bartleby's eating habits is actually in terms of the work he does: "At first Bartleby did an extraordinary quantity of writing. As if famishing for something to copy, he seemed to gorge himself on my documents. There was no pause for digestion" (7). Bartleby seems to sustain himself on work rather than anything else - his diet of ginger nuts cannot be enough, or so the narrator contemplates: "he never eats even vegetables, he eats nothing but ginger-nuts. My mind then ran on in reveries concerning the probable effects upon the human constitution of living entirely on ginger-nuts" (10). The view that the poor live off doing work certainly would accord with upper level labor managers of the time. Does this suggest that Bartleby's stoppage of work is what ultimately causes his death, namely that his attitude not to cooperate within the system is the same thing that takes away his only real source of sustenance? Perhaps. It would be a way to subtly reaffirm the values of the Wall St. class. Ghost stories are didactic tales that reaffirm a value system by showing the dreadful results of abandoning that system. Supernatural elements have to used of course because the rational, sensible world could never undermine the system. For Bartleby to be a ghost story, it must a ghost story by the executive class to scare itself in maintaining the status quo. Bartleby cannot be hero. He must die at the end.
-- AlexWang - 29 Mar 2012 | |
>
> | I agree with everything that has been said regarding Bartleby functioning as a literary symbol to elucidate the inherent flaws in the corporate culture. I totally agree with you Alex, that Bartleby is at its core a ghost story that shows the ease of crushing the Wall Street monolith through non-cooperation. Bartleby's apathy, his 'preference' not to comply with any of the narrator's requests, strikingly illuminated for me the pseudo-urgency of Wall Street and left me with a distaste for the meaninglessness of it all. When I was reading, I thought of Bartleby as a stand-in for the infinite faceless cogs in the corporate machine (the narrator included), trapped in the endless monotony of this machine (in this case, literally trapped in the confines of the four walls of this office). Unsettlingly, most of these cogs are likely unaware of their entrapment.
Overall my main takeaway in reflecting on Bartleby was similar to Jason's - that we should try to get our own Bartleby's out of our respective "offices" as soon as they appear, rather than rationalizing them away. I think it is interesting to reflect on the notion of "charity" as the narrator conceived of it, and more specifically, to reflect on how that conception colored his interactions with Bartleby. I had difficulty figuring out whether the narrator ever really developed any sort of empathy for Bartleby. While he ostensibly displayed generosity towards Bartleby, the narrator's reasons for doing so seemed entirely self-interested, as he goes so far as to declare that helping Bartleby is "a sweet morsel to his conscience". I saw the narrator as a prime example of one of those faceless cogs who does not realize the extent of his entrapment in the materialistic confines of the monotonous corporate machine. Even his 'generosity' and 'sympathy' toward Bartleby is defined in material terms. He tries to use what he deems 'charity' to buy or trade for a clear conscience rather than meaningfully reflecting on or actually dealing with Bartleby's refusals to cooperate with his requests. It seems that his rationalizations function to suppress the cognitive dissonance that Bartleby's presence arouses.
And so the next issue I began to ponder is how to assure we are not haunted similarly; how to identify our own Bartleby's if confronted with them rather than rationalizing their presence away, whether by "charity" to clear our consciences, or by other means. I suppose a starting point might be to at least strive to become conscious and aware if/when "something splits" in ourselves. Ultimately I think coming to inner resolution, avoiding a life haunted by a Bartleby-esque projection of yourself, is first identifying that you're being haunted, and subsequently committing to using that revelation to "inspire change in the face of self-realization and human awakening" as Meagan suggests. So Meagan, I guess I'm not entirely sure whether Bartleby catalyzed a metamorphosis in the narrator, but I am at least hopeful that Bartleby has the capacity to serve as a ghost of Christmas future, if the person he is haunting is able to recognize that he is being haunted.
-- CourtneyDoak - 29 Mar 2012 |
|
|
BartlebyAnalysis 12 - 29 Mar 2012 - Main.AlexWang
|
| | Bartleby—A Law Student's Analysis
This short piece addresses the reflection narrator sees of himself in Bartleby in Herman Melville's short story, "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street." | | | I would not have realized this was a ghost story if not previously prompted. But I agree with Matthew that upon knowing that, I find it a ghost story of alternative sorts. In addition to being a reflection of the narrator, I think Bartleby is supposed to be a reflection of everyone in the building. Everyone hides there nothingness in an excess of busy work that doesn't actually produce anything. Bartleby tries to fit into that mold but slowly but surely drops the pretense. While unclear it does not seem that the narrator's business suffers from Bartleby's sudden refusal to do work, furthering the idea that the work never really had to be done to begin to start. The way that he makes everyone feel uncomfortable when he haunts the building to the point of almost starting a mob, shows that he affects people. Generally things that make people the most uncomfortable are things that tap something personal. Discomfort is a haunting in its own way of our mind.
-- YvetteFerrer - 28 Mar 2012 | |
>
> |
Bartleby accomplishes an extraordinary thing with a simple phrase "I would prefer not to." This simple phrase dismantles the narrator's business. Bartleby eventually stops working completely, adds no value, scares clients away and eventually forces the narrator to move. Additionally all the tenants are unable to operate their businesses and hound to narrator to get rid of Bartleby. Bartleby's "I would prefer not to" shows the power of simply being unwilling to play along. Bartleby does not flat out refuse or take positive measures. Simply by stating a preference to not participate, the whole structure begins to crumble. This is certainly exemplified by Urquart's use of the phrase in her one encounter with the abrasive Mallorn. She passively resists and stands her ground. (This seemed to have been a victory for her, but unfortunately it also seems like one of her few attempts to resist the system (besides golf). She is certainly a rounder character than Jensen and Voorhees, but covets prestigious and power as well. Perhaps Urquart's preference not to speaks for her rejection of male hierarchy, not a rejection of corporate greed in general.)
Bartleby's gentle refusal renders the narrator powerless. The narrator's odd sense of generosity allows him to rationalize away the uncooperative Bartleby. The narrator constantly readjusts his understanding of the situation to allow Bartleby to continue doing nothing, rationalizing his lack of control and avoidance of action as charity to Bartleby. But more than anything, it is the simple refusal to comply with norms that is so frightening for the narrator and so damaging. At one point Bartleby occupies the whole office and the narrator is locked out. His key does not work until Bartleby's "work" inside is done. What is most frightening is the spread of the natural and irresistible spread of preference (as opposed to duty): "He did not in the least roguishly accent the word prefer. It was plain that it involuntarily rolled form his tongued. I thought to myself, surely I must get rid of a demented man, who already has in some degree turned the tongues, if not the heads of myself and clerks. But I thought it prudent not to break the dismission at once" (18). Bartleby is a ghost story because it shows the ease of crushing the corporate, Wall St. monolith. Not playing along, not accepting the culture, is dangerous and contagious. If left unchecked, as here unchecked by the narrator, it threatens the entire business structure. The only solution is to take action and lock the menace up.
The character of Bartleby, I think does not go any further than a literary symbol to show the weakness of the corporate culture and the power of noncooperation. He does not exemplify the solution and his preference not to do anything obviously goes too far as he presumably starves to death from preferring not to eat. The eating motif figures prominently in the story. The first description of Bartleby's eating habits is actually in terms of the work he does: "At first Bartleby did an extraordinary quantity of writing. As if famishing for something to copy, he seemed to gorge himself on my documents. There was no pause for digestion" (7). Bartleby seems to sustain himself on work rather than anything else - his diet of ginger nuts cannot be enough, or so the narrator contemplates: "he never eats even vegetables, he eats nothing but ginger-nuts. My mind then ran on in reveries concerning the probable effects upon the human constitution of living entirely on ginger-nuts" (10). The view that the poor live off doing work certainly would accord with upper level labor managers of the time. Does this suggest that Bartleby's stoppage of work is what ultimately causes his death, namely that his attitude not to cooperate within the system is the same thing that takes away his only real source of sustenance? Perhaps. It would be a way to subtly reaffirm the values of the Wall St. class. Ghost stories are didactic tales that reaffirm a value system by showing the dreadful results of abandoning that system. Supernatural elements have to used of course because the rational, sensible world could never undermine the system. For Bartleby to be a ghost story, it must a ghost story by the executive class to scare itself in maintaining the status quo. Bartleby cannot be hero. He must die at the end.
-- AlexWang - 29 Mar 2012 |
|
|
BartlebyAnalysis 11 - 29 Mar 2012 - Main.HarryKhanna
|
| | Bartleby—A Law Student's Analysis
This short piece addresses the reflection narrator sees of himself in Bartleby in Herman Melville's short story, "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street." | |
<
< | Prior to Bartleby's entrance, the narrator describes himself as an experienced, self-possessed professional. He knows what he wants and he seems to have acquired it. “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” (1). The narrator was recently appointed a Master in Chancery, for which he completes little arduous work and yet is compensated pleasantly. He approaches life from a distinctly self-interested point of view, and yet this self-interest occasionally compels him to help others. “Mere self-interest, then, if no better motive can be enlisted, should … prompt all beings to charity and philanthropy” (23). In contrast to his two copyists, who take turns flubbing their work according to the hour of the day, the narrator appears content and controlled. In short, the narrator appears to live a work life that many of us desire for ourselves. He is cool, collected, and well-paid. | >
> | Prior to Bartleby's entrance, the narrator describes himself as an experienced, self-possessed professional. He knows what he wants and he has acquired it. “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” (1). The narrator was recently appointed a Master in Chancery, for which he completes little arduous work and yet is compensated pleasantly. He approaches life from a distinctly self-interested point of view, and yet this self-interest occasionally compels him to help others. “Mere self-interest, then, if no better motive can be enlisted, should … prompt all beings to charity and philanthropy” (23). In contrast to his two copyists, who take turns flubbing their work according to the hour of the day, the narrator appears content and controlled. In short, the narrator appears to live a work life that many of us desire for ourselves. He is cool, collected, and well-paid. | | | Of course, this depiction contrasts with the image of the lawyer that we have been presented with this semester: the lawyer that seeks justice for his client. The narrator faces this unpleasant reality when his crafted appearance is betrayed by Bartleby's arrival. | | | The narrator cannot rid himself of Bartleby, even though everything in the preceding description suggests that he should. He alternates between lashing out at Bartleby and coddling him. This irrational behavior from a self-styled cool, collected man may point to seeing something in Bartleby that the narrator dislikes about himself. The narrator's complacence to Bartleby's slow drop in work-ethic may be to criticize the routine and sterile world the lawyer lives in, doing "safe" but well-paid work on Wall Street. The narrator in the story has practiced for many years--he is in his early sixties--and is in a career for an 'eminently safe man.' Challenging Bartleby means challenging the decisions he has made for himself, something he is not willing to confront after practicing for so long. | |
<
< | Bartleby continues to challenge the ease and logic in the narrator's life, yet the narrator fails to rid himself of Bartleby every single time. When Bartleby originally fails to complete his work, the narrator rationalizes his decision not to fire him by reasoning between logic and altruism. “Poor fellow! Thought I, he means no mischief…He is useful to me. I can get along with him.” When the narrator discovers that Bartleby lives in his office, without his permission, the narrator is unable to ask him to leave. He again rationalizes this decision. The narrator comments on the loneliness of Wall Street on nights and weekends, and empathizes for the lonely Bartleby. | >
> | Bartleby continues to challenge the ease and logic in the narrator's life, yet the narrator fails to rid himself of Bartleby every time. When Bartleby originally fails to complete his work, the narrator rationalizes his decision not to fire him by reasoning between logic and altruism. “Poor fellow! Thought I, he means no mischief…He is useful to me. I can get along with him.” When the narrator discovers that Bartleby lives in his office, without his permission, the narrator is unable to ask him to leave. He again rationalizes this decision. The narrator comments on the loneliness of Wall Street on nights and weekends, and empathizes for the lonely Bartleby. | | | | |
<
< | When the narrator surrenders his office space to move to another location, simply to "isolate him from sight" but not voice, the narrator is segregating the feelings inside him that Bartleby represents. The narrator reveals this internal conflict when he addresses the lawyer who moved into his old offices. The narrator pretends not to know Bartleby's name, and originally refuses to do anything about him. However, once the narrator finds a way to rationalize the interaction (by fearing his own exposure in the papers), he immediately runs off in his attempt to convince Bartleby to quit the premises. | >
> | When the narrator surrenders his office space to move to another location to "isolate him from sight" but not voice, the narrator is segregating the feelings inside him that Bartleby represents. The narrator reveals this internal conflict when he addresses the lawyer who moved into his old offices. The narrator pretends not to know Bartleby's name, and originally refuses to do anything about him. However, once the narrator finds a way to rationalize the interaction (by fearing his own exposure in the papers), he immediately runs off in his attempt to convince Bartleby to quit the premises. | | | This reading may have been assigned to drive this point: any lawyer worth his salt thinks before mindlessly entering a practice. A lawyer brings justice to her clients by thinking about the work she's doing and the career she is embarking on, not by pawning a license in a "safe" workplace. |
|
|