Boy, talk about confusing stories and non-traditional narratives. I love it when conflict is the first element introduced in stories and novels, because the reader stays gripped at the edge of the chair (bed in my case). But there's no resolution here...whatsoever. Not for me anyhow. I'm not saying I feel shortchanged by the ending, but there wasn't enough information given about the character who was supposedly the protagonist. Did he propel the story forward? If he did, then he was just a foil character. Did he make change happen as soon as he was introduced? In that case, he was the catalyst. All said and done, we can't change the ending (you know, copy right issues n' all), so lets move on from the irresolute discussion.
I like this story, mainly because I think that it falls into one of my favorite fiction genres, i.e., satire. I'm the sort of person who'll pick up a protest sign at the drop of a hat, so stories that allude to problems in the society always appeal to me. The object of satire is just that -- to highlight complications in the world we live in under a humorous light.
"I am a man who, from his youth upwards, has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is best." That's the first introduction from Melville that suggests the tone of the story to follow. Incidentally, if anyone's ever read Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad, you'll find that Melville and Twain share the same depth of wit.
I think that there's a subtle hint towards the class conflict being made by Melville in this story, especially by the ironic reversal of roles. Does the man with the money always get to call the shots? I don't think so. Talk about social injustice. The notion of hapless dread setting in with the loss of power is very pronounced in the story. There's a sense of loss of control, which is synonymous with a loss of power, which is unacceptable, especially for capitalists.
For instance: "And as the idea came upon me of his possibly turning out a long-lived man, and keep occupying my chambers, and denying my authority; and perplexing my visitors; and scandalizing my professional reputation."
Loss of control, loss of power and loss of social standing. Refuting social customs is a favorite hobby of satirists, by the way. I can actually picture Mr. Lawyer wiping the beads of perspiration off his forehead.
I suppose that my only question is, why is Bartleby's death left unjustified? If a case be made for him, then we could say that he was left starving for compassion because he had to rely on the kindness of strangers (I'm sorry Dr. Jerz. I couldn't resist). But any justification for Bartleby is pure conjecture, so I don't know if it's safe to go there. Just how dark was his life? I think Melville actually tells us.
"...- he whom it would relieve, nor eats nor hungers any more; pardon for those who died desparing; hope for those who died unhoping; good tidings for those who died stifled by unrelieved calamities..."
There's a socialist moral at play here, but I'm definitely not going to spell it out even further.
Posted by NehaBawa at September 26, 2005 02:09 PM | TrackBacki agree with you on the fact that bartleby's death was left unjustified. i still am thinking about that one. why did no one care about him?
and, the quote "ah Bartleby, ah humanity!" makes me think that bartleby could possibly have stood for a bigger image than himself.
maybe that the people in our daily lives who do their work and get on by are not appreciated like others? maybe that the people who cause us the least difficulties are the ones that strive the most for our compassion?
who knows?
also, note that mr. lawyer (i like that term!) never really tried to kick bartleby out of the office. he said a few times that he would like hi to leave, but he never really made him leave. like forcefully made him leave. if something like that happened to me, i'd be pushing bartleby out the door.
another simple thought...could bartleby possibly be considered a martyr?
get back to me, s'il vous plait. i'd love to hear what you think!
Posted by: lauren etling at September 26, 2005 06:27 PMI like the Streetcar Named Desire reference, Neha.
Lauren: one way of looking at Bartleby is that his death effects a change in the narrator. The martyr interpretation has a lot of support, but I'm not sure how compatible it is with taking the story as satire. If it's satire, then are we supposed to take our cues from the lesson that Melville (via Bartleby) is trying to teach, or from the narrator's inability to learn? Is the narrator really changed at the end, or is this whole story another excuse that the lawyer has produced in his leisure time?
Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at September 28, 2005 12:24 AMThanks Dr. Jerz. I knew Streetcar would prove to be useful someday.
Lauren, I'm not sure if Bartleby can be taken for a martyr, because the story doesn't show him sacrificing himself for a greater good. He does definitely get treated unjustly, which is why I brought up the Marxist literary theory in class. Satirizing the power struggle between the wealthy and their employees brings more attention to the cause.
Posted by: Neha at September 28, 2005 02:23 PM