An Analysis of “Bartleby the Scrivener” by Herman Melville

An Analysis of “Bartleby the Scrivener” by Herman Melville
“Bartleby the Scrivener” is a very descriptive tale of a lawyer and his clerks.  The lawyer, the narrator of the story, is never named but all of his clerks have very interesting nick names that are used throughout the story.  Turkey, Nippers, and Ginger Nut are his office helpers in this story.  They are very temperamental and moody, but the narrator doesn’t seem to mind them, in fact he seems to embrace them.   He sets a scene that takes place on Wall Street, in a law office of ordinary circumstances.  In walks a new clerk, introduces himself and becomes one of the office workers.  His name is Bartleby; he is the hero of Melville’s story in his refusal to participate in a workplace that represents the sad, dreary atmosphere of a bureaucratic, industrialized society.

The narrator, a simple man, prefers the path of least resistance.  ”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” (Melville).  He doesn’t get much attention for his work.  There aren’t any high profile criminal cases that he works on.  His life is that of men’s finances and wills.  This thankless job is one that pays well, but doesn’t have much personal satisfaction.  He is the boss, and the office workers are his minions. 

While the narrator is content with his life’s ambitions, his helpers seem displeased.  One way they show this is in their behavior.  Turkey and Nippers, both have temperamental attitudes that vary in time with their onset.  Turkey has his during the morning times, Nippers has his during the afternoon.  Just like at the DMV, moodiness is common place in this work environment.  Menial tasks seem to grind away at their souls leading to swings in the characters’ behaviors depending on the time of day.  Depression is one manifestation when one is not happy with their situation, and usually follows with moodiness.  It seems as though the office workers don’t like the tasks they have to do, but because of financial obligations they have to do those tasks.  This in turn leads to them being unhappy with the job, and bouts of regular moodiness. 

Bartleby has an entrance that is stellar in the eyes of the narrator.  ”At first Bartleby did an extraordinary quantity of writing. “As if long famishing for something to copy, he seemed to gorge himself on my documents no pause for digestion. He ran a day and night line, copying by sun-light and by candle-light….But he wrote on silently, palely, mechanically” (Melville).  The narrator loves the quality and the quantity of his work, but it seems even in the beginning Bartleby realizes the nonexistent value of the job.  He too most likely has financial obligations that he has to worry about, so he plods along as if he were a robot attaching caps to a tube full of tooth paste. 

  Bartleby worked hard for a while, but one day the narrator asks him to review some papers with him.  The narrator states himself that “it is a very dull, wearisome, and lethargic affair.”   Bartleby replies with his famous statement, “I would prefer not to” (Melville).  This statement would become the single most used phrase that Bartleby speaks throughout the whole story.  From the beginning he doesn’t want to participate in the work place’s useless tasks.  One can’t assume why he took the job in the first place, but from the beginning he states calmly that he doesn’t want to do menial duties that the lawyer asks him to do.  Is he too good for them?  Is he looking to make the narrator and the other office workers mad?  These questions are hard to answer, because Bartleby really doesn’t speak much in the story.  Maybe he is the embodiment of the narrator’s feelings towards his work, but Melville leaves most of Bartleby’s character up for interpretation by the reader. 

Once Bartleby has cemented his position, the narrator looks to others for help.  He asks Turkey, Nippers, and Ginger Nut if Bartleby’s position is ludicrous.  The three of them, being entrenched in the daily office work, as well as dependent on the money, agree with the lawyer.  Any person that has a superior that they are dependent on will agree with most anything they say.  In the end, someone has to do the work so the narrator and the other office helpers take Bartleby’s share of the unpleasant responsibilities. This is a shift of responsibility is somewhat unusual.  Most employers would terminate an employee that is blatantly defiant.  The narrator has a special place in his heart for Bartleby, because of his industriousness and gentle attitude.   

The same situation happens over and over again.  Bartleby is assigned a menial task, then he utters the same phrase “I would prefer not to” (Melville). His refusal is consistent with his determination to not do these duties.  It is Bartleby showing his boss that he will not be brought down to a basic level.  He is above these things that his overseer asks, tells, and then demands.      

Bartleby determined to not work resigns himself to looking at the brick wall through the window.  The office is like a cage holding Bartleby captive.  His glare out the window shows his longing for better places, but is obstructed by the wall outside, much like the Berlin Wall holding people captive in a place they didn’t want to be.  It is a symbol of the drab surroundings, and the wall that he will hit if he tries to get loose.

Bartleby’s apparent lack of industriousness towards the end of the story infuriates the narrator.  He believes that this was meant to happen.  His work is of so little worth that someone is supposed to come in and show him what is apparent even to him.  In the end, the narrator runs away from this realization.  He decides to leave the place that is occupied by the reminder of his situation.  He abandons the place where Bartleby is holding his proverbial ground.  Because of Bartleby’s attachment to the office he ends up in real captivity.  This is the narrator locking away his feelings of disappointment towards his work. 

Melville paints a picture of Bartleby dying a lonely death, giving us the example that those who stand up for their beliefs will have the same fate.  Hopefully, no one ends up in the situation that Bartleby and his bureaucratic boss are living through.   They both have issues with what they are doing in their lives; the narrator is fine with his station and worth.  Bartleby is a different story; he isn’t happy with it and decides to show his displeasure in a passive aggressive way.  Bartleby’s actions aren’t justified by the way that he was treated, but he does show that displeasure can be shown by doing absolutely nothing.

Works Cited

Melville, Herman. "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street."  Bartleby. N.p., 2011. Web.

            25 Feb 2012. <http://www.bartleby.com/129/>.

Bartleby's Stubborn Ways

Bartleby is about a lawyer and his clerks.  They all have their quarks, but none with as many Bartleby.  Here is a passage from the story that was set apart in my mind, 

"But when this old Adam of resentment rose in me and tempted me concerning Bartleby, I grappled him and threw him. How? Why, simply by recalling the divine injunction: “A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another.” Yes, this it was that saved me. Aside from higher considerations, charity often operates as a vastly wise and prudent principle—a great safeguard to its possessor. Men have committed murder for jealousy’s sake, and anger’s sake, and hatred’s sake, and selfishness’ sake, and spiritual pride’s sake; but no man that ever I heard of, ever committed a diabolical murder for sweet charity’s sake. Mere self-interest, then, if no better motive can be enlisted, should, especially with high-tempered men, prompt all beings to charity and philanthropy. At any rate, upon the occasion in question, I strove to drown my exasperated feelings towards the scrivener by benevolently construing his conduct.

 Poor fellow, poor fellow! thought I, he don’t mean any thing; and besides, he has seen hard times, and ought to be indulged"(Melville).

The narrator in the story is having a moral dilemma, concerning a clerk named Bartleby. He has over stayed his welcome at the office.  Bartleby is living there paying no rent and providing no work in exchange for the living situation.  Does one throw the offending gentleman out on the street?  Most would say yes; I will throw a person that is mooching off me and my business out on the street. 

The narrator is wrestling with doing the right thing, which just might be killing him.  Love thy neighbor, is the phrase that saved Bartleby. This thought process really comes from the narrator being so fed up with the worthlessness and stubbornness of Bartleby.  He is convinced, by Bartleby's actions, that he doesn't deserve to live. If only the narrator wasn't Christian, this tale would end up being a bloody horror story.  Steven King could have written a screen play worthy of Hollywood attention.  

The feeling passes and the narrator down grades the wrath to rationalization and pity. This is true human values, judging other people's actions, then coddling them with your pity.  Bartleby's indifference to work and responsibly are something that should have been dealt with earlier.  This whole moral dilemma could have been avoided if the narrator would have been more forceful from the beginning.  If you give a person and inch, they'll take a mile.  Bartleby knew that the narrator wouldn't act quickly so he abused the situation. He finally had to take more drastic measures for the situation to be resolved, that could have been taken care of earlier by more direct interactions. 

      Melville, Herman. "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street." Bartleby. N.p., 2011. Web. 19 Feb 2012. <http://www.bartleby.com/129/>.  

Image taken from:http://www.halloween24.com/party-supplies/decorations/man-with-knife-shower-curtain-with-sound.html

 

Hunger Games Summary and Analysis

Summary vs. Analysis of Hunger Games

A novel by Susan Collins

So this post is going to be a summary and then an analysis of Hunger Games by Susan Collins.  Summary is the basic plot outline of a story.  An analysis is what the writer intended the reader to take away from the story.  It is a break down of the different scenarios in the story and their underlying meaning. 

        Hunger Games is a story of a girl, Katniss Everdeen, living in a post apocalyptic society.  She is very talented with a bow and arrows.  Her father dies in a coal explosion, so she has to break the law and hunt for her family's survival.  It is a day to day struggle.  She has a best friend, named Gale, that joins her in this illegal hunting. He too had a father die in the same coal mine explosion. The District they live in, number 12, is ruled by a higher District called the Capitol.  It runs all of the Districts from 1 through 12.  They rule with violence and intimidation.  

          Every year there is a bloody contest held between children, called the Hunger Games.  It is in honor of the squashing of a rebellion that happened 74 years ago. Two kids from each district are chosen to join the games.  They have to fight to the death, only one is the winner.  On the day of the "Reaping", Kantniss' sisters name is called.  She immediately volunteers herself, in place of her sister, as the victim to this horrible game.  Another is chosen, a boy by the name of Petta.  He is a soft spoken boy, whose parents own a bakery.  Katniss and Peeta will be the tributes from District 12, fighting a battle for their lives and each other's as well. Peeta and Katniss are shuttled off to the Capitol to prepare for the games.  They are afforded every luxury, a thing they are not used to enjoying.  Their mentor Haymitch, a previous Hunger Games victor, gives them advice about how to stay alive in the ring.  All of the contestants of the games are interviewed before they fight.  Petta drops a bombshell and professes his love for Katniss.  This is a total shock to her, having never even talked to him before the games.  

The next day the games start.  Katniss immediately takes off for her own survival.  She ends up being chased up a tree, where she sees that Petta has taken up with the bad folks, called careers.  They are the people that have trained to be in the games their whole lives.   She narrowly escapes from the clutches of the nasty group. 

Again, she is cornered by the careers, but this time Petta is her savior.  She narrowly escapes while Petta has a nasty fight with one of the careers.  He ends up in a ditch badly injured. Katniss finds him and nurses him back to health over a couple of days. The whole time she is faking her feelings for Petta.  At first she kissed him for medicine and other things that are needed for survival.  Then it blossomed into real feelings.  The Game Makers announce one night, during the games, that this year there will be two winners.  Of course everybody wanted Petta and Katniss to win.      

They finally get through most of the other opponents, then with three left, the Game Makers send evil animals after them.  Katniss and Petta make it away from all of the animals unscathed.  Then, the Game Makers announce that there can only be one winner.  They both choose suicide over killing one another.  As they attempt to do that, via poison berries, the Game Makers tell them that they will both win this year, because of their love for each other.  After it is all over, Katniss admits that most of the things she did weren't for love, they were for survival.  This truth breaks Petta's heart.  The book ends with Katniss and Petta back in their district awaiting a tour of all the surrounding country, where they have to act like they are in love to keep them and their families safe.

Analysis

  Hunger Games although well written, is mostly for entertainment.  It isn't the deepest book out there.  It's basic premise is how the Capitol uses fear, violence, and psychological warfare, to keep the population in line.  It does make for a good read though. 

    Susan Collins writes about the struggle between the ruling class, the Capitol, and the poor.  Excess abounds in the Capitol, while most other districts suffer famine, disease and other hardships. The Games are the biggest example of violence and psychological tactics used to quell rebellion.  It places all children in danger of facing a brutal death.  Parents fear every year that their kids' names will be called, resulting in massive heart ache and anxiety.  It is shown in every district.  There are mandatory viewings of the brutal murders of children by all the citizens.  Then after they are done killing each other, the victor is paraded around to all the districts, to show that the one who kills for the capitol will get everything they want.    

If your family is facing food shortages, you can get a food allowance, but you name has to be put in the drawing another time.  This greatly increases your chances of getting called during the Reaping.  This equates to, if one is hungry the food is there, but it comes at a price.

The Capitol also has Guards and fences, that encompass the district.  Walls have been used in many different civilizations as a psychological and physical intimidator.  Some walls were more to keep people in than out.  The Berlin Wall comes to mind.  This was also the case in the Hunger Games' society.

Torture was also very readily used by the Capitol.  A prime example is an Avox.  They are servants that had their tongues cut out for transgressions they had committed.  They were then made to serve the Capitol as indentured servants.  The city squares also had whipping blocks and stocks for public humiliation.  Those are prime examples of psychological and physical abuse.    

These tactics aren't anything new to civilization, they've been used in the past and present. Governments are always looking for the best way to keep the balance between function and survival.  If it means a human being has to suffer, for the greater good, so be it.  I know this is a pessimistic outlook on our own and other governments, but it is the reality we all live in.

Image taken from http://ricklax.com/archive/200810

Swift's Modest Proposal

     Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publik," is just that modest.  Swift speaking mostly to the rich, while making fun of them, proposes eating one-year-old babies will solve the economic and societal problems of 18th century Ireland.

     Thieves, beggars, and joblessness abound.  An economic crisis is happening.  What else can you do?  A child under the age of six is useless.  They cost more to feed than they are worth.  Why not cut them off at the pass.  Swift uses the evidence: " the charge of nursing a beggars child... will be about two shillings per annum, rags included; and I believe no gentlemen would repine to give ten shillings for the carcass of a good fat child..."(Swift).  That's a profit of 8 shillings off the bat.  That's the definition of capitalist incentives.  You may think this is crazy, but any economics professor would say the argument is logical.

                                                   

     Although his argument is obviously satire, he poses a good one.  His evidence isn't exactly solid, but it makes sense.  The economics he uses and his delivery are spot on.  He uses snide comments and veiled offensive comments to take shots at the rich.  The essay really brings the plight of the poor to the surface.           

     Rather than see them as a nuisance, he tries to make them seem like objects for the taking.  This proves his point that the rich are taking advantage of the poor.  Why not eat the kids.  I think with a little lemon and rosemary, they will be quite delicious.   

Swift, Jonathan. "A Modest Proposal." Project Gutenberg. Project Gutenberg, 2008. Web. 

           3 Feb 2012. <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm>.
Image taken from: http://mrtopp.com/2010/06/16/feeding-baby/