Greetings, once again. "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street" like many great stories can be read on a number of different levels that all contribute to the enjoyment of reading it. Think of it like what was known in my family when I was growing up as "Dad's Favorite Dessert." I've since learned that it is also called "Cherry Yum-Yum." It consists of three things. The crust is made from graham crackers and melted butter, then baked until it is crispy. The next layer is a mixture of cream cheese, heavy whipping cream and sugar all mixed together into a pudding-like consistency. The top consists of fruit pie filling and in my case it must be cherries and, for a purist like myself, it must be Comstock(assuming I spelled that right) pie filling. You chill it for a few hours in the fridge and there you have it.
What I usually do is eat the cherries off the top and throw the rest away. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Are you awake? Am I kidding? Of course! What I do is eat a piece with every ingredient—then usually eat a second piece—then hide the rest from my wife, son and any guests that might show up. Then I use as much will power as I possess to keep from eating another piece until the next day.
The point is—-that stuff is good!! The secondary point is that if you only see one level of a story you'll be missing out. Bartleby, for me, has three levels.
The first level is the story itself. What I mean by that is what happens with the characters and what the time and place are. It is important to have an interesting story. The great writers have deeper levels to their stories, but they also write stories that have good plots and memorable characters. Don Quixote is a good example. That great novel by Cervantes has two memorable characters: the knight, Don Quixote and his squire, Sancho Panza. Underneath the windmills and antics of these two is a deep story about our world. In Bartleby we have this strange character. Try to imagine working with someone like him. I used to have a real job and if a colleague when asked by our boss to do something that I had to do said, "I would prefer not to," and my boss made me do what he would not—well, I would be angry. I could see myself siding with Nippers and wanting to kick the guy out of the office. If it continued, I can see taking Ginger Nut's perspective: "I think, sir, he's a little loony . . ." In this respect the story is strange. What is this guy doing? He decides not to work, he stares at walls, he hardly eats anything and he continues to use that phrase: "I would prefer not to." But he doesn't say it timidly or threateningly—he speaks calmly as if it was a natural thing to say. Well, this would be disturbing. I would wonder a little about the guy. If I learned he was sleeping at the office and that when he got fired he started sleeping in the building, then I'd probably start to feel sorry for him and begin thinking that he had some problems. You can read the story on that level and get some enjoyment out of it as almost a humorous story about a quirky character who dies in prison. The cherries. Cherries are good—but what about the sweet, white cream underneath?
That first level everyone can agree upon. When you go deeper there are differing opinions and different perspectives.
In the latter case we all read stories with a bias, that is, we all come to a story with our own beliefs and our own life experiences. No two of us are alike. One part of the story may mean more to you than it does to me because of a belief you have or something that has happened to you in your life. I may not have the same belief or the same experience. Our perspectives differ, hence what is important to us about a story may also differ.
In the case of opinions about what a story means we must always consult the text. Can my opinion or your opinion be supported by the text? Though there may be many legitimate interpretations of a story that does not mean that every interpretation is a valid one. When the text is not specific we can consult the author's life, the time period in which the story was written and other people's opinions about the story, that is, the critics who write about stories, novels, poetry, essays and plays. Reading critics is a great way to see the story in a different light which you may or may not agree with.
This is what reading is all about. Here we are in this thing we call life that many of us are attempting to figure out, that many us think we have figured out and that some us think there's no need to figure out. When we read we bring our beliefs into the courtyard of what some have called "The Great Conversation" and we compare what we believe and think with what we are reading and we can judge how our beliefs hold up. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. We also judge the work we are reading. We do or don't agree with it. We do this not only with books, but with the events and lives that surround us—this is how we grow, how we mature. Anyway, that's my opinion. What's yours?
The second level in "Bartleby" is one that was introduced to me by a critic I read while preparing for this class. If you want you can read the same essay I did at:
The essay, "Melville's Parable of the Walls," was written by Leo Marx. Near the beginning he writes, "There are excellent reasons for reading 'Bartleby' as a parable having to do with Melville's own fate as a writer." Marx focuses on Melville's life and makes comparisons between it and the story. He says the story is about a writer (a copyist writes things) which Melville was and that this writer decides to stop writing—something like Melville who decided to stop writing certain kinds of things. Melville, like Bartleby, had to decide whether to do what was expected of him and be accepted or do what he wanted to do and be shunned. Bartleby and Melville chose the latter.
Melville had strong ties to the business world and tried to enter into it several times. Some critics have suggested that Melville was disappointed that he could not make as good a living as a writer as some people made, his brother being one of them, on Wall Street. He did not, however, like the world of business. Marx ends the essay by saying that Bartleby "died with his eyes open," that is, he "was still searching." Marx's implication is that Melville did the same thing, that is, though he died as writer to the public he continued, in his private life, to keep searching and to keep writing the things that he wanted to write regardless of how popular they might or might not be.
The third level is a philosophical level. It's the graham cracker crust, which, I think, is the best part of "Cherry Yum-Yum." What is Melville saying about life in general (as opposed to in "particular")? The subtitle is very important because Wall Street was, or the very least, represented in Melville's day the center of American business. Melville did not have high regard for it. In a book of Balzac's he underlined the following:
New York: A place where speculation and individualism are carried to the highest pitch, where the brutality of self-interest attains to cynicism, where man [is] essentially isolated.
The first thing to consider in the story is the narrator. He's a lawyer, a businessman who calls his business his "avocation" a word which can mean either a job or hobby. If we read it as a hobby, this might be Melville's opinion that the lawyer's job is not that important—just something people do in their spare time when they get the chance. He calls himself a "safe man." What might this mean? There's a sense in which being safe is dangerous. A safe person rarely takes risks, rarely looks at something beyond what they already know. He's a man who is influenced by what others think of him and he seems to think that most everyone else has his view of life.
The reference to John Jacob Astor's good opinion would indicate that he expects most people would like to be thought well of by this prominent businessman. Astor represents that side of business that often gives business a bad name and the narrator admires him. Melville mentions the Colt and Adams story and Monroe Edwards. These men present the bad side of business—but it seems to be a side of business that doesn't much disturb the narrator.
Another thing to notice is the walls. Melville is careful to describe all the walls to us. This office is walled in. It receives little light and no direct light. It's a kind of dark place, it has an ominous feel to it. You get a similar, though more ominous feel, in Franz Kafka's novel, The Trial. The narrator's office is cut off, walled off, from the outside world. There's a white wall, a black wall and Bartleby's wall—three feet from the window. There's also the wall that contains the door, one that Bartleby rarely uses. Notice, too, that Bartleby has his own private wall within the office, the "high green folding screen." Not only is the office isolated from the outside, but Bartleby is isolated from the office. Bartleby never leaves the office until he's ousted and then put in prison—another place walled off from the rest of the world. The office and the prison hold little difference for Bartleby.
The most memorable part of the story is Bartleby's "I would prefer not to."(10) It's an interesting phrase. He's not saying, "No. I won't do it," but nor is he saying, "Yes, I will." He says simply that he "would prefer not to." He would rather do other things and the "prefer" indicates that he considers those things of more importance than what the narrator is asking him to do. It's also interesting to note how Bartleby says these words. In the first instance it is with a "singularly mild, firm voice." His voice is clear when he says it. Then the narrator, who is quite astounded at this development tells us that when he spoke there had not been "the least uneasiness, anger, impatience or impertinence in his manner . . ." He says it with a "flutelike tone"(11), "respectfully and slowly"(14), with a "mildly cadaverous reply"(19), and "gently emphasizing the 'not'"(24). He has a kind of confidence and there must be something about the way he says it to keep the narrator from firing him. Sometimes Bartleby says it and walks away. Try that on your parents some time and see what happens.
Recently I saw a movie version of "Bartleby" and I was very disappointed in how he was portrayed. The movie depicted him as a timid man lacking self-confidence. He seemed unsure of himself. I don't see that in the text. He seems to me to be confident and sure of himself. Polite, yes, but also firm.
There's another reason that the narrator doesn't deal with Bartleby: it's the pressures of business. In the first instance he is considering what to do but states, "my business hurried me."(10) In the second instance when he is trying to think of what to do he writes, "But once more business hurried me. I determined again to postpone the consideration of this dilemma to my future leisure." Later in the story when he is beginning to ponder the situation a little more deeply he writes, "At length, necessities connected with my business tyrannized over all other considerations." Note those last words: "over all other considerations." In the last instance when the narrator decides that he will help Bartleby, that he will allow him to live the life he desires he writes that this probably would have happened "had it not been for the unsolicited and uncharitable remains obtruded upon me by my professional friends . . ." Throughout the story his business keeps him from dealing with Bartleby.
If Bartleby represents humanity as the last line of the story seems to indicate, then the narrator is kept from thinking about what is important, that is, humanity, his own humanity, because of his business. This is an indictment against the world of business when it troubles men and women to such a degree that it keeps them from dealing with the most important things in their lives. I think Melville looked at America in the same way that Alexis de Tocqueville did. Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America from 1835-40 and it is still one of the most poignant criticisms of our country ever written. In it he wrote:
For indeed, few men are idle in democratic nations; life is passed in the midst of noise and excitement, and men are so engaged in acting that little time remains to them for thinking.
The narrator can't take the time to think about the problem because he continually feels the pressure of business, hence he never deals with the problem adequately. Again, listen to Tocqueville:
Men are in constant motion; the mind of man appears almost unmoved.
The narrator is coming and going. He's busy with business. Too busy.
Bartleby, on the other hand, is often engaged in his "dead-wall reveries." What are those? It's some type of meditation or contemplation of something. The narrator often refers to Bartleby's "hermitage." A hermitage is a place devoted to spiritual contemplation and/or prayer. It's usually a secluded place occupied by hermits—it's similar to a monastery. So what is Bartleby thinking about? He might be considering death which in it's broadest terms is really a consideration of life. Remember, we learn at the end of the story that Bartleby worked in a dead letter office, that is, letters that can't be delivered because the recipients are dead. How could you not think about death under those circumstances? Bartleby comes from that office to the narrator's. You might say that he contemplates other people's deaths, then he contemplates his own and then he actually dies.
It is not necessary here, that is, in this third level of the story to think of his death as a literal one. Death in religious and philosophical terms is often a symbol of change or of realization or enlightenment. It is interesting to note that Bartleby dies with his eyes open—it's the narrator that closes them.
There are two important lines that Bartleby says to the narrator when he is in prison. They are:
"I know you . . ."(31)
and
"I know where I am."(32)
When Bartleby says, "I am not particular,"(29-30) what he, or probably more accurately, what Melville might be saying is that Bartleby is a "universal." In philosophy a "universal" is something that pertains to everyone and "particular" is something that does not. Bartleby says, "I am not particular," that is, "I am a universal." So Melville, it seems to me, is attempting to say something universal in this story. So, when Bartleby says, "I know you," he is saying, "I know what kind of person you are. I know what motivates you. I know what this society is like." Bartleby has experienced the ugly side of humanity by being thrown into prison, that is, he has been rejected by the rest of society because he refuses to conform. However, he also says, "I know where I am," which I interpret to mean, "I know who I am." Bartleby knows what he is up to, he knows himself and knows exactly what it is he wants out of life. He has preferences and he's willing to . . . die for them.
This may be the reason that Bartleby stares at the narrator's bust of Cicero earlier in the story. Cicero died because he spoke the truth, but there is also a bit irony on Melville's part because Cicero was also a businessman, a politician and very involved in his society. On the other hand, he was a writer and presented the views of philosophers—people who think about life—like Bartleby did.
You might call Bartleby's preferences his convictions or principles. Whatever they are they are important to him and he refuses to allow business, which could represent any number things, to get in the way of what he prefers. The narrator is unable to do this. Notice one of the last lines in the story: "On errands of life, these letters speed to death." Isn't this what is happening to the narrator? He has all his errands to run, all his responsibilities and he allows them to take over his life as he speeds to his death.
"Ah Bartleby! Ah Humanity!" Has the narrator come to any kind of realization with these last words? Hard to say. What is Bartleby doing when he is alone? What is Bartleby thinking about during his "dead-wall reveries"? These are things about the story that we can make guesses about based upon what we learn in the rest of the story—but Melville doesn't tell us directly. These are some of the ambiguities of the story. It's good that the story has these mysteries because life is like that. It, too, has mysteries and questions. It wouldn't be interesting if it didn't.
Information on John Jacob Astor came from: http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/eng216/bartleby/bart1def.htm (this page is no longer availabale)
Tocqueville, Alexis de, Democracy in America. Translated by Henry Reeve, revised by Francis Bowen, Edited and abridged by Richard D. Heffner. A Mentor Book, New American Library, 1984, pp. 271, 268.
