I really enjoyed reading this short story. I love Melville's style. I got a good laugh when the narrator had the idea of just "assuming" Bartleby wasn't there, walking up to his office and running into him "as if he were air", and then somehow Bartleby would finally leave after this because, "it was hardly possible that Bartleby could withstand such an application of the doctrine of assumptions." That is pure gold.
More seriously though, I think the central dilemma that struck me in the story is, "how far do we extend decency and compassion to those who fall outside the norms of society or harm us?" The narrator deals with this question in a number of ways. He talks about whether the troubles brought on him by Bartleby were "predestined from eternity" and "for some mysterious purpose by an all-wise providence." He assumes a "wise and blessed frame of mind" that takes for granted that he is serving a higher purpose of charity by sheltering Bartleby from the world. He makes the observation that I have found to be true in my life: "Aside from higher considerations, charity often operates as a vastly wise and prudent principle—a great safeguard to its possessor."
As the narrator grapples with how much his common humanity entitles him to help Bartleby from the moral standpoint, he is slowly dragged back to more self-interested actions by the gossip of his professional peers and the suffering of his reputation. This I think is Melville's way of pointing out how the opinion of the masses corrupts us, and how we often are more wise and better people when we think for ourselves. Truly, Bartleby places demands on the narrator that are far beyond what anyone should be expected to bear. And yet there is something admirable about how far he goes to help his common man, and a definite sense of loss when he finally abandons Bartleby.
Overall it was short, thought-provoking, and entertaining. Great book club pick!
Love the Bartleby cartoon! I remember watching a PBS version of "Bartleby" in high school and they made the story very funny. His death at the end is absurd and ironic, not tragic. Many years later I read the story and found it very sad. Still, though, the phrase "I would prefer not to," makes me laugh, even though it's not funny in the context of the written story. Nice summary and notes--thanks, Mari.
Jul 12, 2023·edited Jul 12, 2023Liked by Mari, the Happy Wanderer
I read this in high school, and then again just last week for your book club. While I recalled the story itself very well, I have no recollection of any discussion we had about it, and remember only that I wondered at the time, why did we read this? I can't say that now I'm any more clear on why this story is part of the classic canon.
My overall feeling of it was that of a mystery story. Why does Bartleby behave that way? Why doesn't he at least just continue doing what apparently he did well for some time? But I guess the answer follows, he's mentally ill to the point where he just decides to starve to death rather than make any effort in any direction. It's perfection in apathy. I found the coda distracting, attempting to tack on some explanation as though it would make more sense. Clearly the author didn't intend for it to be resolved in any meaningful way. I wonder if his editors demanded something?
The story strains at any realism. Didn't Bartleby come with any job references? Wouldn't a lawyer be able to think of some clever trick to force Bartleby into some decision? "Bartleby, it would be most helpful for us if you would stand there all day while we hang our jackets on you." Surely the expense of moving a whole office is more than hiring a strong arm to just carry him outside.
What struck me personally about it is the theme of division of labor. Most people are not perfect at their jobs, and have some deficiency that we wish they could fix. But if you have enough people working together, you can usually overlap their strengths and deficiencies to get overall good results. As a manager I would embrace this idea, and work to make the best of the people I had, rather than try to cajole them into doing things we all knew would be mostly wasted efforts. I wish HR departments would consider these options.
Now I'm excited to read Melville's earlier works to see what made him so popular initially! I'm currently reading Moby Dick again, coincidentally.
I really enjoyed reading this short story. I love Melville's style. I got a good laugh when the narrator had the idea of just "assuming" Bartleby wasn't there, walking up to his office and running into him "as if he were air", and then somehow Bartleby would finally leave after this because, "it was hardly possible that Bartleby could withstand such an application of the doctrine of assumptions." That is pure gold.
More seriously though, I think the central dilemma that struck me in the story is, "how far do we extend decency and compassion to those who fall outside the norms of society or harm us?" The narrator deals with this question in a number of ways. He talks about whether the troubles brought on him by Bartleby were "predestined from eternity" and "for some mysterious purpose by an all-wise providence." He assumes a "wise and blessed frame of mind" that takes for granted that he is serving a higher purpose of charity by sheltering Bartleby from the world. He makes the observation that I have found to be true in my life: "Aside from higher considerations, charity often operates as a vastly wise and prudent principle—a great safeguard to its possessor."
As the narrator grapples with how much his common humanity entitles him to help Bartleby from the moral standpoint, he is slowly dragged back to more self-interested actions by the gossip of his professional peers and the suffering of his reputation. This I think is Melville's way of pointing out how the opinion of the masses corrupts us, and how we often are more wise and better people when we think for ourselves. Truly, Bartleby places demands on the narrator that are far beyond what anyone should be expected to bear. And yet there is something admirable about how far he goes to help his common man, and a definite sense of loss when he finally abandons Bartleby.
Overall it was short, thought-provoking, and entertaining. Great book club pick!
Love the Bartleby cartoon! I remember watching a PBS version of "Bartleby" in high school and they made the story very funny. His death at the end is absurd and ironic, not tragic. Many years later I read the story and found it very sad. Still, though, the phrase "I would prefer not to," makes me laugh, even though it's not funny in the context of the written story. Nice summary and notes--thanks, Mari.
I read this in high school, and then again just last week for your book club. While I recalled the story itself very well, I have no recollection of any discussion we had about it, and remember only that I wondered at the time, why did we read this? I can't say that now I'm any more clear on why this story is part of the classic canon.
My overall feeling of it was that of a mystery story. Why does Bartleby behave that way? Why doesn't he at least just continue doing what apparently he did well for some time? But I guess the answer follows, he's mentally ill to the point where he just decides to starve to death rather than make any effort in any direction. It's perfection in apathy. I found the coda distracting, attempting to tack on some explanation as though it would make more sense. Clearly the author didn't intend for it to be resolved in any meaningful way. I wonder if his editors demanded something?
The story strains at any realism. Didn't Bartleby come with any job references? Wouldn't a lawyer be able to think of some clever trick to force Bartleby into some decision? "Bartleby, it would be most helpful for us if you would stand there all day while we hang our jackets on you." Surely the expense of moving a whole office is more than hiring a strong arm to just carry him outside.
What struck me personally about it is the theme of division of labor. Most people are not perfect at their jobs, and have some deficiency that we wish they could fix. But if you have enough people working together, you can usually overlap their strengths and deficiencies to get overall good results. As a manager I would embrace this idea, and work to make the best of the people I had, rather than try to cajole them into doing things we all knew would be mostly wasted efforts. I wish HR departments would consider these options.
Now I'm excited to read Melville's earlier works to see what made him so popular initially! I'm currently reading Moby Dick again, coincidentally.