Bartleby the scrivener i would prefer not to

BARTLEBY THE SCRIVENER I WOULD PREFER NOT TO PROFESSIONAL

One of the effects of this episode is evidence that there is absolutely no division between the private and the professional for Bartleby. The lawyer slinks away, servilely accepting the apparition of Bartleby (the term вЂњapparitionвЂќ is used, evoking the spectral character of Bartleby). The door opens, and Bartleby appears, his lean visage thrusting at the lawyer. Unable to open the door, he struggles with the lock. One Sunday morning, the lawyer goes to Trinity Church to hear a вЂњcelebrated preacher.вЂќ Arriving rather early, he decides to kill time before the sermon starts by walking to his office. The вЂњSunday episodeвЂќ is the crux of the story. It is a way of hovering over the categories of вЂњYesвЂќ and вЂњNoвЂќвЂ“a linguistic trapeze act. It is a form of вЂњpassive resistance.вЂќ It is a slippery slogan. One must be careful not to read the slogan вЂњI prefer not toвЂќ / вЂњI would prefer not toвЂќ as a refusal or declination. The literalization of his job description, Bartleby resists performing duties outside of his job description with a painful politeness. Whenever the lawyer asks him to do anything other than copy contracts and deeds, the response is always the same: вЂњI prefer not toвЂќ or вЂњI would prefer not to.вЂќ Whenever impressed upon to perform even the simplest of errands, Bartleby states his non-preference-passively, reactively-from a place of hidden privilege and gentle condescension. This is why Bartleby is disinclinedвЂ“ prefers notвЂ“to examine his own copies, why he is disinclined to bring letters to the post office, why he is disinclined to fetch Nippers, etc. Indeed, he does his work with excessive dedication and never seems to step outside of the office (before his forcible eviction): вЂњI observed that he never went to dinner indeed, that he never went anywhereвЂ¦ he was always there.вЂќ He works to the limit: вЂњHe ran a day and night line, copying by sun-light and by candle-light.вЂќ He does not do anything, however, that he is not paid to do. Too many readers have overlooked the fact that Bartleby is the ideal employee. вЂњBartleby, the Scrivener,вЂќ in the first place, is the story of a copyist at a lawyerвЂ™s office who reproduces documents, but resists, with gentle dignity, doing anything other than reproducing documents. вЂњBartleby, the Scrivener,вЂќ then, is not a parable about the Writer or about Writing. There is a more urgent problem with this argument: If Bartleby represents all poetic writers and the ostracism and martyrdom of all poetic writers, why does he stop copying in the third act of the story? Surely, a poetic writer is someone who never ceases to write poetically, someone who turns every experience into a writable experience. To say that Bartleby represents all poetic writers-and not every writer in the world-would be to engage in the вЂњNo True ScotsmanвЂќ fallacy, but we can put that aside for the moment. John Jacob Astor, the lawyerвЂ™s symbolic father, is said to be вЂњa personage little given to poetic enthusiasmвЂќ Byron is called вЂњmettlesomeвЂќ by the anti-poetic lawyer the view from within the artless lawyerвЂ™s office is described as вЂњdeficient in what landscape painters call вЂlife,'вЂќ and so forth. There are indeed references to poeticism in the text. One might rejoin that Bartleby represents all poetic writers. The lawyer says of Bartleby: вЂњI had never seen him read-no, not even a newspaper.вЂќДЄnd why would Bartleby be a figure for the Writer and not the other copyists in the office? Why would Turkey not be the symbolic expression of the Writer in the story? Why not Nippers? Turkey and Nippers do the same thing that Bartleby does: They copy contracts and deeds for pay. He is no more a genuine writer than a Subway sandwich artist is a genuine artist. He does not produce anything original he is a replicator. Those who set forth this erroneous interpretation must answer the following question: If Bartleby is a figure for the Writer, why does he never actually write? Only a watery understanding of the word writing would encompass what Bartleby does.

Whatever Bartleby experiences, then, would be whatever the Writer experiences. (See Leo MarxвЂ™s unjustly influential 1953 essay вЂњMelvilleвЂ™s Parable of the Walls.вЂќ) Bartleby, according to this falsification, is a figure for the Writer. One of the most common misinterpretations of Herman MelvilleвЂ™s вЂњBartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall StreetвЂќ is that it is a story about writing. I PREFER NOT TO MISINTERPRET Herman MelvilleвЂ™s вЂњBartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall StreetвЂќ

Bartleby the scrivener i would prefer not to