Basic Human Nature
“Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street” is a short story that was published in two parts in the November and December issues of Putam’s Magazine in 1853. The story was written by the well known American author Herman Melville. Melville was discouraged, maybe even seriously depressed, at this time. In his novel Moby Dick he posed deep,philosophical questions about the nature of man, the meaning of life, and the real truths about good and evil. His writing was dark and difficult. Although it was somewhat successful, readers found Moby Dick too complicated and philosophical. The public wanted lighter, escapist adventure, and more uplifting stories, something that frustrated the contemplative Melville. Because he was torn between staying true to his own interpretation of art and the necessity of earning money, he became disenchanted with writing. He resented the idea of writing to give the people what they wanted, to write to please his readers, but his desperate financial situation forced him to make compromises. Turning to the short story as a genre, Melville thought that may be less frustrating to produce and more lucrative in order to support himself and his family. Clearly, the author was forced to see the importance of using writing as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Melville had to be practical and realistic; he had to write what the public wanted to read and be successful in terms of sales and critical approval, after this Melville found himself lost and confused as a writer. He questioned his ability and dedication to continue to write, and consequently went through a difficult period of time personally and professionally. This biographical information seems essential in the real understanding of “Bartleby, the Scrivener.”
Melville writes the story of a successful Wall Street lawyer who hires Bartleby, a new clerk or scribe, to write copies of the busy attorney’s many documents. At first, Bartleby works very hard and is reliable and cooperative. However, soon he stops his work, refusing to do anything. When his boss, the lawyer, asks him to do something, Bartleby replies only, “I would prefer not to.” He does not give any explanation or excuse for his lack of follow through, he just continues to say the same thing time after time. The short story focuses on the dehumanization of Bartlesby by his job copying documents, which can be thought of as an early copy machine or computer. Bartlesby seems to have become indifferent and shallow because of his routine job. He becomes passive and resistant, but also pathetic and without any human spirit. Instead of showing any determination to survive, Bartlesby gives into his depressed emotional state and eventually dies of starvation in prison. Is he actually saying no to living? Does he commit a slow suicide, basically stating “I would prefer not to…live?” The overall tone is tricky in its darkness and inevitable decline to total despair.
The narrator of the short story is the lawyer who hired Bartleby, who was initially impressed with his work ethic, “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. He ran a day and night copying by sun-light and by candle-light. I should have been quite delighted with his application, had he been cheerfully industrious. But he wrote on silently, palely, mechanically” (Melville). It seems that Bartleby initially worked hard not just to prove himself and impress his employer, but because he was hungry for the work, wanting to “gorge” on the documents he was supposed to copy. Was Bartleby so starved, so “famished” for meaning in his life that his job became all consuming? It is interesting that Melville uses food and hunger as metaphors in order to effectively make this point. Maybe Bartleby drove himself too hard, too fast, and even to the point of no return. Bartleby worked all day and all night, apparently with no breaks or other diversion. As Odell warns, sometimes work can take on too much importance and meaning for an individual, leaving him robbed of his own unique human spirit and enthusiasm. The lawyer also notes he would have been more pleased with Bartleby’s efforts if he had been more “cheerfully industrious.” Apparently, the clerk became so “silent” and “mechanical” that his spirit was lost. He appeared to have been so dehumanized and demeaned by the routine nature of his work that it started to jeopardize his individuality. However Melville echoes Odell’s theme of being productive, useful, or in this case, industrious; it seems to be a significant objective and something to admire about an individual’s personal character.
Yet in relating this theme to Jenny Odell’s How to Do Nothing, it seems that there is a stark contrast in tone. Although Odell definitely objects to the dehumanization that too much reliance on technology and, being too focused on being productive, can bring, her message seems to be one of optimism. She encourages the reader to enjoy nature and the world and not always feel the pressure to be useful and productive. Odell seems to advise a quiet kind of personal protest, a refusal to join in that preserves one’s identity and individuality. Of course, this is not that new. Thoreau, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and many others in history used peaceful resistance as a way to show their opposition to an idea or an institution. Odell does allude to Bartleby, but she does not endorse his isolation and withdrawal from the world. In fact, it is the opposite, as she describes her own determination to stay engaged in the world while resetting some of her priorities and habits. Hers seems to be more a message of warning, but with an undertone of hope and encouragement.. Odell chooses to find delight in life, unlike Bartleby who seems to choose depressing disengagement. While Odell understands the dehumanization that can be found in a society where achievement, pressure, and usefulness are the ideals, she shows that there are also alternatives. At times, like Bartleby, she would “prefer not to” and do, maybe not nothing, but instead look at roses, listen to birds, escape to a remote cabin in the mountains,turn off her computer and cell phone, but she also knows it is important to maintain a connection with others and the world around her. Odell appears to promote viable alternatives to rejuvenate and refresh, but not a surrender of the human spirit and passive despair. Bartleby seems to be a victim of his circumstances, but he does nothing to try to change or improve his situation. To me he seems weak and passive, allowing things to happen to him rather than launch any kind of initiative, while Odell seems to urge self-awareness and activism. Although she acknowledges a frenzied world where there seems to be an ever constant demand to be busy, set goals, achieve them, and then set new goals to accomplish, Jenny Odell also sees beauty, human connection, and hope.
That Melville portrays Bartleby as lacking in any sense of humanity seems another important contrast. As the lawyer hands his clerk a document to copy, he is taken aback by Bartlby’s resistance, in “my haste and natural expectancy of instant compliance…imagine my surprise, nay, my consternation, when without moving from his privacy, Bartleby in a singularly mild, firm voice,replied, ‘I would prefer not to’…I sat in perfect silence, rallying my stunned faculties” (Melville). The lawyer cannot believe that Bartleby would not comply; he is shocked and annoyed by the clerk’s resistance and by the lack of emotion in his appearance. Thinking Bartleby had not heard him, the lawyer repeats his request, yet receives the same reply. Studying his clerk, the lawyer sees Bartleby’s face “ was leanly composed; his gray eyes dimly calm. Not a wrinkle of agitation rippled him. Had there been the least uneasiness, anger, impatience or impertinence in his manner; in other words, had there been any thing ordinarily human” (Melville) the lawyer might have understood. In his quiet refusal to obey, with his lifelessness and “grayness,” Bartleby appears to be less than human. Although this may be stretching it, another question then arises. Do employees, and people in general, have to blindly obey in order to display their sense of being human? What if Rosa Parks had obeyed? What if Nazi soldiers had not obeyed? Is injustice a possible outcome of following orders?
“I prefer not to” is a timeless idea that may be related to basic human nature. Thoreau wanted to escape from society into a simpler life of nature at Walden Pond, hippies and flower children of the 1970’s wanted to drop out and establish communal living, many people today want to escape the pressures and confines of busy urban living and labor to find less complicated and more fulfilling lives in rural settings away from the ratrace. Jenny Odell questions this surrender and encourages continued, but more meaningful, engagement with the world. What is missing in all of this seems to be spirituality. Do all of the answers have to be in some form of human escape? To me, these are important and necessary topics to think about, but I think we as human beings must also accept that there are things we have to accept. There are obligations in every job that need to be filled. There are obligations in human relationships that need to be respected. There are obligations to nature that must be followed. However, there is also a good amount of reward in doing so. If people look at these as the positive responsibilities of being a mature individual, maybe more people would also see the many satisfactions, and, like Odell, seriously reflect before saying “I prefer not to.”
