When I was teaching,
my students often had trouble with "Bartleby" because they could not
understand why Bartleby acted the way he did; they also were not sure why the
narrator didn't throw him out immediately.
So, I always tried to tackle these two problems of motivation at the
beginning.
The story is
difficult because it marks a transition between fabulistic stories, in which
characters are two-dimensional representations, and realistic stories, in which
they are presented "as-if" they were real. As a result, Bartleby seems to be a
fabulistic character, while the narrator seems realistic.
There is no way Bartleby can answer the
question, "what is the matter with you?" because Bartleby has no "matter";
that is, he can only react as a two-dimensional representation of passive
rebellion. In Hamlet the Queen says
to Polonius, "More matter, less art." But Polonius is no more
"matter" than Hamlet, who is a "poor player" who cannot
"act" because the only thing he can do is "act."
The one place in Melville's story when
Bartleby comes closest to answering the question about what motivates him is
when he has decided to do no more copying at all and the narrator asks him
why. Bartleby, standing looking out the
window at the blank wall, says, "Can you not see the reason for
yourself?"
The narrator, an
"as-if-real" character thinks there is something wrong with
Bartleby's eyes. Bartleby, a
two-dimensional figure, is referring to the metaphoric representation of his
problem--the blank wall. However, it
makes no sense to tell an "as-if-real" person that the reason one has
decided to do nothing is because of a wall.
To do so is to be accused of madness (as Bartleby indeed has been
accused of), for it means to mistake a mere object in the world (the wall) for
what one has taken the object to mean (meaninglessness, nothingness, blankness,
loneliness, isolation). As Polonius
tells the Queen: "Your noble
son is mad: Mad call I it, for to define true madness, What is't
but to be nothing else but mad? But let that go."
Although the narrator
cannot identify with Bartleby's metaphoric mistake, he feels the power of
Bartleby's loneliness and need. He knows
that the only cure for Bartleby's isolation is brotherly love, but he is unable
to grant that love on Bartleby's terms--that is, that he completely lose
himself, give up everything. For the
metaphoric character, it is all or nothing at all; the "as-if-real"
character, however, feels he must exist in the practical world.
Melville's story is
ambiguous and mysterious because, like Hawthorne's "Young Goodman
Brown," it is both fabulistic and realistic at once. The wall is a "dead letter" for
Bartleby because it signifies "nothing," and "nothing" is that
which he cannot bear. Bartleby is a
"dead letter" for the narrator, because, although he has intuitions
about who or what Bartleby is, he cannot "go all the way" into that
realm of madness, the metaphoric, and the sacred that Bartleby inhabits; he can
only tell the story over and over, each time trying to understand
Tomorrow: Hawthorne's
"Young Goodman Brown".
Also one of my favorite short stories - I always read Bartleby as an act of pure civil disobedience. For the narrator, it is the worst of frustrations, because how do you move an immovable object? Although a mix of fabulist and realist elements, Bartleby has become mostly real based on my experience in life - the hardest thing to react to is no reaction at all - and that's why I love this story even more so today than when I first read it more than 40 years ago.
ReplyDelete