I interpret it as an allegory for what Wall Street does to an individual. How you seemingly need no emotion, no sleep, and no direction. In a way he is the perfect Wall Street worker. Uncompromising and focused. The fact that he never leaves the office, never eats, never rests. In a way he realizes that he has no purpose, no drive. Just a cog in a machine that has robbed him from his purpose from the beginning.
I haven't read the original story but I do know the 1970 movie starring Paul Scofield very well. I'd say the implications of what the Bartleby character in that version represents or signifies goes far far beyond his workplace. His boss too.
Also, "Bartleby" itself (the story) as a "dead letter" from Melville. Melville "prefers not" to write the type of stories that would pay him well (his early novels of escapism, adventure) and instead write Moby Dick (one of the greatest philosophical novels ever written, but one critics panned and that most people prob still don't read) and stories like "Bartleby". These philosophical works were tantamount to not communicating (hence dead letters)--what he wanted to say wasn't reaching recipients. Melville wrote a letter to Hawthorne suggesting that lack of money was killing him--keeping him from being able to do the type of work he believed had value (e.g. Moby Dick).
I enjoy the continued analysis of the story after all these years. My father portrayed Bartleby in the Encyclopedia Brittanica version of this that was distributed to many English and Psychology classrooms and was airs on PBS many times
Your father, Patrick C., also had at least one brief cameo appearance in All in the Family as a mailman on one of the most intense, controversial episodes (and my favorite one!) that dealt with anti-semitism. I also watch the Encyclopedia Brittanica version of this story every year.
I told my boss in a round about way that I would prefer not to. Throughout the day I kept implying this quite clearly, and in the end I simply walked out. I got a new job a few weeks later, the best job I've had so far. :)
What I found merits comment is the relationship that develops between Bartleby and his employer and narrator of the story. The impact that Bartleby has on the latter. From being a utilitarian pragmatist he slowly grows entrapped by disconcertment that turns into a kind of helpless and futile empathy before the spectacle of a human being who self-destructs in a wilfull autism. The story is moving because we recognize ourselves in both characters.
This was wonderful thank you so much!! I just finished reading this story and loved it so much I really wanted to hear others talk about it & I was happy to find ur passion for it (:
Its funny how ambiguous content is considered a genius probably because of its ability to provoke new thoughts and interpretations which can transcend itself in other areas of past experience.
i listened to this while doing my makeup the morning of my english midterm and it is so great! the Job quote also functions symbolically if viewed from a marxist lens; the "kings and councillors" being corporations or your John Jacob Astor type building "desolate places for themselves" like wall street!
+Romi5 L. Thank you! If you ever would like my help on interpretations or a paper or anything, feel free to enlist my services at editygroup.com/academic!
Great overview of the some of the possible interpretations of "Bartleby". I read this story for one of my classes, and I've just written a paper about it. The story is certainly enigmatic, but I think it is perhaps less enigmatic than most people suppose. The reason is this. Much of the commentary fails to investigate the essential clue. The clue consists in the narrator's dual allusion to the works of Edwards and Priestley. There are a couple of great articles that examine the implications of this allusion. The best one, as far as I can tell, is an article titled "The Alternatives to 'Bartleby'" by Allan Emery. The second article is written by Walton Patrick, titled "Melville's 'Bartleby' and the Doctrine of Necessity". Without prodding "the tale's intellectual roots," Emery writes, we will continue "to muddle through 'Bartleby' as readers and to lapse into an embarrassing vagueness as critics." Despite the dissimilarities in their analyses, both suggest that we, as Patrick writes, "interpret the story as a dramatization of the doctrine of necessity." In other words, we can't come to grips with the meaning of the "Bartleby" unless we come to grips with meaning of the doctrine of necessity espoused by Edwards and Priestley. Once we do, the story becomes less mysterious than it may initially appear. That is not to say that we will completely resolve the mystery of "Bartleby", but we can go a long way in lessening its perplexity. Cheers!
The coworkers have some value in the story. The narrator can't get an ideal copier, since his staff's human traits make them fidget or create errors. Fate sends him a man with essentially no human traits who is a talented copier in practice but without humanity he has no reason to do the work. They're not key to the story necessarily but the description of their personalities creates a bit more dimension.
Nice job here. I am thrilled to confirm that my take on one of the central themes is a valid one. :) Thanks for taking the time to record your thoughts.
You are brilliant! Without your help I would have not been able to discuss this. Maybe I’m closed minded in a sense because my interpretations were simple and boring until you opened my eyes to the possibility of deeper meaning. Literature is not my subject. I’m a science nerd.
I'm thinking about rereading the story so that I can pay attention to all details and interpret them to get to a particular comprehension of it as a whole. But it may take a lot of time...
just listened to the story first time on audiobook - Bartleby - clearly high-functioning Asperger's/ autistic (?? :) ) - also, the often pronouncements on "capitalism" or "socialism" are often amusing to me - like there can't be any (maybe even more) "mind numbing dead-end" jobs in "socialism" too - although Mr. Courtright seems to present all possible viewpoints in good objective form (full disclosure myself , neither anti-capitalist nor anti-socialist I believe every society is some combination of both (and properly so) , both private people owning and doing things and government-owning and doing things - and government regulating just about everything :)
Bartleby gets hauled off to the famous old prison nicknamed The Tombs. He worked formerly in the Dead Letter office in DC. I think that his story is meant to portray the life of hack-laborers who have nothing to look forward to in work and have had any joys or expectations of vibrancy in life drained by the circumstances of having to earn a living. Melville perhaps saw himself slipping into this despondent life after having known the heights. In the end I believe it is both fate and personal choice which leave us in our circumstances.
i don't think this has anything to do with marxism, capitalism, or anything economic. Honestly I find the character Bartleby is simply someone who wants to do what they want to do and doesn't want to do what he doesn't want to do. I find he is very self centered and self sabotaging. Someone who doesn't want to engage with others, but follows his own decisions despite what anyone offers him even to his own death. He chooses to not comply, not to engage, not to accept. He's not a hero, he's not a spokesperson for anything. He is a warning to everyone that choosing your own feelings can lead you to want to do nothing, be nothing. Like the narrator says, either you choose what to do, or something will choose for you. He chose nothing, but in the end something chose him. Death. Why you all think it has something to do with economics is because THAT is the thing you are choosing not to be apart of. That is the thing you would rather do nothing about until something is done.
Who knows what someone else thinks of about what someone else thinks of, be it factual or fictional? I do like this story , the way it is written and with the words that are employed very much.
Without knowledge of Asperger's Syndrome, Melville accurately describes Bartleby's behavior as someone "on the spectrum" of autism. Read the symptoms and you will see the similar traits.
I yelled when I saw this story assigned for my online class. Turns out, I like it. I actually like it quite a bit, and even laughed a little. I disagree with the narrator being a nice man though. I thought he was kind of a tool... he never wanted to help anyone until he noticed they were a nuisance to him.
The capitalist critique is not that he fails at upward mobility. As if his attitude would be completely different if he had only been a manager. The critique is that capitalism is soulless and makes machine of man. Which is literally his job. A human typewriting machine. The same treatment that Melville received from his publishers. The life sacrificing rebellion that Bartleby represents is far more radical than “I wish I was the one in control of the business”.
In regards to the claims some make about depression….. “Some commentators have suggested severe depression as Bartleby’s ailment, but the evidence does not support this. Bartleby searched for the job interview, he worked diligently for a few days in order to establish himself in the office, then purposively did nothing. A person with severe depression would find it difficult to generate the energy to search for work, let alone articulate ‘prefer’. More likely they would be distressed, sad, monosyllabic, dishevelled, paralytically unmotivated, distressed, crying. Melville attributed none of this Bartleby. Throughout the story, Bartleby was able to arrange purchase of biscuits and functioned, albeit within the limits of his volition. His mood was at most subdued.” Melville’s Bartleby: An absurd casualty Simon Wein
While I can understand that interpretation, I don't find it very consistent. The other characters do not suffer from the same machine-like traits. Bartleby's lack of effort in his life is his own decision, and perhaps this is his response to capitalism, sure. However, I think that Bartleby represents an aspect of human nature where one's own competence can lead to boredom and aimlessness. If we feel as though we are "done" searching for our place in life, we begin to regress. Bartleby has, frankly, an infantile response to reality. If he prefers not to, then what does he prefer to do? If he prefers socialism, or some other system, then why is he trudging through meaningless, bureaucratic work and not, say, working on a farm? If he prefers nothing, then he has no real case for civil disobedience. I think it's fair to say, capitalist or not, that the onus is on us to figure out what we want to do with our lives. It is also our responsibility to address reality. It can be difficult, especially for creative minds, to reconcile the harsh and mundane truths of the world with a sense of purpose for our lives. Still, while Bartleby is - in my words- infantile, he also does have a sort of freedom that "more civilized" people do not have. He is free from "civilized" expectations. I take it that Bartleby pigeonholed himself into dead end jobs because he knew he could fulfill the responsibilities, but struggles to feel purpose because the jobs are below him in some way, maybe spiritual. And then he discovered that he really doesn't have to do anything at all, which is true philosophically; but he takes it literally, which allows him to escape from the duty to find purpose. Vicious cycle of a lost intelligent mind. Obviously, the story has many interpretations, but I see it as a sort of tragedy. Could Bartleby have really never found a drive or purpose? If he was consciously objecting to the modern world, then does he really have a place in the modern world? Yet he still remains until the point of imprisonment. Could Bartleby's attitude have been the result of perspectives that he should have explored and communicated? To me it seems plain nihilistic to say he was just a victim, destined to be scrubbed out for his own dispositions. THAT is lazy, more so than doing nothing at a job; to think that we have no say in our lives or our happiness and to just give up. In a way, Bartleby is a hero for objecting to mediocrity and the soullessness of the machine, and in a way, he's just lost - in his own world. He was unreachable for those around him, either due to a secret, unmanaged brilliance, or due to simple resignation of will. It could be that his employer and coworkers were more simple than him and more easily shepherded into conformity, and it could be that he was actually just confusing occupation for purpose and thus became paralyzed by the bleakness of such an existence. I find the story fascinating because it inspires many conversations and introspective thoughts, and I would be curious to hear what anybody has to say to this: what justifiable reason could there be to continue to show up for arrangements you prefer not to fulfill? And furthermore, if we all agree to follow a set of rules and conduct in order to maintain society, then at what point are our preferences actually counter-productive? If you respond with, "I prefer not to say," then I will laugh my ass off.
The brick wall could be anti transcendentalist--absurdist or existentialist in that you can't see beyond the "natural facts" to deeper spiritual facts (Emerson and Thoreau), you can only see a "dead wall." The white whale in Moby Dick has been seen as all sorts of symbols, but chief among them-perhaps-is as a symbol of God or nature. Over the course of the novel, he makes use of nearly every discipline known to man in his attempts to understand the essential nature of the whale (just as the narrator attempts to understand Bartleby). Each of these systems of knowledge, however, including art, taxonomy, and phrenology, fails to give an adequate account. The multiplicity of approaches that Ishmael takes, coupled with his compulsive need to assert his authority as a narrator and the frequent references to the limits of observation (men cannot see the depths of the ocean, for example), suggest that human knowledge is always limited and insufficient. When it comes to Moby Dick himself, this limitation takes on allegorical significance. God or nature is unknowable, there are no "transcendent" truths; hence just a dead wall. This reading would still fit with a reading that highlights Marxist alienation, etc.
Not an analysis on the whole story, but I recently realized I can identify in some ways with Bartleby. I work in a emergency department as registration. Trying to patch together demographics for the deceased over and over again can wear on one's mental health.
Thank you for this great video. No society want you to be wise. Bartleby was near I think, but uncompleted. The only way to accept him is as a literature character, otherwise is just absurd. He wanted to be a model fr nothing. I will tell you a revelation. Bartleby was an insect at the end of the day, a great insect. No one like Kafka have read this thing. Nowdays you will see the artist Banksy as a great reader and follower of Bartleby. Hasta la vista.
This was great. I had to read this story for American Literature and I found this helpful. And I like watching your mouth when you talk........I had that infatuation with my high school English teacher too....I just want to touch your teeth...fricken weird right??? lol but I can't help it.
You forgot to mention that Bartleby starts living in the office. I believe Bartleby is existentially depressed but in an enlightened way. Like if Buddha had to get a shitty job and was depressed and bored of everything but still enlightened. And all offers of 'help' do not appeal to him.
To me the brick wall represents the idea that the outside world does not impact your thinking and individualism just like his boss couldn't impose anything on B
How about analysing and interpreting? In the wake of a Kafka and Coetzee, the interloper, uninvited intruder into the narrative has become a trope that rewrites Bartleby into precisely the interpretation you deemed radical. What else is Bartleby but the "other" to the narrators fragile "I".
As someone who reads for fun and not to understand deeper meanings, I was very disappointed with this book. I was expecting something to happen at the end, to find out why Bartleby was how he was but got nothing.
In his time Wall Street must have dealt in cotton and Southern concerns so I think Bartleby as a natural sort of radical by nature would have had aversion to slavery and business derived as well as official greed and the things mentioned. Fan mail from a flounder at the Dead Letter Center.
[The Emperor has no clothes on! ]. It appears that, It does not matter how one interprets this story, people can academically discuss this prose in a seemingly intelligent 🤓 manner. The fact that, diametrically opposing views as well as all shades of possibilities in between, can be forwarded, as meanings for this story merely says to me that, there is actually no “real” story but rather a clever stringing together of words to make people think that some where, some how, if we try long enough that, almost by a feeling of osmosis, that eventually we will “understand” this piece. If we look up at the clouds ⛅️ ☁️ ⛅️ in the sky, no one can say that, what we say we see, as represented by the clouds is (a) right or (b) wrong or in fact is (c) some meaningless gibberish representing some outlandish view between (a) and (b). It appears to my unlearned brain that a piece of writing ✍️ which can evoke so many different interpretations from all the learned folk out there, is a very clever exercise in the ultimate (comedic) put down of the supposed experts in the establishment. If this piece of prose had been written by anyone other than its very well know author, would the writing have reached the heights of interest that it now enjoys or, horror of horrors! would it have been relegated to the dust bin in the corner? Just askin, is all. What makes a piece of literature “great”? Is it because of the reputation of the person who wrote it or, does it have an intrinsic value all on its own, separate to and apart from, the person who penned the words. Similarly, in the art world, the value ascribed to a piece appears to be determined by the signature of the 👩🎨 artist. In that world, there appears to be a lot of fakes exhibited, which when found out, loose all the appeal such works formerly had. In literature, it appears that a similar mindset can also exist. This comment ends as it started with the exclamation that, The emperor has no clothes on! 🌲🌝☘️
Without an event to trigger depression, there is no justification to attributing Bartleby's behavior to depression. This is a story, not the real world. A story would let us know why if Bartleby was depressed. That he does his work so well initially seems to suggest an attempt by Melville to show us explicitly that he isn't depressed.
I just finished the story, first time reading it. I've not yet made up my mind about it, but my initial reaction is that it has no depth. It's just a poorly written story that doesn't intend on reflection. Again, not sure yet, just my initial take. I'm going to give it another read and think it over some more
I interpret it as an allegory for what Wall Street does to an individual. How you seemingly need no emotion, no sleep, and no direction. In a way he is the perfect Wall Street worker. Uncompromising and focused. The fact that he never leaves the office, never eats, never rests. In a way he realizes that he has no purpose, no drive. Just a cog in a machine that has robbed him from his purpose from the beginning.
I haven't read the original story but I do know the 1970 movie starring Paul Scofield very well. I'd say the implications of what the Bartleby character in that version represents or signifies goes far far beyond his workplace. His boss too.
Also, "Bartleby" itself (the story) as a "dead letter" from Melville. Melville "prefers not" to write the type of stories that would pay him well (his early novels of escapism, adventure) and instead write Moby Dick (one of the greatest philosophical novels ever written, but one critics panned and that most people prob still don't read) and stories like "Bartleby". These philosophical works were tantamount to not communicating (hence dead letters)--what he wanted to say wasn't reaching recipients. Melville wrote a letter to Hawthorne suggesting that lack of money was killing him--keeping him from being able to do the type of work he believed had value (e.g. Moby Dick).
I enjoy the continued analysis of the story after all these years. My father portrayed Bartleby in the Encyclopedia Brittanica version of this that was distributed to many English and Psychology classrooms and was airs on PBS many times
Your father, Patrick C., also had at least one brief cameo appearance in All in the Family as a mailman on one of the most intense, controversial episodes (and my favorite one!) that dealt with anti-semitism.
I also watch the Encyclopedia Brittanica version of this story every year.
@@nicholasfurnari8691 yes he did appear in All in the Family among many other shows during that time. Your memory is fantastic. I appreciate that
I told my boss in a round about way that I would prefer not to. Throughout the day I kept implying this quite clearly, and in the end I simply walked out. I got a new job a few weeks later, the best job I've had so far. :)
Cool story, bro.
@@VideoHostSite it is, when you consider that he's an anesthesiologist
@@ronaldkonkoma4356 Lol
What I found merits comment is the relationship that develops between Bartleby and his employer and narrator of the story. The impact that Bartleby has on the latter. From being a utilitarian pragmatist he slowly grows entrapped by disconcertment that turns into a kind of helpless and futile empathy before the spectacle of a human being who self-destructs in a wilfull autism. The story is moving because we recognize ourselves in both characters.
So many interpretations to why Bartleby acted the way he did. I am not sure if I will ever get this paper done LOL
I'm halfway through. Your breakdown has given me the courage to read on. Thanks.
...it's only ~30 pages man.
This was wonderful thank you so much!! I just finished reading this story and loved it so much I really wanted to hear others talk about it & I was happy to find ur passion for it (:
Its funny how ambiguous content is considered a genius probably because of its ability to provoke new thoughts and interpretations which can transcend itself in other areas of past experience.
i listened to this while doing my makeup the morning of my english midterm and it is so great! the Job quote also functions symbolically if viewed from a marxist lens; the "kings and councillors" being corporations or your John Jacob Astor type building "desolate places for themselves" like wall street!
This was very insighful, thank you so much. I'm counting on this to help me for my literature dissertation. Keep on with the videos!
+Romi5 L. Thank you! If you ever would like my help on interpretations or a paper or anything, feel free to enlist my services at editygroup.com/academic!
Great overview of the some of the possible interpretations of "Bartleby". I read this story for one of my classes, and I've just written a paper about it. The story is certainly enigmatic, but I think it is perhaps less enigmatic than most people suppose. The reason is this. Much of the commentary fails to investigate the essential clue. The clue consists in the narrator's dual allusion to the works of Edwards and Priestley. There are a couple of great articles that examine the implications of this allusion. The best one, as far as I can tell, is an article titled "The Alternatives to 'Bartleby'" by Allan Emery. The second article is written by Walton Patrick, titled "Melville's 'Bartleby' and the Doctrine of Necessity". Without prodding "the tale's intellectual roots," Emery writes, we will continue "to muddle through 'Bartleby' as readers and to lapse into an embarrassing vagueness as critics." Despite the dissimilarities in their analyses, both suggest that we, as Patrick writes, "interpret the story as a dramatization of the doctrine of necessity." In other words, we can't come to grips with the meaning of the "Bartleby" unless we come to grips with meaning of the doctrine of necessity espoused by Edwards and Priestley. Once we do, the story becomes less mysterious than it may initially appear. That is not to say that we will completely resolve the mystery of "Bartleby", but we can go a long way in lessening its perplexity. Cheers!
you just made me be able to understand this whole story thank you!
I and Bartleby were sons of Adam clever line. This soliloquy really grasps the effort and sense of reconciliation
Thank you for your in-dept overview. You saved my life.
I want u to do more videos. The literary analysis is diverse and helpful. Thanks :)
The coworkers have some value in the story. The narrator can't get an ideal copier, since his staff's human traits make them fidget or create errors. Fate sends him a man with essentially no human traits who is a talented copier in practice but without humanity he has no reason to do the work.
They're not key to the story necessarily but the description of their personalities creates a bit more dimension.
Nice job here. I am thrilled to confirm that my take on one of the central themes is a valid one. :) Thanks for taking the time to record your thoughts.
Fantastic as usual! Thank you!!
It was great. Thank you so much sir.
Loved this analysis. Well done
You are brilliant! Without your help I would have not been able to discuss this. Maybe I’m closed minded in a sense because my interpretations were simple and boring until you opened my eyes to the possibility of deeper meaning. Literature is not my subject. I’m a science nerd.
i study literature but i feel the same
Thanks….Some interesting interpretations to consider👍
I'm thinking about rereading the story so that I can pay attention to all details and interpret them to get to a particular comprehension of it as a whole. But it may take a lot of time...
I appreciate your input because my professor didn’t explain this good at all
just listened to the story first time on audiobook - Bartleby - clearly high-functioning Asperger's/ autistic (?? :) )
- also, the often pronouncements on "capitalism" or "socialism" are often amusing to me - like there can't be any (maybe even more) "mind numbing dead-end" jobs in "socialism" too - although Mr. Courtright seems to present all possible viewpoints in good objective form (full disclosure myself , neither anti-capitalist nor anti-socialist I believe every society is some combination of both (and properly so) , both private people owning and doing things and government-owning and doing things - and government regulating just about everything :)
It's subtitled "A Tale of Wall Street" for a reason. Your criticisms may apply to socialism, but that has nothing to do with the story.
Bartleby gets hauled off to the famous old prison nicknamed The Tombs. He worked formerly in the Dead Letter office in DC. I think that his story is meant to portray the life of hack-laborers who have nothing to look forward to in work and have had any joys or expectations of vibrancy in life drained by the circumstances of having to earn a living. Melville perhaps saw himself slipping into this despondent life after having known the heights. In the end I believe it is both fate and personal choice which leave us in our circumstances.
Thanks, Nick!
Really enjoyed this video
Glad you enjoyed it
you are amazing, deep thanks!
i don't think this has anything to do with marxism, capitalism, or anything economic. Honestly I find the character Bartleby is simply someone who wants to do what they want to do and doesn't want to do what he doesn't want to do. I find he is very self centered and self sabotaging. Someone who doesn't want to engage with others, but follows his own decisions despite what anyone offers him even to his own death. He chooses to not comply, not to engage, not to accept. He's not a hero, he's not a spokesperson for anything. He is a warning to everyone that choosing your own feelings can lead you to want to do nothing, be nothing. Like the narrator says, either you choose what to do, or something will choose for you. He chose nothing, but in the end something chose him. Death. Why you all think it has something to do with economics is because THAT is the thing you are choosing not to be apart of. That is the thing you would rather do nothing about until something is done.
Perfect. Dead letters office. No appetite. “I prefer not to” - “But I’m not particular”
Who knows what someone else thinks of about what someone else thinks of, be it factual or fictional? I do like this story , the way it is written and with the words that are employed very much.
Amazing analysis! Never considered all the Christian imagery. Gave me a lot to think about :}
Without knowledge of Asperger's Syndrome, Melville accurately describes Bartleby's behavior as someone "on the spectrum" of autism. Read the symptoms and you will see the similar traits.
Much help thanks !
Bartleby does not refuse to do things he is asked to do; he just would prefer not to.
tells boss "I prefer not to" ...gets fired
I yelled when I saw this story assigned for my online class. Turns out, I like it. I actually like it quite a bit, and even laughed a little. I disagree with the narrator being a nice man though. I thought he was kind of a tool... he never wanted to help anyone until he noticed they were a nuisance to him.
The capitalist critique is not that he fails at upward mobility.
As if his attitude would be completely different if he had only been a manager.
The critique is that capitalism is soulless and makes machine of man.
Which is literally his job. A human typewriting machine.
The same treatment that Melville received from his publishers.
The life sacrificing rebellion that Bartleby represents is far more radical than “I wish I was the one in control of the business”.
In regards to the claims some make about depression…..
“Some commentators have suggested severe depression as Bartleby’s ailment, but the evidence does not support this. Bartleby searched for the job interview, he worked diligently for a few days in order to establish himself in the office, then purposively did nothing. A person with severe depression would find it difficult to generate the energy to search for work, let alone articulate ‘prefer’. More likely they would be distressed, sad, monosyllabic, dishevelled, paralytically unmotivated, distressed, crying. Melville attributed none of this Bartleby. Throughout the story, Bartleby was able to arrange purchase of biscuits and functioned, albeit within the limits of his volition. His mood was at most subdued.”
Melville’s Bartleby: An absurd casualty
Simon Wein
While I can understand that interpretation, I don't find it very consistent. The other characters do not suffer from the same machine-like traits. Bartleby's lack of effort in his life is his own decision, and perhaps this is his response to capitalism, sure. However, I think that Bartleby represents an aspect of human nature where one's own competence can lead to boredom and aimlessness. If we feel as though we are "done" searching for our place in life, we begin to regress. Bartleby has, frankly, an infantile response to reality. If he prefers not to, then what does he prefer to do? If he prefers socialism, or some other system, then why is he trudging through meaningless, bureaucratic work and not, say, working on a farm? If he prefers nothing, then he has no real case for civil disobedience. I think it's fair to say, capitalist or not, that the onus is on us to figure out what we want to do with our lives. It is also our responsibility to address reality.
It can be difficult, especially for creative minds, to reconcile the harsh and mundane truths of the world with a sense of purpose for our lives. Still, while Bartleby is - in my words- infantile, he also does have a sort of freedom that "more civilized" people do not have. He is free from "civilized" expectations. I take it that Bartleby pigeonholed himself into dead end jobs because he knew he could fulfill the responsibilities, but struggles to feel purpose because the jobs are below him in some way, maybe spiritual. And then he discovered that he really doesn't have to do anything at all, which is true philosophically; but he takes it literally, which allows him to escape from the duty to find purpose. Vicious cycle of a lost intelligent mind.
Obviously, the story has many interpretations, but I see it as a sort of tragedy. Could Bartleby have really never found a drive or purpose? If he was consciously objecting to the modern world, then does he really have a place in the modern world? Yet he still remains until the point of imprisonment. Could Bartleby's attitude have been the result of perspectives that he should have explored and communicated? To me it seems plain nihilistic to say he was just a victim, destined to be scrubbed out for his own dispositions. THAT is lazy, more so than doing nothing at a job; to think that we have no say in our lives or our happiness and to just give up.
In a way, Bartleby is a hero for objecting to mediocrity and the soullessness of the machine, and in a way, he's just lost - in his own world. He was unreachable for those around him, either due to a secret, unmanaged brilliance, or due to simple resignation of will. It could be that his employer and coworkers were more simple than him and more easily shepherded into conformity, and it could be that he was actually just confusing occupation for purpose and thus became paralyzed by the bleakness of such an existence.
I find the story fascinating because it inspires many conversations and introspective thoughts, and I would be curious to hear what anybody has to say to this: what justifiable reason could there be to continue to show up for arrangements you prefer not to fulfill? And furthermore, if we all agree to follow a set of rules and conduct in order to maintain society, then at what point are our preferences actually counter-productive?
If you respond with, "I prefer not to say," then I will laugh my ass off.
The brick wall could be anti transcendentalist--absurdist or existentialist in that you can't see beyond the "natural facts" to deeper spiritual facts (Emerson and Thoreau), you can only see a "dead wall." The white whale in Moby Dick has been seen as all sorts of symbols, but chief among them-perhaps-is as a symbol of God or nature. Over the course of the novel, he makes use of nearly every discipline known to man in his attempts to understand the essential nature of the whale (just as the narrator attempts to understand Bartleby). Each of these systems of knowledge, however, including art, taxonomy, and phrenology, fails to give an adequate account. The multiplicity of approaches that Ishmael takes, coupled with his compulsive need to assert his authority as a narrator and the frequent references to the limits of observation (men cannot see the depths of the ocean, for example), suggest that human knowledge is always limited and insufficient. When it comes to Moby Dick himself, this limitation takes on allegorical significance. God or nature is unknowable, there are no "transcendent" truths; hence just a dead wall. This reading would still fit with a reading that highlights Marxist alienation, etc.
Not an analysis on the whole story, but I recently realized I can identify in some ways with Bartleby. I work in a emergency department as registration. Trying to patch together demographics for the deceased over and over again can wear on one's mental health.
damn the man!
bro, Empire Records
Thank you for this great video. No society want you to be wise. Bartleby was near I think, but uncompleted. The only way to accept him is as a literature character, otherwise is just absurd. He wanted to be a model fr nothing. I will tell you a revelation. Bartleby was an insect at the end of the day, a great insect. No one like Kafka have read this thing. Nowdays you will see the artist Banksy as a great reader and follower of Bartleby. Hasta la vista.
Thank u
It's insane to move offices rather than fire an employee.
This was great. I had to read this story for American Literature and I found this helpful. And I like watching your mouth when you talk........I had that infatuation with my high school English teacher too....I just want to touch your teeth...fricken weird right??? lol but I can't help it.
You forgot to mention that Bartleby starts living in the office. I believe Bartleby is existentially depressed but in an enlightened way. Like if Buddha had to get a shitty job and was depressed and bored of everything but still enlightened. And all offers of 'help' do not appeal to him.
Reminds me of Oblomov.
To me the brick wall represents the idea that the outside world does not impact your thinking and individualism just like his boss couldn't impose anything on B
How about analysing and interpreting? In the wake of a Kafka and Coetzee, the interloper, uninvited intruder into the narrative has become a trope that rewrites Bartleby into precisely the interpretation you deemed radical. What else is Bartleby but the "other" to the narrators fragile "I".
It is somehow like Office Space.
Super vid ! You look good ,while going with your fingers through your hair .🍹
As someone who reads for fun and not to understand deeper meanings, I was very disappointed with this book. I was expecting something to happen at the end, to find out why Bartleby was how he was but got nothing.
In his time Wall Street must have dealt in cotton and Southern concerns so I think Bartleby as a natural sort of radical by nature would have had aversion to slavery and business derived as well as official greed and the things mentioned.
Fan mail from a flounder at the Dead Letter Center.
...contained and made official in the documents themselves and their contents.
i dare you to reveiw Pierre; or The Ambiguities
perfect...so perfect anarchy....empaths and narcassist...i hope i make sence to ya!😄
Ebenezer Scrooge should be his boss.
You could be a Melville if you look up the Word.
I normally have to look up a word everyday anyway nothing new
Hi
I would like to thank you for making my life easier... but I would prefer not to. X)
I think the lawyer doesn’t want to be part of the crazy rat race of Wall Street. He prefers the simple, predictable type of life.
[The Emperor has no clothes on! ]. It appears that, It does not matter how one interprets this story, people can academically discuss this prose in a seemingly intelligent 🤓 manner. The fact that, diametrically opposing views as well as all shades of possibilities in between, can be forwarded, as meanings for this story merely says to me that, there is actually no “real” story but rather a clever stringing together of words to make people think that some where, some how, if we try long enough that, almost by a feeling of osmosis, that eventually we will “understand” this piece.
If we look up at the clouds ⛅️ ☁️ ⛅️ in the sky, no one can say that, what we say we see, as represented by the clouds is (a) right or (b) wrong or in fact is (c) some meaningless gibberish representing some outlandish view between (a) and (b).
It appears to my unlearned brain that a piece of writing ✍️ which can evoke so many different interpretations from all the learned folk out there, is a very clever exercise in the ultimate (comedic) put down of the supposed experts in the establishment.
If this piece of prose had been written by anyone other than its very well know author, would the writing have reached the heights of interest that it now enjoys or, horror of horrors! would it have been relegated to the dust bin in the corner? Just askin, is all.
What makes a piece of literature “great”? Is it because of the reputation of the person who wrote it or, does it have an intrinsic value all on its own, separate to and apart from, the person who penned the words. Similarly, in the art world, the value ascribed to a piece appears to be determined by the signature of the 👩🎨 artist. In that world, there appears to be a lot of fakes exhibited, which when found out, loose all the appeal such works formerly had. In literature, it appears that a similar mindset can also exist.
This comment ends as it started with the exclamation that, The emperor has no clothes on!
🌲🌝☘️
Without an event to trigger depression, there is no justification to attributing Bartleby's behavior to depression. This is a story, not the real world. A story would let us know why if Bartleby was depressed. That he does his work so well initially seems to suggest an attempt by Melville to show us explicitly that he isn't depressed.
but we also find out later he worked in the DEAD Letter office for years
That suggests more that he had lost his connection to people than that he was depressed.
social connection is extremely important, that alone could cause depression.
Depression is boredom with idiots and minutia
I just finished the story, first time reading it. I've not yet made up my mind about it, but my initial reaction is that it has no depth. It's just a poorly written story that doesn't intend on reflection.
Again, not sure yet, just my initial take. I'm going to give it another read and think it over some more
6666 view
Interasting
You refer to words we should "look up" and then you don't follow up with examples like a decent teacher might. Like, "ridiculosity"? Perhaps?
actually I find your interpretation narrow-minded and limited.