Modernism in Melville’s Bartleby the Scrivener: A Wall Street Story

East 1

Braden East Dr. Benjamin Myers Literature of the Western World II 1 May 2017 Modernism in Melville’s Bartleby the Scrivener: A Wall Street Story In 2011, income inequality graduated to “hot-button issue of the year” as thousands of protestors marched on Wall Street to display their dissatisfaction with the current economic system. As noted by Otter (2012), many journalists and influencers “invoked Melville’s scrivener as an icon of civil disobedience and pointed to… Bartleby’s refusal to consent to a destructive system” (1), as inspiration for analogous defiance. Whether Herman Melville, 19th century novelist, had intended to convey such a message is doubtful, but it provides an example of the influence such literature still exerts on modern culture. When an evaluation of a work discards significant details like genre and context, one has no sure means by which to interpret ambiguous content. At best, the author’s intended purpose is discovered only after an unnecessarily arduous process, and at worst, the author’s purpose may be lost entirely. Often characterized as a romantic writer and interpreted as such, Melville is read through the lens of romanticism, yielding Bartleby a story of resolve in the face of force. This may have been the case with the 2011 protestors of the Occupy Wall Street movement. I believe this practice may cause readers to fail in extracting important messages from Bartleby, which, as I will argue, more closely reflects key characteristics of modernism. When studied from this angle, Melville seems to address problems later faced by modern writers, albeit less urgently. To that end, the following research questions were pursued:

East 2

RQ1: To what extent does Melville’s Bartleby merit categorization in the genre of romanticism?

RQ2: To what extent does Bartleby precede modernism through key elements of modern thought displayed in the story?

In this analysis, I suggest Melville’s writing took strides decades ahead of his time philosophically, and would have gained Bartleby recognition as a modernist work, had it been published a century later. Instead of examining the work in the context of romanticism and the related ideas, one should consider the key characteristics of modernism reflected in the Bartleby narrative. To provide a setting for this argument, I summarized the plot of the story, reviewed literature regarding romanticism, modernism, and examined several analyses of Melville’s work.

Melville, who is often branded as a romantic writer, authored several novels, short stories, and poems throughout his life, and is best known for his 1851 novel, Moby Dick (Mathewson 250; Parker 29). However, his short stories are also counted among his greatest works, especially the six contained in the collection titled, The Piazza Tales. These stories capture Melville’s trademark narrative, unique in the narrator’s interaction with character and plot. The story of Bartleby is told by an ordinary, successful lawyer (the Narrator), whose office resides on Wall Street. One day an odd, quiet man whom the Narrator describes as “pallidly neat, pitiably respectable, incurably forlorn” (Melville 1084), appears at this office, and proceeds to frustrate, confound, and permanently inhabit the workspace of the law office employees. Over time, the Narrator becomes “touched and disconcerted” (1086) at Bartleby’s refusal to work, and the quiet man’s mantra, “I prefer not to” leaves the Narrator at a loss for what to do. He eventually relocates his office, only to discover that his concern and curiosity for Bartleby exceed his desire to be rid of the man’s uncomfortable presence. Ultimately, Bartleby is

East 3

imprisoned and dies of starvation, and the Narrator ends his tale by exclaiming “Ah Bartleby!

Ah humanity” (1104)!

First, to suggest that the genre of Bartleby has been misinterpreted, one must examine the meaning of “genre” in a literary context. The importance of clarifying this term was emphasized

by Gupta (2012), who defined the term as “[a] categor[y] of literature that authors, publishers and readers agree upon as following a predetermined form, content, and style.” However, he later stated “’Genre’ is a somewhat confusing term that most scholars and readers seem quite comfortable with” (Gupta), and explained that publishers, book sellers, and others have only contributed to the confusion. One case of such “genre confusion” may be present in common interpretations of Melville’s Bartleby.

In his essay, “Bartleby the Socratic,” Andre Furlani (1997) provided some philosophical context for analyzing Bartleby’s presence and influence in the story. Furlani attributed the character’s non-compliance to the Socratic method of testing, or elenchus (338). Other scholars have also attempted to explain the strange behavior observed in the story. Abrams (1978) used Freudian constructs to investigate Melville’s intentional communication through characters. He argued that the passively assertive behavior of Bartleby can be explained by the absence of subconscious thought, which is consistent with the view that Melville created Bartleby as more a literary tool than a traditional character (494). Finally, Mathewson (2012) conducted an analysis of Melville’s collective work, and found elements which are often associated with modernism.

He argued “In a sense, the chapters from Moby Dick are decontextualized, removed from history, politics, or religion and presented as self-contained statements of prose style and experimentation” (249). This contributes to the genre confusion surrounding Melville’s writing,

East 4

and warrants further discussion of literary techniques one can observe in works like Moby Dick, Bartleby, and others.

To determine the genre of Melville’s Bartleby, I recognized the need for a framework around which to construct my argument. Foss (2013) states: “A critic who engages in generic participation determines which artifacts participate in which genres. This involves a deductive process in which you test an instance of rhetoric against the characteristics of a genre” (200).

Therefore, I selected generic participation criticism, which assists scholars in illuminating patterns across rhetorical situations. More narrowly, it shows the extent to which a certain artifact participates in a certain genre of rhetoric. First, I took three steps to determine if my artifact belonged to the genre of romanticism: (1) Analyzing situational requirements; (2) looking for substantive and stylistic characteristics; and (3) analyzing organizing principles. This method of critique, along with the three steps, is outlined in Foss’s Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice (200). After applying Foss’s three steps to Bartleby, I compared the results to the appropriate rhetorical elements of modernism, found in Patrick’s (2017) Main Characteristics of Modernist Literature.

The first step of conducting a generic participation criticism involves analyzing the situational requirements. Foss explained these as certain kinds of rhetorical responses, which are required by certain contexts. For example, a novel written in the context of modernism requires a rhetorical response from the reader which is consistent with modernist discourse. Secondly, the choices made by an author to respond to a particular situation involve choices of substance (content) and style (form) (Foss 200). Foss clarifies the meaning of these terms, but leaves much open to interpretation. “These might be metaphors, images, sentence structure, failure to enact

East 5

arguments, or an infinite variety of other elements” (198). As discussed above, Gupta encourages identifying these elements as well. Finally, the organizing principles of a work must be outlined. These principles may come to light in the process of investigating style and substance. If the elements are grouped around “an obvious core or principle” (Foss 198), a unifying principle of organization can be accurately identified. These principles are usually tied to umbrella terms for various characteristics of the rhetoric and can be associated with a specific genre, like romanticism. By following these three steps, I examined Melville’s Bartleby in hopes of shedding light on its core ideas, and determining a category in which to place them.

Finally, after conducting this three-step analysis, I compared the results to Patrick’s (2017) characteristics of modernist literature. In his article, Patrick outlined and summarized five literary elements which are consistent with the modernist brand. These elements are as follows: (1) Individualism; (2) Experimentation; (3) Absurdity; (4) Symbolism; and (5) Formalism.

First, Patrick argued that modern writers were intrigued with the individual, and how this individual “adapted to a changing world…triumphed over obstacles… [but mostly] just kept their heads above water.” Second, Patrick described experimentation as a key element in modernist literature and a break from traditional methods of writing. He went on to explain how this break from the past was manifested: “the inner workings of consciousness were a common subject for modernists. This preoccupation led to a form of narration called ‘stream of consciousness,’ where the point of view of the novel meanders in a pattern resembling human thought” (Patrick). Third, Patrick argued that absurdity characterizes modernist literature, stating, [F]or many writers, the world was becoming a more absurd place every day. The mysteriousness of life was being lost in the rush of daily life. The senseless violence of

East 6

WWII was yet more evidence that humanity had lost its way. Modernist authors depicted this absurdity in their works. (Patrick) This can be seen in Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, and Woolf’s The Mark on the Wall. Fourth, Patrick asserted that modernist writers “left much more to the reader's imagination than earlier writers, leading to open-ended narratives with multiple interpretations.” Fifth, Patrick cited formalism as a contributing element of modernism, and argued the creative, artistic value of novels and poems had been largely abandoned by modernist writers. Foss’s (2013) generic participation criticism may reveal any of these trademarks of modernism in Bartleby, and an argument for reclassification of the work may be necessary.

Analysis Situational requirements. The characters in Bartleby live in a world captive to the mundane and enslaved to the ordinary. This seems to be Melville’s response to society’s methodical systematization of practices like that of law. He represents this in the Narrator’s self-description: I am one of those unambitious lawyers who never address a jury, or in any way draw down public applause; but, in the cool tranquility of a snug retreat, do a snug business among rich men’s bonds, and mortgages, and title-deeds. All who know me, consider me an eminently safe man. (1080) To augment this overwhelmingly ordinary reality, Turkey, and Nippers, and the Narrator all seem boxed in and resigned to finding meaning in the meaningless repetition of work. Moreover, they behave as if their lives were entirely contained between the white wall in one window of the office, and a blackened brick wall in the other (Melville 1081). This subjugation of the extraordinary is shattered by Bartleby’s unorthodox behavior. His refusal to conform to cultural

East 7

and professional expectations exemplifies the absurdity in modernist literature described by Patrick (2017).

Walser (2015) observed transparency rather than transcendence in Bartleby’s character.

She suggested that Bartleby was simply a product of his blank, suppressive environment, rather than independent of it. Although readers never experience Bartleby’s beginnings, the Narrator alludes to a few facts regarding the scrivener’s past, including his former employment as a subordinate clerk at the Dead Letter Office (Melville 1104). Many other interpretations of Bartleby’s behavior have been put forth since the story’s publication, and all offer somewhat differing explanations for Bartleby and his actions. Regardless, this aspect of Melville’s story demonstrates the type of symbolism Patrick (2017) claims is also present in many modernist works.

Substantive and stylistic characteristics. One literary tactic Melville employed is interactive narration, in which the Narrator takes part in the story itself. Bartleby is a prime example of interactive narration, and exposes the Narrator’s musings and innermost thoughts for close examination by the reader. Similar stylistic practices can be observed in the works of modern writer Virginia Woolf, who often took the “stream-of-consciousness” approach discussed by Patrick (2017). While more structured than Woolf’s writing, Melville regularly practiced likemannered introspection through his characters. This fits Patrick’s (2017) definition of experimentation rather well. Furthermore, Melville’s work gained more attention in the 20th century than during his life (Mathewson 245), which could be explained by his non-traditional, experimental style.

Organizing principles. Finally, Bartleby is organized around two core ideas; alienation and the illusion of freedom. The first is easily recognizable as a common theme in modernist literature;

East 8

alienation. As modernist writers addressed the impossibility of true communication with other individuals, so Melville questioned man’s ability to truly connect with those around him. The Narrator speaks to this in his musings about Bartleby’s unique existence in relationship to the rest of society, and expresses his empathy toward the scrivener: “[H]ere Bartleby makes his home; sole spectator of a solitude which he has seen all populous – a sort of innocent and transformed Marius brooding among the ruins of Carthage!” (1091). He goes on to say, “The scrivener’s pale form appeared to me laid out, among uncaring strangers, in its shivering winding-sheet” (1091). In this way, Melville draws focus to the individual, but also to the lonely, remote nature of that individual’s relationship with society.

The second organizing principle present in Bartleby is Melville’s question regarding the idea of free will. Are people truly free to make their own decisions? Through Bartleby, Melville explored the possibility that civility, culture, and our ideas about what is “normal” may simply be a product of environment and biology. While Turkey and Nippers would certainly argue they exercise complete freedom of choice, neither would even consider refusing to complete the tasks assigned to them. Bartleby stands in stark contrast to this. Abrams (1997) observes this in Bartleby as well, stating, “Such automatism, although comic, nevertheless begins to unsettle, for it hints of involuntary behavior following its own oblivious course in spite of the alert, selfvigilant personality-Turkey un aware of Turkey” (492). In Bartleby, Melville presented his characters with a choice: to be compliant cogs or rebellious cogs. Bartleby elected not to be a cog at all, and serves to remind Melville’s readers that their “choices” in life are often illusory.

Conclusion As discussed in the introduction, the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement is just one example of Melville’s influence on philosophical and societal skepticism in modern culture (Otter 1). He

East 9

foresaw the coming cultural decay that modernists would soon struggle to come to terms with, and addressed this crisis of meaning in his writing. Undeniably, Melville employed experimentation, absurdity, and symbolism in Bartleby. While not as prominent, an argument could be made for modernistic individualism as well. Foss’s (2013) generic participation criticism analysis revealed multiple themes of modernism in Bartleby, but formalism was absent.

Patrick (2017) stated that formalism in modernist literature is usually looks fragmented and messy. These works, he states, are “constructed from smaller parts instead of the organic, internal process [of] earlier generations… [Modernist literature] often includes foreign languages, dense vocabulary and invented words” (Patrick). Romantic elements are obvious in Bartleby as well, and have been pointed out by other scholars (Mathewson 248; Parker 181).

These should not be ignored, but examined alongside additional interpretations, whether modernism, realism, or another ideological framework. I believe Melville’s Bartleby the Scrivener: A Wall Street Story, participates in romanticism to a moderate extent, but to a much greater extent precedes modernism, both stylistically and philosophically.

East 10

Works Cited Abrams, Robert E. “‘Bartleby’ and the Fragile Pageantry of the Ego.” ELH, vol. 45, no. 3, 1978, pp. 488–500., www.jstor.org/stable/2872648.

Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 3rd ed., Waveland Press, 2004.

Furlani, Andre. "Bartleby the Socratic." Studies in Short Fiction, vol. 34, no. 3, 1997, p. 335.

EBSCOhost, ezproxy.okbu.edu:2443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx? direct=true&db=lfh&AN=2791866&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Gupta, Suman. Contemporary Literature: The Basics. Routledge. 2012. Google Books, https:// books.google.com/books?id=MpXHBQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q& f=false Mathewson, Stephen. "Cutting In, Cutting Out: Herman Melville, Moby-Dick, and Anthologies of American Literature." Essays in Literature, vol. 18, no. 2, 1991, pp. 243-253.

EBSCOhost, ezproxy.okbu.edu:2443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=lfh&AN=24389446&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Melville, Herman. “Bartleby the Scrivener: A Wall Street Story.” Literature of the Western World: Neoclassicism Through the Modern Period, Vol 2, 5th ed., edited by Leah Jewell, Prentice-Hall, 2001, pp. 1077-1104.

Otter, Samuel. "All Astir." Leviathan, vol. 14, no. 3, 2012, pp. 77-82. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.okbu.edu:2443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=lfh&AN=82714087&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Parker, Hershel. Herman Melville: 1819-1851. Vol 2, JHU Press, 2002. Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=WuoN7Udm4-wC

East 11

Patrick, Josh. “The Main Characteristics of Modernist Literature.� The Pen and the Pad. 2017.

Web. http://penandthepad.com/main-characteristics-modernist-literature-8451197.html Walser, Hannah. "The Behaviorist Character: Action without Consciousness in Melville's "Bartleby." Narrative, vol. 23, no. 3, 2015, pp. 312-332. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.okbu.edu:2443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=lfh&AN=109335948&site=ehost-live&scope=site.