Moby Dick

I read once that Melville wrote “Bartleby the Scrivener” in response to the disappointing success of “Moby Dick.”  While I cannot confirm whether or not this is true, it is certainly interesting to compare the two with this in mind.  The world of “Bartleby” seems to be exactly the kind many of the crewmembers on the Pequod were trying to escape. Ishmael expresses outright contempt for city life or any “honorable, respectable toils, trials, and tribulations of every kind whatsoever.”  He argues that people are drawn in part to the city because of its proximity to water, which represents freedom from the monotony of their everyday lives.  Without Ishmael’s willingness to live apart from the norms of society, the events of Moby Dick would never have occurred.
In “Bartleby,” then, Melville explores the other side of this surprisingly modern dilemma: people who, unlike Ishmael, cannot escape from the tedium that is office life.  If he felt “Moby Dick” had somehow failed in its mission to get this message across, he had to go about addressing the issue in a different way.  By placing “Bartleby” in a setting that must have been infinitely more relatable for his readers than a whaling ship, Melville might have hoped to more directly challenge the complacency present in everyday life.
In some ways I saw this story as a precursor to absurdist fiction.  Bartleby, after all, is a highly unusual character who defies easy categorization.  He has fallen into the culture of passivity that modern life fosters through the repetition of boring, daily tasks.  However, his similarly passive refusal to take part in this culture is absurd: “I would prefer not to.”  It is no coincidence that this is the line people most remember from the story.  It would simply not be the same story if Bartleby took radical action to liberate himself from the daily grind of modern life – it is far more disturbing to follow this man as he passively resists participation in the life society has laid out for him, ultimately dying because of it.  By creating this absurd character Melville questions the validity of a society that could create such a person.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS