A person unfamiliar with Bartleby, The Scrivener; A Story of Wall Street, would understandably assume that this man Bartleby, whoever he may be, is the protagonist of the story. After all, his name is in the title. Is some other, unnamed man likely to be as important to the plot? Not likely, most would say. However, upon delving into the depths of this inarguably divisive book, it is clear that the issue is not quite as clear as one might assume.
Bartleby could be seen as the protagonist of this story for a multitude of reasons. He is the obvious choice. The story is named after him, and he is the character we primarily follow, whereas the lawyer's role is much more passive. At first glance he might seem a simple narrator. In addition, we pity Bartleby and want his affairs to go well, which is something that tends to happen with regards to the protagonist. He follows the tragic form of the hero's cycle.
The lawyer could be seen as the protagonist because he is most affected by Bartleby's actions. Bartleby may simply be the force which causes events to occur rather than the subject of them, a position which is more suited to the lawyer and his role. Though we pity Bartleby, it is the lawyer with whom we identify. This is perhaps because we see the lawyer's perspective and not Bartleby's, but that too could be an argument for the former. Bartleby is almost just a tool to allow the lawyer to do what needs to be done, just another character who initiates things. The lawyer follows the comic hero's cycle. He is present in the story before Bartleby arrives and after he dies.
We know very little about Bartleby. If he were a protagonist he would indeed be a very strange one. We hear of his actions and the lawyer's opinions about them, but that is the limit of the connection we have to him. Indeed, it seems more that we have here a story of a man who was greatly affected by another than a man who greatly affected others. Bartleby has no quest that we know of. We do follow his story, but it means little to us. We know what he does but not what his goals are in those actions. They appear an odd series of events with no significance except that which the lawyer draws from them. The lawyer wants things to be done. Bartleby would simply prefer not to do these things. After the lawyer makes a request of Bartleby, the response is almost invariably that he would rather not oblige. In fact, following almost every use of the word “want” in the book, that well loved phrase of Bartleby follows suit. The first example of this follows: “‘I want you to help me compare this sheet here - take it,’ and I thrust it towards him. ‘I would prefer not to,’ said he.” We know not why Bartleby refuses to do his work or the spectrum of other actions this develops into, as he is unequivocally disconnected from us.
Therefore, although the untrained or distracted eye would come to the conclusion that Bartleby is our protagonist, it can be and seems to have been accepted that it is, in fact, the lawyer. In the case that this has been accepted, we are left with two primary possibilities regarding the position that Bartleby has assumed.
The first is that Bartleby is the antagonist. Though not strictly evil in the general sense of the world, Bartleby certainly drives the story in opposition to the lawyer. Bartleby does something, and the lawyer must do something else in response, generally in some attempt to regain the equilibrium Bartleby has disturbed. Bartleby acts without any sense of maliciousness. This makes the diagnosis of his role particularly difficult, as antagonists tend to be caricaturized as the evil of a community, unfettered by normal morals and laws of society. It is then cunningly his passivity which acts against the protagonist. As has been noted by many, it is often a lack of action which has the most impact on a situation.
However, in and of itself this fact complicates the labelling of Bartleby as an antagonist. This is because an antagonist is defined as one who actively opposes the protagonist or acts with hostility towards them. So once more as readers and analysts of Bartleby, we find ourselves somewhat unsatisfied with this solution.
We may then consider that Bartleby is not the antagonist, but the anti-hero. This is a character void of that which could make them a protagonist, yet who has not reached the extent of malevolence which would make them an antagonist. This seems to describe Bartleby quite well. As the lawyer says, “Poor fellow! thought I, he means no mischief; it is plain he intends no insolence; his aspect sufficiently evinces that his eccentricities are involuntary.” One of the key aspects of the anti-hero is his or her lack of altruism. Altruism is a concern for others. From the little we know of Bartleby, this is true. From the little we know of Bartleby, he cares for nothing, not even his own life, let alone the welfare of those around him. He would simply ‘Prefer not to.’ Another aspect of being an anti-hero is that the person must be a leading character, in other words they must be a main character but distinct from any form of heroism. This ties up the conundrum of Bartleby quite neatly.
It has been suggested that, in addition, Bartleby is the lawyer's doppelganger. It appears that our two characters are not doppelgangers in the sense that they are one person duplicated perfectly, but are in fact one person duplicated on a basic level for the purpose of revealing some otherwise undiscovered aspect of his or her nature. The lawyer unconsciously shuts himself off from others, seemingly for the purpose of distancing himself from any danger of becoming too close to them. When Bartleby enters the story, the lawyer physically separates him from his colleagues with a screen and sets him off on a path of monotonous and entirely isolated work. Bartleby embodies a loneliness and emotional separation from other human beings which readers get the impression the lawyer is prone to. Ironically, and at the same time quite elegantly, Bartleby is the first person who truly makes an impact on the lawyer and encourages him, entirely passively, to change his ways. It is an encounter with a man who is the embodiment of his darker side which brings out the warmth and humanity within him.
Bartleby has a sleight of wit and melancholy philosophy though the form of an easy and, at times, amusing little book. It is extraordinary in the right that it can be read so simply and yet also with an astounding amount of depth. The characters have the ability to both confuse and resonate, often simultaneously. Bartleby is that rare bit of darkness which has the remarkable ability to change the world for the better. Most people do not experience such forces as him in the same way that the lawyer does, but in an even more passive manner. As a human, Bartleby is unnatural and disturbing, but as a concept he is no more or less than expected.
Bartleby could be seen as the protagonist of this story for a multitude of reasons. He is the obvious choice. The story is named after him, and he is the character we primarily follow, whereas the lawyer's role is much more passive. At first glance he might seem a simple narrator. In addition, we pity Bartleby and want his affairs to go well, which is something that tends to happen with regards to the protagonist. He follows the tragic form of the hero's cycle.
The lawyer could be seen as the protagonist because he is most affected by Bartleby's actions. Bartleby may simply be the force which causes events to occur rather than the subject of them, a position which is more suited to the lawyer and his role. Though we pity Bartleby, it is the lawyer with whom we identify. This is perhaps because we see the lawyer's perspective and not Bartleby's, but that too could be an argument for the former. Bartleby is almost just a tool to allow the lawyer to do what needs to be done, just another character who initiates things. The lawyer follows the comic hero's cycle. He is present in the story before Bartleby arrives and after he dies.
We know very little about Bartleby. If he were a protagonist he would indeed be a very strange one. We hear of his actions and the lawyer's opinions about them, but that is the limit of the connection we have to him. Indeed, it seems more that we have here a story of a man who was greatly affected by another than a man who greatly affected others. Bartleby has no quest that we know of. We do follow his story, but it means little to us. We know what he does but not what his goals are in those actions. They appear an odd series of events with no significance except that which the lawyer draws from them. The lawyer wants things to be done. Bartleby would simply prefer not to do these things. After the lawyer makes a request of Bartleby, the response is almost invariably that he would rather not oblige. In fact, following almost every use of the word “want” in the book, that well loved phrase of Bartleby follows suit. The first example of this follows: “‘I want you to help me compare this sheet here - take it,’ and I thrust it towards him. ‘I would prefer not to,’ said he.” We know not why Bartleby refuses to do his work or the spectrum of other actions this develops into, as he is unequivocally disconnected from us.
Therefore, although the untrained or distracted eye would come to the conclusion that Bartleby is our protagonist, it can be and seems to have been accepted that it is, in fact, the lawyer. In the case that this has been accepted, we are left with two primary possibilities regarding the position that Bartleby has assumed.
The first is that Bartleby is the antagonist. Though not strictly evil in the general sense of the world, Bartleby certainly drives the story in opposition to the lawyer. Bartleby does something, and the lawyer must do something else in response, generally in some attempt to regain the equilibrium Bartleby has disturbed. Bartleby acts without any sense of maliciousness. This makes the diagnosis of his role particularly difficult, as antagonists tend to be caricaturized as the evil of a community, unfettered by normal morals and laws of society. It is then cunningly his passivity which acts against the protagonist. As has been noted by many, it is often a lack of action which has the most impact on a situation.
However, in and of itself this fact complicates the labelling of Bartleby as an antagonist. This is because an antagonist is defined as one who actively opposes the protagonist or acts with hostility towards them. So once more as readers and analysts of Bartleby, we find ourselves somewhat unsatisfied with this solution.
We may then consider that Bartleby is not the antagonist, but the anti-hero. This is a character void of that which could make them a protagonist, yet who has not reached the extent of malevolence which would make them an antagonist. This seems to describe Bartleby quite well. As the lawyer says, “Poor fellow! thought I, he means no mischief; it is plain he intends no insolence; his aspect sufficiently evinces that his eccentricities are involuntary.” One of the key aspects of the anti-hero is his or her lack of altruism. Altruism is a concern for others. From the little we know of Bartleby, this is true. From the little we know of Bartleby, he cares for nothing, not even his own life, let alone the welfare of those around him. He would simply ‘Prefer not to.’ Another aspect of being an anti-hero is that the person must be a leading character, in other words they must be a main character but distinct from any form of heroism. This ties up the conundrum of Bartleby quite neatly.
It has been suggested that, in addition, Bartleby is the lawyer's doppelganger. It appears that our two characters are not doppelgangers in the sense that they are one person duplicated perfectly, but are in fact one person duplicated on a basic level for the purpose of revealing some otherwise undiscovered aspect of his or her nature. The lawyer unconsciously shuts himself off from others, seemingly for the purpose of distancing himself from any danger of becoming too close to them. When Bartleby enters the story, the lawyer physically separates him from his colleagues with a screen and sets him off on a path of monotonous and entirely isolated work. Bartleby embodies a loneliness and emotional separation from other human beings which readers get the impression the lawyer is prone to. Ironically, and at the same time quite elegantly, Bartleby is the first person who truly makes an impact on the lawyer and encourages him, entirely passively, to change his ways. It is an encounter with a man who is the embodiment of his darker side which brings out the warmth and humanity within him.
Bartleby has a sleight of wit and melancholy philosophy though the form of an easy and, at times, amusing little book. It is extraordinary in the right that it can be read so simply and yet also with an astounding amount of depth. The characters have the ability to both confuse and resonate, often simultaneously. Bartleby is that rare bit of darkness which has the remarkable ability to change the world for the better. Most people do not experience such forces as him in the same way that the lawyer does, but in an even more passive manner. As a human, Bartleby is unnatural and disturbing, but as a concept he is no more or less than expected.