Change Of Characters In The Story Bartleby The Scrivener By Herman Melville

Herman Melville’s "Bartleby, the Scrivener" presents a narrative steeped in ambiguity, primarily through the enigmatic figure of its titular character. Yet, the story’s thematic resonance is not solely dependent on Bartleby’s inscrutable nature; it is equally illuminated by the subtle, yet profound, transformations experienced by those around him, particularly the narrator. While Bartleby himself remains a steadfast monument to passive resistance, his presence acts as a catalyst, forcing the narrator and, to a lesser extent, other office workers like Turkey, to confront their own assumptions about work, humanity, and the boundaries of compassion. The narrator’s journey from detached employer to increasingly bewildered and morally conflicted observer is central to understanding Melville’s critique of societal indifference and the isolating effects of urban life.

Initially, the narrator views Bartleby as merely another scrivener, albeit one with peculiar habits. His primary concern is the efficient functioning of his law office. He hires Bartleby based on his seemingly impressive qualifications, only to be gradually unsettled by his refusal to perform tasks outside his initial duties. The narrator’s early responses are characterized by a pragmatic, almost business-like approach to Bartleby’s non-compliance. He attempts to reason with him, offers incentives, and even considers the practical implications for his business. However, as Bartleby’s "I would prefer not to" becomes a pervasive refrain, the narrator’s perspective begins to shift. He moves from annoyance and bewilderment to a grudging, and eventually, deeply felt sense of responsibility. This evolution is marked by his increasing inability to simply dismiss Bartleby. The narrator’s internal monologues reveal a growing struggle with his own conscience. He grapples with the ethical implications of his position: is Bartleby merely an employee to be managed, or a human being in need of something more profound than a salary? His attempts to understand Bartleby, to find a rational explanation for his behavior, are ultimately futile, but the very act of trying signifies a significant departure from his initial detachment. He begins to see Bartleby not just as an inconvenience, but as a symbol of something deeply wrong, a symptom of a larger societal malaise.

The narrator’s empathy, though slow to develop and often fraught with self-interest, is the most significant character arc in the story. He is not a saintly figure; his initial tolerance of Bartleby is partly motivated by a desire to avoid scandal and maintain the appearance of a well-run office. Yet, when he learns that Bartleby has been living in the office, he doesn't immediately call the authorities. Instead, he feels a pang of guilt, recognizing his own complicity in Bartleby's destitution. His decision to move his office rather than directly confront or evict Bartleby is a complex act, born of a mixture of pity, fear, and an overwhelming sense of helplessness. This act, while seemingly an evasion, underscores the narrator’s growing emotional investment. He cannot bring himself to be the agent of Bartleby’s final expulsion from the world of the living, even when Bartleby becomes a fixture in the new office building’s hallway.

Bartleby himself, of course, is presented as a static character in terms of his outward behavior. His refusal to deviate from his preferred mode of existence is absolute. However, his unchanging nature is precisely what makes him such a powerful force for change in the narrator. Bartleby’s passive resistance is not a tactic; it is his essence. His quiet defiance challenges the very foundations of the capitalist, productivity-driven society that the narrator represents. Bartleby’s refusal to engage in the expected norms of labor and social interaction forces the narrator to question the value system he inhabits. The narrator’s attempts to categorize Bartleby—as lazy, mad, or simply difficult—fail because Bartleby resists all conventional labels. He becomes a mirror reflecting the narrator’s own limitations and the inherent absurdities of the social contract.

While Bartleby and the narrator dominate the psychological landscape of the story, other characters offer brief but telling glimpses into the office environment and the potential for human connection, or lack thereof. Turkey, for instance, undergoes a subtle but noticeable shift. Initially depicted as a cheerful, albeit slightly inebriated, scrivener who works diligently in the mornings and becomes cantankerous in the afternoons, Turkey’s demeanor changes after Bartleby’s arrival. The narrator observes that Turkey's "morning cheerfulness… seemed to have been quite extinguished" by Bartleby’s presence. This suggests that Bartleby’s pervasive negativity, or perhaps his sheer strangeness, can disrupt the established routines and temperaments of others. Turkey’s afternoon grumpiness, a predictable part of his daily cycle, seems to deepen and become more generalized, possibly influenced by the oppressive atmosphere Bartleby cultivates. This brief observation highlights how Bartleby’s influence extends beyond the narrator’s direct interactions, subtly affecting the office’s overall mood and the individual psychological states of its inhabitants.

Nippers, the other scrivener, presents a contrast to Turkey. He is described as ambitious and prone to fits of temper, often struggling with his work due to his own internal conflicts. Unlike Turkey, Nippers’s interactions with Bartleby are more direct and confrontational. He attempts to bully Bartleby into conformity, but Bartleby’s unwavering passivity renders Nippers’s aggression ineffective. Nippers’s eventual departure from the office, driven by his own dissatisfaction and ambition, serves as another foil to Bartleby’s inertia. While Nippers actively seeks change and advancement, Bartleby passively resists all external pressures, highlighting different responses to the constraints of their environment.

The cumulative effect of these character dynamics—the narrator’s evolving conscience, Bartleby’s unyielding passivity, and the minor disruptions experienced by Turkey and Nippers—allows Melville to explore profound themes. Bartleby’s refusal to work becomes a radical act of protest against a system that values productivity over humanity. The narrator’s struggle to reconcile his professional obligations with his burgeoning empathy reveals the moral complexities of navigating a society that often prioritizes economic efficiency and social conformity. Melville uses these character shifts, particularly the narrator’s internal transformation, to question the nature of charity, the limits of individual responsibility, and the profound alienation experienced by those who cannot or will not conform to societal expectations. The story’s enduring power lies not just in Bartleby’s mystery, but in how his presence compels those around him to confront their own humanity, or lack thereof, in the impersonal corridors of 19th-century commerce.