Analysis of Bartleby, the Scrivener: Capitalism and Alienation
Classified in Language
Written on in 
English with a size of 2.21 KB
Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Literary Analysis
Herman Melville utilizes a first-person narrator who proves to be inherently unreliable. The text is specifically directed toward a middle-class audience, challenging the prevailing idea that failure is a form of success. In this context, failure is presented as a necessary step toward becoming, often connected to the biblical fall from grace.
Melville’s Literary Style
Melville’s work is characterized by profound honesty and a peaceful, deliberate use of vocabulary. He avoids indignation, ensuring every element is meticulously crafted. Beyond his famous work Moby-Dick, Melville offers a sharp critique of capitalism. Notably, he approaches this critique through the perspective of the employer rather than the employee, highlighting an unleveled power dynamic through the lens of the oppressor.
Originality and Influence
Melville consistently strove for originality, famously stating: “It is better to fail in originality than succeed in imitation.” This stance serves as a subtle critique of authors like Charles Dickens.
Key Themes and Symbolism
- Dehumanization: The lawyer describes his employees as "valuable"—a term typically reserved for objects—revealing his obsession with money.
- Animalization: Melville employs dehumanizing metaphors, such as comparing the character Turkey to a horse.
- Claustrophobic Environment: The office serves as a symbol of an environment isolated from nature, trapping characters within a world of walls.
The Transformation of the Lawyer
The lawyer relies on economic language to define human worth, viewing people solely as assets. Bartleby’s presence acts as a catalyst, forcing the lawyer to confront his materialistic worldview and attempt to see others as human beings rather than economic tools. Despite the lawyer's attempts to adapt, his transformation is incomplete. Even after Bartleby’s death, the lawyer continues to view him in economic terms, ultimately dismissing him as "wasted" because he is no longer useful.