Week 5: Bartleby's "I Would Prefer Not To"

 “I would prefer not to” is not an unfamiliar cry to students studying literature. Between long readings, essays, and assessments, a student’s life would be much easier if they could simply say “I would prefer not to” to any of the work presented to them. However, that student would also have to acknowledge that by not doing their work out of preference, they are also ascribing themselves to earn a lower grade. This dilemma is one that Melville leaves the reader through his short story “Bartleby, The Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street.”

    In his short story, Melville recounts the experience of a lawyer’s encounter with a scrivener named Bartleby, who refuses to do any of the work set before him with the simple reply, “I would prefer not to.” The lawyer himself is the narrator of the story who does very little to communicate to the reader effectively. As such, the reader is drawn into the winding narrative of the lawyer as he tries to justify his actions regarding Bartleby’s passive resistance.

    From the beginning of their interactions, it’s clear to the reader that the narrator cannot be relied upon to give an accurate portrayal of events, considering the story is supposed to be about Bartleby, and yet he isn’t introduced until the seventh page. His descriptions of his other employees, Turkey, Nippers, and Ginger Nut, are incomplete and mostly disinterested in getting to know them on a deeper level, making them little more than stereotypes of different ineffectual employees (3-7).

    As a result of this ineffectual work environment, it is little wonder that the narrator goes to extreme lengths to try and get Bartleby to do any amount of work, going so far as to offer him a place in his own home when he learns that he learns that Bartleby has been living in the office. However, the two seem to be speaking entirely different languages as there is no reconciling Bartleby’s “I would prefer not to” approach to life and the lawyer's desperate attempts to reach him. Melville’s contrast between these two figures comes to peak as the cost of employing Bartleby becomes too high, and the lawyer reveals his true character in trying to appease his guilty conscience by trying to pay him off rather than trying to continue to understand him, ultimately resulting in Bartleby’s arrest and eventual death is prison (21-22).

    When it comes to the significance of Bartleby’s “I would prefer not to,” Melville highlights his passive resistance and how it contributes to the disjointed work environment and the miscommunication between boss and employee. As such, Melville seems to be pointing to the unreliability of language to effectively communicate between individuals who are purposefully misunderstanding each other. This miscommunication then adds to the growing tension and becomes representative of the industrialization of “Wall-street,” as suggested by the title. However, this passive resistance and miscommunication do little to truly help anyone as all parties are frustrated and harmed by the end of the story, crying, “Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity! (30). As a result, Melville leaves the reader to question whether Bartleby or the narrator is in the right, a debate that has persisted since the story’s publication.

    Whether one is on Bartleby’s or the narrator’s side, it’s clear to see how such questions may make the reader follow Bartleby’s example in saying “I would prefer not to” to such a debate.