Bartleby the Scrivener focuses upon a law firm and the behavior of one of the copyists at this law firm, Bartleby. Bartleby, whose motto is “I would prefer not to,” is the main character of this short story. The other characters- Turkey, Nippers, and Ginger- function mainly to show the lawyer’s acceptance of peoples differences and their quirks. Though the lawyer is accepting, acceptance of Bartleby’s “I would prefer not to” is a bigger task than the other workers differences. The setting being on Wall Street of New York encompasses a major part of the story’s central point. While in one of the biggest cities of the world, where people are always around other people, always moving, Bartleby still manages to be alienated inside an office. Readers don’t learn much about any of the character’s personal lives, it is strictly how they behave in this New York City office.

Walls are used multiple times to symbolize certain things and feelings. On first glance, it can be interpreted that the walls represent being trapped. The capitalist economy in which everyone partakes in conveys a feeling of economic and financial imprisonment. Brick walls surround the office, which also acts as Bartleby’s home, so a feeling of helplessness is fully expected. His failure to complete his work is a resistance to this capitalist economy. Though it may be a weak resistance, it is indeed an opposition. Upon Bartleby’s death, it becomes known that in the past, Bartleby worked for the Dead Letter Office. The narrator wonders if this is what drove Bartleby to behave the way he did, working such a depressing job.

The lawyers compassion for Bartleby is of great significance in this story. The fact that he went to the prison to visit Bartleby says a lot about his character. He continuously offered Bartleby places to reside, as long as he would leave the office for professional reasons. Bartleby wouldn’t comply so the lawyer had no choice but to reach out to the police. He still cared for Bartleby, though, and his sympathy in this story is a central role to Bartleby’s development.

In the narrative Bartleby The Scrivener by Herman Mellville, Bartleby seems to be an oddball type of character. He is a man of little words and emotion. He is portrayed as a lonely man. The idea of death is present around him in many cases. He is described as “writing silently and palely” which is a description often associated with death (301). As noted by the narrator, “Bartleby did nothing but stand at his window in his dead-wall revery” (311). Upon beginning his work in the office, he often times stared out the window at a dead wall. The wall is described to be dormant and still mimicking a dead person. Bartleby has the characteristics of a dead man when looking at that wall. He is motionless and pale for hours on end as he stares out the window at a blank, bare, and still wall. When the narrator moves offices, Bartleby stays in the same spot in the old office. Like a dead person who is unable to move, Bartleby refuses to leave, “he refuses to do anything” (317). When Bartleby died in the prison yard, His motionless pale body laying on the ground mimics that of his body when he was alive and staring out the window. After his death, it is revealed to the narrator that Bartleby used to work at the dead letter office, an office sorting mail which was not delivered to deceased people. This is yet another image of death that is associated with Bartleby. Little is known of his actual life, but from what is known, he was a depressed, lifeless, and strange person. The idea of death while he is alive seemed to foreshadow his actual death in the end. He had given up on everything including himself.

I would describe Douglass’s tone to be bitterness when he wrote the autobiography. In most parts of his narrative, he talked about violent events such as killing and whipping slaves. Although he did shift tones when he experience cheerful events, his bitterness of being a slave and sadness of existence of slavery did not change throughout his whole narrative. Douglass claims that the battle between him and Mr. Covey “was the turning-point in {his} career as a slave,” and the battle also “rekindled the few expiring embers of freedom, and revived within me a sense of my own manhood” (268). Douglass was proud of himself when he wrote the battle. It was his first time standing up for himself.

Moreover, Douglass’s tone has shifted several times when he poured out his “soul’s complaint” (265). He used satirical and helpless tone when he compared human beings’ difference, “you are loosed from your moorings, and are free; and I am fast in my chains, and am a slave…” (265). Then he started to be hopeful to ask God to save him but also angry about why God has let all the events happen. Next, he started to self-reflect and reassure that he will run away and be free one day. His tone was really optimistic in this case, “It may be that misery in slavery will only increase my happiness when I get free. There is a better day coming” (265). Overall, I would conclude that Douglass’s tone to be bitterness even when he wrote the narrative many years after he had freed from slavery. He would never forget that all the painful things would not happen without slavery.

On the other hand, when I mention about violent events in Douglass’s narrative, I think violence does not only apply to action but also to language. Language has a lot more power than action, for it hurts people both emotionally and psychologically. After Douglass and his friends were caught from escaping, they were put into jail. Mr. Freeland’s mother came to criticize Douglass for implicating Henry and John, “you devil! You yellow devil! It was you that put it into the heads of Henry and John to run away…” (276). Although Douglass did not mention about how he felt about Freeland mother’s words, he must felt painful in failing to bring his friends out from slavery.

The narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass is a very inspirational work of art. The narrative, which was written by Frederick Douglass, a slave, is in itself an example of perseverance and strength. It debunked the idea that slaves were not intelligent beings or capable of thought. He proves to be smart even before he knew how to read and write. There are many interesting things in his narrative; particularly when Mr. Auld, his master, finds out that Mrs. Auld has been teaching him the ABCs. His reaction to this event is not what one would expect from a slave. He listened to what Mr. Auld said: “If you teach that nigger how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. (page 250 chapter vi)” And instead of accepting this and conforming to his master’s ideas, he speculated why it would be so bad if he knew how to read. He understood it as a door that had just opened; if his master did not want him to do this, then there must be some advantage for him if he pursued it.

It’s important to keep in mind that he was a slave that clearly had other and more immediate things to care about, like cold nights, hunger and solitude, but instead he focused on learning to read. He was young then and it is debatable if he understood the depths of his condition in society; so it is intriguing that he had this spark within himself that would rather worry about feeding his mind instead of his belly. Frederick had this notion in his head that something great would happen to him if only he had knowledge. He was completely right about that, knowledge frees the mind. One can enslave the body, but can never enslave a free mind. However, it is one thing to know what is going on in society, but another thing to be able to change it. He could not change his condition, even though he knew it well that what people did to him and his fellow slaves was very wrong and inhumane. In his narrative he confessed that “learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing” and that he “envied his fellow-slaves for their stupidity. (page 254)” Now he suffered more than his fellow slaves, because he constantly reminded himself of the degrading position that he occupied.  He wanted to be free, but that seemed like a very distant dream that could not be attained…

Another interesting aspect of his narrative is the way that he does not crucify his masters and their class; much on the contrary, he says that slavery was brutalizing upon both slave and slaveholder. This statement shows again Douglass’ intelligence because it puts slaves and white people on the same level, making whites relate to the slaves. By doing that, white people would want to read the narrative for in the end, propagate the cause. It is easy to acknowledge this because it’s not like slaveholders did not have a choice but to keep black people captive; even if that was the case, if that was the only way to run the plantation, they still could be treated as human beings with dignity. Regardless of what he really felt, this was a smart move; not blaming whites in general and only retelling of some mean slaveholders, he got the rest of the white people to stand with him to save both blacks and whites from the evil institution of slavery.