The Scrivener Essay -- Literary Analysis, Moby-Dick

I think the events preceding the writing of â€Å"Bartleby, The Scrivener† are just as important to understanding the story as the events transpiring within the tale itself. Melville, when he wrote the short story, was coming off of two failures, Moby-Dick and Pierre, that he thought would cement his place in the literary cannon; â€Å"Bartleby† is his way of addressing this chaotic time in his life. In the tale, Melville is being brutally honest with himself and his work: addressing the concerns of his critics through the narrator, while using Bartleby to admit his own faults in failing to gain the recognition he thought he deserved. When Moby-Dick was published in late 1851, it was met with mixed reviews. â€Å"A reviewer for the London Britannia declared it ‘a most extraordinary work’; and a reviewer in the New York Tribune proclaimed that it was ‘the best production which has yet come from that seething brain, and †¦ it gives us a higher opinion of the author’s originality and power †¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬  (â€Å"Herman Melville† 2305-2306). Many critics, however, were â€Å"unhappy with the novel’s length, philosophical abstractness, and mixing of genres, and the novel quickly vanished from the literary scene without bringing Melville the critical admiration that he had expected† (2306). A particularly damning review came from the prestigious London literary magazine, Athenaeum: â€Å"The style of his tale is in places disfigured by mad (rather than bad) English; and its catastrophe is hastily, weakly, and obscurely managed† (Parker 18). What’s most interesting about Moby-Dick is that it seems to be exactly the kind of book Melville always wanted to write, knowing full well that no success would come of it. In a letter to Hawthorne he wrote, â€Å"‘What I feel most moved to wr... ...arrator to talk reason into Bartleby occurs in the scene before the new landlord calls the police to have him escorted to jail. â€Å"‘Bartleby,’ said I †¦ ‘will you go home with me now—not to my office, but my dwelling—and remain there till we can conclude upon some convenient arrangement for you at our leisure? Come, let us start now, right away.’† Responds Bartleby, â€Å"‘No: at present I would prefer not to make any change at all’† (Melville 2385). Bartleby isn’t willing to meet the narrator half way. â€Å"Bartleby† isn’t about whether or not the narrator did enough; it’s about whether or not Bartleby did enough. Concerning Melville: it isn’t about whether or not the critics did enough to understand his new way of writing; it was about whether or not Melville did enough to help them try and understand. In â€Å"Bartleby†Ã¢â‚¬â€through Bartleby—Melville is admitting that he did not. The Scrivener Essay -- Literary Analysis, Moby-Dick I think the events preceding the writing of â€Å"Bartleby, The Scrivener† are just as important to understanding the story as the events transpiring within the tale itself. Melville, when he wrote the short story, was coming off of two failures, Moby-Dick and Pierre, that he thought would cement his place in the literary cannon; â€Å"Bartleby† is his way of addressing this chaotic time in his life. In the tale, Melville is being brutally honest with himself and his work: addressing the concerns of his critics through the narrator, while using Bartleby to admit his own faults in failing to gain the recognition he thought he deserved. When Moby-Dick was published in late 1851, it was met with mixed reviews. â€Å"A reviewer for the London Britannia declared it ‘a most extraordinary work’; and a reviewer in the New York Tribune proclaimed that it was ‘the best production which has yet come from that seething brain, and †¦ it gives us a higher opinion of the author’s originality and power †¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬  (â€Å"Herman Melville† 2305-2306). Many critics, however, were â€Å"unhappy with the novel’s length, philosophical abstractness, and mixing of genres, and the novel quickly vanished from the literary scene without bringing Melville the critical admiration that he had expected† (2306). A particularly damning review came from the prestigious London literary magazine, Athenaeum: â€Å"The style of his tale is in places disfigured by mad (rather than bad) English; and its catastrophe is hastily, weakly, and obscurely managed† (Parker 18). What’s most interesting about Moby-Dick is that it seems to be exactly the kind of book Melville always wanted to write, knowing full well that no success would come of it. In a letter to Hawthorne he wrote, â€Å"‘What I feel most moved to wr... ...arrator to talk reason into Bartleby occurs in the scene before the new landlord calls the police to have him escorted to jail. â€Å"‘Bartleby,’ said I †¦ ‘will you go home with me now—not to my office, but my dwelling—and remain there till we can conclude upon some convenient arrangement for you at our leisure? Come, let us start now, right away.’† Responds Bartleby, â€Å"‘No: at present I would prefer not to make any change at all’† (Melville 2385). Bartleby isn’t willing to meet the narrator half way. â€Å"Bartleby† isn’t about whether or not the narrator did enough; it’s about whether or not Bartleby did enough. Concerning Melville: it isn’t about whether or not the critics did enough to understand his new way of writing; it was about whether or not Melville did enough to help them try and understand. In â€Å"Bartleby†Ã¢â‚¬â€through Bartleby—Melville is admitting that he did not.