Character Analysis Of Bartleby

In “The Cask of Amontillado” the main protagonist Montresor is an interesting character. He is much like a small child when the child gets victimized. The child will throw fits and do whatever he or she can to hurt or get revenge on the person inflicting wrong on them. Montresor does the same to Fortunato, for some kind of family affair, in which Montresor lost his social status. Montresor is no fool about killing Fortunato, and he takes his time to make sure that everything will go right. Montresor is clever in ways of getting away with Fortunato’s murder. However, the thought that baffles readers the most is that Montresor feels no remorse, sympathy, or regrets about killing Fortunato. All of these traits make Montresor the compelling

Arthur Bauer was hanging out with his friend Erik Fisher. He knew that he would be unpopular if he did not obey Erik. Recently, Arthur even killed a man named Luiz Cruz. He always hated to carry out these evil plans, but he felt forced to do it to protect his status. The first thing that Erik got Arthur to do was to make fun of the death of his old friend, Mike Costello. “Ha! Do you remember the picture of his face! Priceless!” Erik laughed. “Pretty soon we’ll get to see the close up!”

In Herman Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener”, a story of “the strangest” law-copyist the narrator, a lawyer, has ever employed is told. The narrator experiences conflict with Bartleby when he “prefers not to” examine some law papers. Once Bartleby “prefers not to” once, he continues to repeat the statement on all request asked of him. This statement sends Bartleby into a state of tranquility, staying isolated in the cubical and refusing all assistance by any means. This state results in him going to jail, and eventually dying. This passive resistance Bartleby exhibits traps him physically and psychologically by surrounding him with “walls” the narrator symbolically describes numerous times. The idea of transcendentalism arises from

In Robert Nye’s book, Unferth is portrayed as an antagonist, a character in a story that is an enemy to the protagonist, because he gets excited about Grendel’s massacres and tries to ruin Beowulf’s reputation and status by lying about him. According to Robert Nye’s book, Unferth says “Aloud, he praised King Hrothgar’s courage. Silently, he drank a toast to the demon Grendel.(pg.13)” This shows that Unferth celebrates Grendel and his killing. Unferth also says “You tried to drown your friend because he was a better swimmer than you!(pg30)”. This shows Unferth is supporting the demon Grendel instead of the hero Beowulf.

The most important trait all heroes must have is that their actions are for others, not for themselves, and they act selflessly. A hero recovers from their struggles determined to inspire others around them to be their best. Heroes can come in all different ages, races, genders, and personality types. There are many heroes around, even in everyday life. It could be a friend, a relative, even a coworker. In my case, it was my classmate Nick Kimble. Nicholas Kimble, also known as “No-Knees Nick,” was born at home in a kiddie pool. From a young age he was interested in Latin and would draw detailed pictures of famous Greek scenes, not unlike the renaissance artists. Naturally, he pursued Latin in his high school career, which is where I met

Knowing Roger Chillingworth's background, his role in the book as a symbol, and his obsession of torturing

While Herman Melville’s lawyer in "Bartleby, the Scrivener" appears to have undergone a significant change in character by the story’s completion, the fact remains that the story is told through (the lawyer’s) first-person point-of-view. This choice of narration allows the lawyer not only to mislead the reader, but also to color himself as lawful and just. In the lawyer’s estimate, the reader is to view him as having not only made an effort to "save" Bartleby, but as a man who has himself changed for the good, ethically speaking. What the lawyer fails to acknowledge in his retelling of events is his inability to communicate with Bartleby not because of Bartleby’s shortcomings, but because of his own. The

I worked with Phil Walenty using skype to communicate. Phil is a fairly out going man he's not afraid to tell you what he has going for him at the moment as I have talked to him for about 4 years now. I had found out that he was a Veteran during the afghanistan war on terror. The conversation with Phil was quite changing as I have never really asked him about his personal life in the Marines, but this gave me the chance to understand fully how a veteran lived.

Most times when people read entertaining stories about magical creatures such as hobbits, they interpret them as creatures developed for the sole purpose to entertain. Some viewers do not see these mythical creatures as people we can connect to. Although they are not real, the stories writers develop about them can help thousands. One story in particular is about a hobbit name Bartimus Fudge.

In “Bartleby, the Scrivener” by Herman Melville, the narrator has known multiple law-copyists. Instead of describing the numerous men he has employed, he chooses to focus on Bartleby, the most curious scrivener he came across during his career as a lawyer. In describing Bartleby and his relations with his two other law-copyists at the time, the narrator reveals not only his inability to confront people about their problems, but also his illusion about himself. The narrator carefully illustrates his law-copyists to highlight his demeanor.

The narrator, confidently from the very introduction of Bartelby’s character, describes his every move and demeanors as if it was his own. He is able to successfully convey to the unidentified audience who Bartelby is, while managing to leave room for mystery within the character. The familiarity in the narrator’s description leads to a sort of justification of Marcus’ theory of the narrator and Bartelby as a “Psychological Double.” However, in order to successfully justify this theory, I believe that Marcus should have proceeded to convince his audience that the other characters, Turkey, Nippers, and Ginger Nut, are also alter personalities of the narrator. They too were an intricate part of the narrator’s description. Each of these characters possessed several positive and negative qualities quite familiar to the narrator. I feel that it is inadequate for Marcus to solely choose Bartelby and leave out the other characters as alternate personalities.

            The lawyer came to understand and respect Bartleby.  However strange and annoying Bartleby's declines became, his employer could not bring himself to fire, or even be infuriated with, Bartleby.  He knew the logical thing would be to dismiss him, but Bartleby made an impression upon the lawyer that he rather respected.  Upon Bartleby's decline to examine a copy, the attorney thought, "With any other man I should have flown outright into a dreadful passion, scorned all further words, and thrust him ignominiously from my presence.  But there was something about Bartleby that not only strangely disarmed me, but, in a wonderful manner, touched and disconcerted me."  The lawyer even regarded Bartleby as useful (also because he worked cheaply), and felt that he himself was somehow responsible for Bartleby's well being.  "If I turn him away, the chances are he will fall in with some less indulgent employer, and then he will be rudely treated, and perhaps driven forth miserably to starve."

The story of Bartleby is dominated by the lack of action of the characters. The main characters are the lawyer, who tells the story, and Bartleby, who is one of the the employees. At the beginning of being hired, bartleby was an efficient worker. However, as the story draws on, this character prefers to do nothing. The lawyer asks him for explanations in a passive, sympathetic manner, and without any kind of aggression, but Bartleby always says: ¨I would prefer not to¨. He declines to do any work . Bartleby appears humble, sad, reserved, and quiet; he is not confrontational, but refuse to work. The lawyer feels simpathy for his employee, and at the same time he feels challenged. This situation becomes in a problem for the lawyer. Problem that

The narrator also adds that “while of other law-copyists I might write the complete life, of Bartleby nothing of that sort can be done…Bartleby was one of those beings of whom nothing is ascertainable” (p.1483). Bartleby distinguishes himself from others on

Most critics who analyze Bartleby agree that there is a universal problem regarding the mystery of Bartleby, and the ignorance that such a mystery creates within the narrator. Almost instantly readers find themselves asking the question as to why Bartleby so strange, this in itself presents a prevalent issue regarding the text that the narrator has in so few sentences has created. Thomas Mitchell argues that this response is the very problem of the reader, we jump too quickly to demonize the narrator, sympathize with Bartleby, and shift our energy to attempting to figure out the “problem” with Bartleby instead of analyzing the text for what it is (329).