From Bartleby To William Wilso Essay, Research Paper

From Bartleby to William Wilson

The power of guilt

Introduction:

At first hand, there may not be a clear relationship between Melville and Edgar Allan Poe, other than the fact that they are both romantics. This is probably because they are both wildly original and have very definite styles. However, in the short stories reviewed in this essay, I hope to find several interesting connections in their work and in their worries, as well as their intent.

Bartleby, by Herman Melville, written in first person as an anecdote, deals with the story of a lawman that comes to hire a peculiar individual, named, precisely, Bartleby, that decides that he ?prefers? not to obey any of the orders he receives from his employer. Bartleby, slowly but surely, moves into the office, taking hold of it, but prefers not to work or talk about himself. His conviction prevails constantly, and his employer is unable to find the courage or meanness to get rid of him violently. Finally, the employer feels obliged to move his office out, instead of putting Bartleby on the street. He feels sorrow and sympathy towards this bizarre and quiet character, yet he also finds him intolerable. Soon after moving, the new tenants start complaining because they, also, cannot get rid of this man. They remove him by force, only to have him establish himself on the stairs of the building. Bartleby is finally put in a institution, where he withers and dies. But our narrator continues to keep track of him until his final day, always feeling responsible for his demise.

William Wilson, by Edgar Allan Poe, also narrated in the first person, has a slightly more macabre development. It deals with a man that lacks moral purpose, and devotes his life to satisfying his ambition. Only as a student, he stumbles upon a man that shares his name and birth date, William Wilson, who is the only one who does not yields easily in verbal confrontations. This man, with a soft-spoken voice, establishes an unusual bond with the narrator. Although they will never be friends, there is mutual respect for each other?s resistance. Later in life they lose contact, yet, whenever the narrator is about to undertake an action that could be considered inadequate, his homonym appears to let him know so. Until, at the end, William Wilson, frustrated and angry, attacks the other William Wilson and gives him death, only to discover that he has killed his conscience, he has killed himself.

Development.

In the brief summary above, the similarities start becoming evident. Both stories deal with what we may call ?the other half?, a part of us that we despise or feel pity at, yet follows us, or is followed by us, through life. In Bartleby, the narrator is irritated and enraged at this peculiar an silent man that ?prefers? not to do anything, yet this man represents to him some kind of responsibility he cannot mistreat or destroy. He tolerates Bartleby beyond the understanding of his other employees, who are easily willing to beat him up and throw him out. However, he cannot. He is pained when, once Bartleby is in an institution, blames him for ?putting him there?. He tries to make sure he gets a decent diner, yet Bartleby ?prefers? not to eat? Ever. And so, he dies crouching in a corner, alone, abandoned. He represents, for the narrator, a desolate humanity, building its on destruction, not by action but by omission. There is almost nothing that makes this character accessible, for he lacks willingness to tell his own story. He is nothing but a catchy phrase (soon, all those that surround him start using the word ?prefer?), yet his will is indestructible, unbeatable. He will never say ?I will not do this or that?, he will prefer not to, to a incredible extent. Yet, in his closed, inaccessible way, he is perfectly drawn by Melville, making him credible and real. He is in his own struggle with reality, fighting the forces of command. And, so, he is irresistible to the narrator, who cannot escape him even after he has moved away. Bartleby continues to haunt him, make him feel guilty. He is always worried that one day Bartleby will appear in his new office, yet he also is always considering going to visit him to see how he is doing. There is no escape from Bartleby: The narrator is puzzled, delighted, disgusted.

This happens also in William Wilson. The narrator hates having to argue with the other Wilson, yet he admires him. There is something about this other Wilson that forces the narrator to pay attention to him, to listen, and by doing so, he only grows angry and desperate. His only way out is death, as in Bartleby. But, by letting the ?other half? die, part (or all) of us dies with it. It is duality, ambivalence in its foremost expression. Wilson has no other choice than to kill his conscience, even though that he has always won his battles with it. His conscience has never stopped him, but its always there, reminding him of all the things he hates, all the things that make him feel guilty, all the spots that won?t come out, as Shakespeare would say.

This is the power of guilt, indeed. A force of invisible nature but extreme force. Only death can free us from it, yet sometimes even after death it continues to haunt us, as in Bartleby. The narrator, after Bartleby has died, tries to find out something about him, of his past, in an effort to understand what made this man what he was. The only thing he learns is that he used to work in the ?Dead Letter Office?, a job only too adequate, that he later lost. Yet this does not explain the tragic nature of the character.

Perhaps the main difference between the two stories, and also the most enlightening of reading them both, is the nature of the main characters. Whereas the narrator of Bartleby is a generous, sensible man, William Wilson is plain mean. To Wilson conscience is a burden, something to be killed. To Melville?s narrator, guilt is something to be dealt with, solved, helped. They are both unable to save their savage reminder of cruelty and despair, and thus they lose part of themselves. Melville wanted to save Bartleby, he did everything in his power to help him, but he wouldn?t be saved. He had to tolerate him to death. William Wilson had to be destroyed, stopped through the means of violence. He had no choice, except to change himself, to accept this homonym as part of his personality, and live a life he wasn?t willing to live. It is a matter of choices, but even though there may seem we have many ways to live, our existence forces us to be what we are. We do not choose what color we like, we do not choose what kind of food we like, and it?s just like that. Bartleby could not help himself as much as the narrator could not help himself from feeling responsible towards him. William Wilson was an amoral character, yet his morality was incarnated in another being that refused to let go. Why couldn?t Wilson simply ignore this moralistic nuisance? Why was anger and violence the answer? It was beyond him. In the end, he kills his other half in a sword fight, only to realize he has mortally wounded himself while fighting with a mirror. His delight soon turns into horror. Like Cesar, enemies surrounded him, only that his enemy was a reflection. He could not escape.

Conclusion.

And so, Melville and Poe had the same concern in writhing these tales, yet they close into the story with different means. Guilt is created by society, by moral standards imposed upon us. Morality is the great invention of the weak, Nietzsche would say. And still, invented or simply discovered, it overpowers our characters. No matter how far they try to go, no matter how much they try, they still care. Melville?s character cannot forget or stop worrying about Bartleby, as much as Poe?s Wilson cannot ignore his rival. An so, these two writers, each in their very unique and eloquent way, come to the same conclusion: We care, thus we suffer.