Talk:Bartleby, the Scrivener

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article needs an infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern
	This article is supported by the Short story task force. (with unknown importance)
	This article is supported by the 19th century task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

More information is needed about the John C. Colt - Samuel Adams murder case.

I don't know particularly a lot about Wikipedia customs and practices, but I thought that this would be best to put here (?): The "alternate" explanation of Bartleby's refusal to work is utterly shortsighted and literarily ignorant. It really shouldn't be here. What is the protocol for removing something like this? Tweedy7736 10:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)tweedy7736

Right—it's outta here. Tweedy7736 08:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"However, Bartleby 'prefers' not to eat" - Very funny

Dostoevskian Influence?

Can anyone confirm whether Melville would have had access to Dostoevsky's short stories, in particular "An Honest Thief" (1848)? I read Melville second and it struck me as very similar to Dostoevsky's story, except in its conclusion. (I'm not sure if Dostoevsky would have been available in a language Melville could read in the five years between the publication of the two pieces.) If anyone could help here, it would be much appreciated. --Todeswalzer|Talk 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Dates written, published 2 The Raven and Bartleby 3 Title 4 influence 5 internal links 6 External Links

[edit] Dates written, published

I don't understand how the story is cited as being written in 1855 or 1856, but it was published two years earlier in Putnam's Magazine. SparkNotes also lists these dates, which are impossible. A story can't be published before it is written. --Mbcudmore (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Raven and Bartleby

Interesting and well-written--but sounds like original research to me. As such, it invites deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilyaunfois (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

A quick search reveals at least one writer who relates Bartleby to the Raven: <http://www.jstor.org/view/00031283/ap020051/02a00060/3>. I imagine there must be others. Tweedy7736 01:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

It is my understanding that the title is "Bartleby, the Scrivener," not "Bartleby the Scrivener." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.241.65 (talk) 04:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] influence

The article notes that the short story was a precursor to absurdist literature, which may be true (although needs a reference), but then makes a fragile attempt to link Melville and Kafka via the absurdism or "existential" themes of Bartleby (and even claims Kafka didn't read Melville). I find this "influence" tenuous at best. I suggest that a stronger case be made for the connection, or it should be deleted.Platypusjones (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the influence of Melville on Camus would be better suited to the Melville page (or the Camus page), as this should be about the influence of Bartleby, not the author.Platypusjones (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] internal links

i have a gripe. i understand the goal of wikipedia is to provide a comprehensive source of information about anything and everything in the world. but do we really need internal links for "lawyer," "office," "wealth," and so on? I can definitely see the need for a link to "dead letter office," and "kafka," and i'm even open to the dates and years. but really...if we subscribe to the established trend, the whole article will be blue. I'm removing those unnecessary links.Platypusjones (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I think the Bartleby, The Scrivener page might benefit from a link to this site with Public Domain Literature and cool hypertext commentary: <a href="http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=120" Bartleby, The Scrivener</a>. I would have posted the link on the Bartleby page myself, but I'm beginning to learn that such edits tend to be deleted immediately. In my estimation, the commentary on the site, thefinalclub.org, is fantastic. If you agree, I'd encourage a post on the Melville page or just the Bartleby page. Let me know what you all think. I'd love to hear your thoughts.--Andrewmagliozzi (talk)

For some reason User:Ckatz deleted this link from the External links section. Would you like to discuss the matter? I think it is appropriate for this page it is a link to the full text with some very interesting hypertext commentary as well as a thoughtful introductory essay from an academic with a Harvard PhD. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, per the comments that have been left on your talk page, several editors have reviewed your site and felt that it did not meet the external links guideline. Please see my note there. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)