Melville, Gogol and Thurber
To compare the writing styles of these three writers, it is worth mentioning that Gogol lived in Russia in the first half of 19th century, Melville was the American novelist of the second half of the 19th century, and Thurber wrote his short stories in the middle of 20th century. Gogol is considered as the father of Russian realism, though in his latest works the elements of mysticism and romanticism appeared. Unlike Gogol, Melville was the bright representative of American dark romanticism, and short stories of Thurber can be characterized as the works of satirical realism. Thus, despite the common features of their heroes, the researchers should take in attention the different time and literary genres of these writers.
Akakiy, Bartleby and Martin
Three heroes of three different novels are the clerks. That is why the satirical reflection of the corrupt bureaucracy is the common features for these novels. Akakiy Akakievitch Bashmatchkin, the main character of Gogols tragicomedy The Overcoat works in some office of an unnamed bureaucratic department. As Gogol begins the story, In the department of but it is better not to mention the departmentin order to avoid all unpleasantness, it will be better to describe the department in question only as a certain department.
Described as about fifty years old and of short of stature, somewhat pocked marked, red-haired and shortsighted with a bald forehead, wrinkled cheeks and a sanguine complexion his official status being a perpetual titular councillor. One whom none could remember when and how he entered the department, and who appointed him. He was always seen in the same place, with the same attitude, the same occupation. Shown no respect, he was laughed at and made fun of and was treated by his superiors in a coolly despotic fashion. In addition, he often he had the misfortune of walking under windows when trash was being thrown out so that he always bore on his hat scraps of melon rinds and other such articles.
An industrious and faithful worker, he lived entirely for his duties, laboring with love. He did not socialize with his colleagues, nor did he engage in any social activities after work, instead he went home and did even more copying. For, outside copying, it appeared that nothing existed for him. A peaceful man, content with his lot in life, he desired nothing else., even when a kindly superior offered to give him something more important than copying, he declined, and after that, he was left him to copy on forever. In these ways, he represents the commonordinary man, working in the bureaucratic order of 19th Century Russia. However, the same passion to copying can be noticed for the Bartleby, Melvilles hero. And even Martin, the most reasonable and down-to-earth character, works in the department of filling for 22 years, which means he wants nothing more in his life.
The deeper analysis, however, reflects the different motivation of the heroes. Thus, Akakiy is willing to afford a new coat. The new aim in his aimless life makes him livelier, his character grew firmerfrom his face, gait and indecision, all hesitating and wavering traits disappeared. Fire even gleamed in his eyes. He is excited for the first time as he plans his new cloak with the one eyed, often drunken tailor, Petrovitch. He has got the new sense of the hope in his life. New coat even made him going to a party, after which Akakiy lost his reassured new coat. The absence of help from the police and prominent person and neglecting of Akakiys services killed him. Unlike the Bartleby, however, Akakiy didnt finish his existence with his death he transformed to the ghost and started to attack people wearing new overcoats. Soon after his death, a ghost is sighted who steals cloaks from passersby, including that of the prominent personage, whom the ghost declares, Ah, here you are at lastI need your cloak you took no trouble about mine, but reprimanded me so now give up on your own. Then, the ghost disappeared never to be seen again. Cloakless, the prominent personage returns home and changes his ways, accusing his under officials, only after he heard their full story. With such mystical ending the small man on Gogols novel shows his protest against the indifferent bureaucratic system. As was stated above, one of the themes of The Overcoat is Mans inhumanity against his fellow man, as well as the inhumanity of the organized bureaucracy, which pays no heed to the hard worker, or their needs, such as a warm cloak in the colder parts of Russia. It is not until he dies and becomes a ghost that Akakiy gains any real power. Because of the circumstances of modern life in czarist, corrupt, bureaucratic culture, this theme of inhumanity is a common one in 19th Century Russian literature. Much of which was inspired by Gogol, who writing during Czar Nicholas corrupt reign, often satirized Russian bureaucracy, and was eventually exiled for it. As Johnson writes, In the character of Akakiy Akakievitch, Gogol gave the world its first modern common man, a man who is overwhelmed by the complex bureaucracy of which he is part (1747).
The theme of inhumanity is also raised in Melvilles Bartleby the Scrivener A Story of Wall Street, but the genre of dark romanticism determines the necessity of pessimistic ending. Bartleby dies and nobody cares of his death except the old lawyer who is the narrator if this story. The story begins in the lawyers office, as he explains who he is, and what he does. Here, we get an image of a man who does quite well but is content leaving things as is, does not hold much ambition, nor does he want to change anything. This is apparent as he describes his employees, and their eccentricities, which frustrate him but he finds it easier to deal with them, rather than hire new and perhaps less temperamental and more responsible clerks. It is into this rather chaotic, yet well-balanced world that the silent, mysterious, pallidly neat, pitiably respectable and incurably forlorn figure Bartleby enters. Needing another scrivener to attend to his increasing business, the lawyer hires him on the spot and makes a work area for him in his own office. We first find Bartleby to be though quiet, he diligently does an extraordinary quantity of writingsilently, palely and mechanically. However, when the lawyer requests he perform other work besides mere copying, Bartleby replies I prefer not, which as we find out becomes in end all and be all catch phrase, so much so that he soon prefers not to do any work at all, and the rest of the office begin to use the phrase themselves.
In time, Bartleby decides not to do any work and just stands there, looking at the office wall, day after day. Yet, the lawyer, with his passive nature and avoidance of conflict, still cannot bring himself to fire Bartleby. Instead, he chooses to move himself and his office to another location, away from Bartleby, who remained in the building until the property owner sent him to prison for vagrancy. Upon his death, we find that Bartleby had previously lost his job as a sub-clerk in a dead letter office, which the lawyer believes could explain his strange behavior, leading him to exclaim, Ah Bartleby, ah the humanity
Within Bartleby the Scrivener, we find characters devoted to their existence, whether misery or indigestion or passivity, intent on the daily routine, not looking to change or improve their lot. As Bartleby himself states, At present, I would prefer not to make any change at all. Actually, overall, he prefers not to do anything - not to proof, or even copy, or once in prison to eat. In fact, he prefers not to live, as he dies in a fetal position in the prison courtyard.
Bartleby represents the isolation, hopelessness and inhumanity of the modern 19th Century world. He is described as a ghost, pale, pallid, wraith like, cadaverous. He does not eat except for a few ginger nuts, barely speaks, does not socialize, does not go outside, and does not have any friends or family. In the end he does not work, and finally does not even live. He is seemingly not human, nor alive. He is just a worker bee of the office building, staying there until he is in an actual prison. Among the three characters this one is the most lifeless. It seems that Melville tried to describe the fate of classical romantic hero in the cruel modern life. Bartlebys life is useless, and which is more, he makes nothing to make it sense. If the life of Akakiy was ruined with the loss of longed-for aim and the absence of the support, the life of Bartleby had no aims and support (in particular from his boss) couldnt change the situation. The problem of Akakiy was in the system the problem of Bartleby was in his nature. Indeed, it is only Bartleby who decides his fate by preferring not to.
In these ways, Melville comments upon and satirizes his times. Attacking its smug morality, its pomposity, sentimental , patronizing, attitude toward individual citizens, its simplistic view of the complex and the ambiguous, persistent ignorance of its responsibilities (164). He could also be commenting upon the literary world of the time, and his own waning popularity.
Some say the Melville wrote Bartleby in response to the recent criticisms of his work, which in effect ruined his career, particularly that of Fitz James OBriens severe criticism of his most recent, Pierre (Bergmann 139). Bartleby may represent Melville himself, and the dead letters, the perception of his own writings. In this way, Bartleby becomes about the isolation of an artist in a materialistic society which not only is indifferent to its writers, but also bent on their destruction (Adams, 163).
Some also posit that since Melville often wrote of his own experiences, that the characters were based on real life figures, from his literary life. Namely, Cornelius Mathews with his histrionic language and posturing as Turkey, Edgar Allen Poe with his testiness and frustrated ambition as Nippers, and Melvilles patron, mentor and friend, editor of The Literary World Everet Duycknick as the narrator (Wells). Accordingly, as Duycknick and many other literary men of the time held law degrees prior to becoming critics, Melville may be telling us that one of the problems of the free-thinking artist in nineteenth-century America was to win acceptance by the narrow, legalistic minds of so many critics trained in law (Wells).
Thus, two of three heroes lost in the opposition with the system, though Akakiy had a chance to revenge himself after his death. Anyway they couldnt resist the system (Bartleby possibly didnt want to) and died. Martin, the character of Thurbers The Catbird Seat, differs from these two heroes because he was able to win and save his position. As two other characters, Martin is the mild mannered, neat, quiet, polite, keeps to himself common man who lives his life with routine and not much socializing. He is described by his co workers as infallible, the most efficient worker, and praised for his temperate habits and exemplary manner. He is content with his life the way it is, orderly and methodical, and has worked at the same company for twenty-two years. Martin isnt an evil man, but when Mrs. Ulgine Barrows starts pressing him, he starts thinking about her murder. However, the situation forces him to find the unknown sides of his nature - that of a cunning and imaginative spirit. For, when finding that there is no murder weapon in the house, he uses his own reputation as an exemplary, tee-totaller to achieve her demise. While visiting her, he drinks scotch and smokes, stating that he does so all the time, and declares that he uses heroin and is in the process of making a bomb to blow up Mr. Fitweiler. He also uses one of her phrases, saying that he is sitting in the catbird seat. With this intrigue Martin has achieved his goal by eliminating her and restoring order without the use of violence, but by his wits. As Canfield-Reisman writes, The silent self-control which makes Martin a good file clerk ensures his victory for hes too disciplined to tell anyone what he has done, ever to reveal his secret self (338). Accordingly, in The Catbird Seat, it is the common man who is in control, and does so by the stability of his own reputation. Though faced with chaos and insecurity, it is not the bureaucratized social order that affects Martin it is women.
The Catbird Seat does however also involve the isolation of the modern world. This is demonstrated in that no one sees him when he buys cigarettes, even though it was the most crowded store on Broadway. No one notices him sharpening his pencils and polishing his glasses. He eats alone with the financial pages every night, and then takes a solitary walk through the city streets. Yet, it is this isolation and the invisibility of modern, city life that is Martins salvation, not his downfall, as it is for Bartleby and Akaiky. For, Martin knows that no one is looking closely at him or his actions, and thus he can carry out his plan, without being seen. Thus, the traditional role of small man helped Martin to achieve his goal and to keep his position.
In all three stories, we find the common man faced with a modern existence of systems, offices and bureaucracies. Moreover, we also find the inefficiency of these systems. For, in all, the employers, officials and the higher ups are completely ineffectual to solve any of the problems. In The Overcoat, the sentry guard, chief of police, the prominent personage or any of his bosses, or even the doctor offer to help Akakiy. In Bartleby, the lawyer is resolved to his chaotic and perhaps inefficient work environment, blaming it on his employees foibles, without any sense of his own responsibility. He has no authority over Bartleby, and lets him completely do his own thing, even to the point of not working and just staring at a wall all day. In The Catbird Seat, the head of the company, Mr. Fitweiler, lets Ulgine Barrows, who he has utmost faith in, do whatever she likes, though it did require his approval.
That these stories, though written by different authors, in different cultures and at different times, involve very similar themes and characters, demonstrates that the modern world is an entity, as is the human condition, known to all. However all three novels have different endings, which related to different genres and lifestyles of the authors. The romantic hero of Melville has to die because he has nothing to live for in the modern world. The poor small clerk of Gogol cant resist the system but he tries to revenge. The cunning hero of Thurber doesnt allow to break him. The similarities and differences of three novels allow researchers to speak about the fate of small man in different countries and times.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment