Bartleby the Scrivener Life in the Iron Mills

Bartleby the scribe alivenesstime in the iron MillsEnglish Exam II Bartleby the Scrivener manner-time in the Iron MillsThe two books up for analysis argon Herman Melvilles Bartleby the Scrivener and Life in the Iron Mills by Rebecca Harding Davis. N each take in end be c totallyed a Novella, as both are short stories. Explicit similarities and differences highlight the frivolous aspect of both stories. The more implicit ones underline the actual amount of the stories. Both works were produced at around the same period of the new-fashioned 19Th century, and both feature plots both engrossing, yet unconventional, but coetaneous (in the bailiwick of Bartleby, the Scrivener).In order to write a comparative analysis, mandatory are comparisons between Bartleby and Hugh as workers, their running(a) conditions in their respective jobs, and the incorrupt responsibility of other sections in the stories towards the respective two protagonists.To begin with, the context of u se of both the stories plays an important leave in explaining the job and the working conditions separately protagonist faces. Herman Melvilles composition takes place in the bustling red-hot York metropolis, which is good-tempered up-and-coming during the 19th century.1 The setting in Life in the Iron Mills was influenced by the mills nearby in Wheeling, Virginia on the Ohio River during the incidentory world. Another major influence is the ongoing Industrial Revolution.2Life in the Iron Mills tells us the story just about Hugh Wolfe, a young labourer in the Iron Mills of Wheeling.3 Hugh is a miserable Welsh desc stamp outent who turns pig iron into wrought iron by a process called puddling.4 A gigantic with several other labourers, thats his master(prenominal) job there. But, Hugh is as well highly gifted in the art of sculpting, and in his spare time, sculpts a woman out of Korl, the refuse from iron smelting. His cousin, Deborah-who loves him dearly-brings him dinner party all(prenominal) day, forsaking her own meal. She is a hunchback, and the other workers make sportswoman of her relationship with Hugh. Hughs working conditions werent exactly to a fault habitable. As was the custom during the Industrial revolution, immigrants working in factories and warehouses would be exploited by the owners. Low paying jobs, horrible living conditions just contributed to their misery. Hughs life in the Iron mills was no polar. He had to toil day in and day out, with barely any time to even eat. In all the darkness surrounding his life, the only source of light was his Korl figure, which princely itself from his other creation, the crude, dark Iron from the smelter.Bartlebys world is New York City circa 1860. And in utter contrast, though, during around the same time as Life in the Iron Mills, he works for a attorney on the booming Wall Street of Manhattan. The difference between Bartlebys and Hughs working conditions is so substantial, that, at first look, its almost plastered how Bartleby refuses to do a lot of work tasked to him, in spite of his grade-A working conditions. Bartleby is a scrivener, a copier, who, at first completes his task with utmost dedication. His feeding habits are peculiar. He just eats snacks-specifically Ginger-nut cakes- and skips dinner and lunch altogether. His civic refusal to do a small task intrigues the lawyer, and he gradually discovers that Bartlebys work rate diminishes to the stagecoach where he literally doesnt do any work, and just sits around the lawyers murderice. maven aspire which can be made exclusively for the comparison of both stories is the the Statesn Dream. Though its not the chief(prenominal) theme in either of the books, I cant help but define Hughs actions to be solely for the purpose of achieving the American dream, to be wealthy, to make a name for himself. As for Bartleby, he works in the city of without set aside opportunities New York. Its Ironic that the Americ an dream is closer within his grasp than it is in the case of Hugh in the Iron Mills, and yet he does naught about it. But then again, that can be explained too, by and by the revelations at the repeal of the book. Both are completely different kinds of workers. Hugh, a hard-working yet unsatisfied one, whereas, Bartleby a mentally affected one, which makes his work haphazard as time passes.Endings of both stories are quite similar. Both end on a morose note, and thats where a major diaphragm of comparison comes into light. Bartleby, due to being a liability on the informant is arrested and jailed. The lawyer isnt exactly too excited to hand over get him behind bars, but he did it anyway to protect his business. At the end of the story, the lawyer visits Bartleby in jail for the second time, only to govern him dead. One can perceive his wipeout to be induced by the lawyers actions, and the same can be said about Hugh Wolfe. Deborah steals a wealthy mans wallet while he is tour the Iron mills and hands it over to Hugh. Not knowing what to do with it, he eventually succumbs in his greed for money. When the man finds out about the theft, he has Hugh arrested and jailed. This causes Hugh to slash his wrist one day, and commit suicide. In my personal opinion, the deaths of the protagonists in both stories would not be directly, and intently because of the actions of other character. And as such, I would believe that Hughs death was caused by his own greed, or selfishness. Although Deborah was the one who stole the money, Hugh had a choice to either take it, or refuse. He took the check, and his dream of having a better life, of being in a better social standing caused his greed to get the better of him. Considering that a large sum of money was stolen, Mitchell obviously wouldnt allow that to go unnoticed and unpunished. His object lesson obligation towards Hugh is little, or none. It is only fair that he wished to see Hugh punished for the theft of his money. Though, if only he would have cognise that Deborah was the one who stole the check, then probably he would have been angry towards her instead of Hugh. The only error Mitchell committed was the misdirection of his finger. Maybe, the story would have ended differently if the theft would have been thoroughly investigated.In the case of Bartleby, I would think that the lawyer was not responsible for his death. As the story tells us, Bartleby had started to become a burden on the lawyer. He spent all of his time, quite literally too, in the lawyers office doing nothing. His customers remarked upon that, and the lawyer realised that Bartleby was bad for business. And that is only fair of him. He has no moral obligation towards prioritizing Bartlebys well-being instead of his business. He shifted his office, but the workers still complained of Bartleby, and finally he had to-albeit reluctantly-turn him in to the police. Bartleby died in the jail. The lawyer hears a bruit about Bartleby having worked in a dead garner office, and mayhap Bartleby was mentally affected due to the extremely sad nature of his work there. And maybe that does justify his actions in the lawyers office, but at the end of the day, the lawyers business was at stake. I would believe that the lawyer was in no way morally responsible for Bartlebys death.To analyse, are triplet literary works The narrative of Henry David Thoreau, Frederick Douglass and the Scarlet Letter. altogether three works highlight their protagonists in various ways, using different themes and settings. They were written in around the same time period as well, the late 1840s and 50s.The main protagonists have an unconventional livelihood for some(prenominal) part of their life, and this is most often reflected in their stories. In the case of Frederick Douglass and Henry Thoreau, this unconventional life of theirs forms the basis for their narratives. After read all three books, the readers can make out the fact that all three protagonists disagree with some aspects of their society, and its this disagreement that forms the basis for this analysis. Henry Thoreau is repulsed by the materialism in the society then, and Douglass strongly disagrees with hard workerry and its social, economic and moral effects, whereas, Hester Prynne is shunned, or deemed as an outcast by the society. This is the major similarity between all three protagonists Isolation from conventional society.Frederick Douglasss narrative is set in the America of the early 19th century. Before and during the American civil war, when slavery was rampant(ip) the country. Douglass was probably the son of Captain Anthony, a white slave owner, who was also his first owner. Throughout his life as a slave Douglass is looked spile upon as inhumanely as possible by his white slave masters. He is inhumanely treated, beaten, and deprived of the basic necessities in life. From his very birth, he is labelled as a slave, end-to-en d a long period of his life, he remains one. He is a unique character in his story, as he doesnt fit in the fixity description of both the social standings at that time The slaved blacks, and the free citizens. He is not free only in his mind, and not physically. And he takes an fill in reading and writing, after he learns from Sophia Auld. He takes it upon himself to continue reading and writing after Sophia cruelly stops teaching him. Most slaves werent literate then, and thats what set him apart from them. The constant mistreatment he suffers sets off a spark in him, a spark of deep hate against slavery, it leads him to devise sees to escape, to find his way to more liberal parts of the country. He creates his own opportunities. Opportunities to create, and increase awareness about anti-slavery. He becomes an eloquent generator and orator, recording his life in his narrative, his beliefs and his thoughts about the evils prevalent in the society. Douglass, physical exertion his new-found skill becomes actively involved in the abolitionist movement, doing what his deepest wish was to.When analyse Douglass to Hester Prynne and Thoreau, the readers can notices that there is no physical restriction applied to the last mentioned two protagonists. Its rather social and psychological. But desire Douglass, Hester Prynne too does not fit in the society. She married an elderly man in England who sent her to America, where she lived in a prude settlement in Boston. The suit why she is held like an outcast in the society is because she had an affair with a young minister Arthur Dimmesdale, and had a child out of wedlock. The society frowned upon this incidence and Hester Prynne was an outcast, who was punished for her sin and secrecy. She had to wear a Scarlet coloured earn A on her breast. It was a symbol of adultery, one which she bore throughout her time in the society. She was never a regular citizen, and lived her life in isolation in small cottage with her daughter fall. When her husband surfaced in the puritan society, he was malevolent towards her former lover Dimmesdale, which eventually caused them to plan to flee to Europe and settle there as family. But in the beginning they could do so, Dimmesdale kills himself due to the anguish caused by Chillingworth (who wanted revenge against him).5 Hester and Pearl do escape the society, but only after Chillingworths death a year later.As a result of her experiences in the puritan society, she becomes a kind and compassionate figure, caring the poor and wounded. Her charity work eventually makes her a mother-figure in the society, and when she returns back to Boston from Europe, the scarlet letter which she still wears is no longer a sign of shame.Like Douglass, Hester contemplated about the evils present in the society, the treatment of women in general, and the societys brainpower towards her. She made a better person out of herself as a result, and forged a better future for her self and her daughter just like Douglass did.Henry David Thoreau lives an isolated life for two years. Similar to Hester Prynne, he is fairly cut off from civilization in Walden Pond, except for the occasional visitors (and the fact that concord is of walking distance). The reason why Thoreau went to live in this indrawn of his is because he wanted to experience more of his life. Unlike, Douglass and Hester Prynne, his isolation wasnt inflicted on him due to societal norms and conventions. He chose to live in isolation to find a new side of the society. Henrys beliefs were mostly diminutive towards the then modern society. The materialism present in the society thoroughly irked him, and he considered tangible assets and money to be the evils in the society. He believed that every material muse was a burden for the society and that a life in recluse was the purest form of contact with the nature. His almost biased reflection was not only limited to money and wealth, but also to t echnology.The main similarity between the three protagonists is their shared beliefs towards the societal ills. Although, their issues are different, they point towards a better version of a society in their mind.