These three essays orbit Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener” from successive distances. The first attacks the narrator, the second attacks the attack, the third removes the hope of a clean vantage point. Each piece eats the previous one. Together they ask whether any act of understanding can avoid being an act of consumption.
Part I: The Vampire on Wall Street
The most dangerous character in American literature is not Captain Ahab; it is the unnamed lawyer who narrates “Bartleby, the Scrivener.” Ahab merely wants to kill you. The lawyer wants to consume you, digest your suffering into “delicious self-approval,” and then bury you under a platitude.
For a century, critics have read this story as a tragedy of urban alienation, viewing the narrator as a flawed but well-meaning man trying to help a mentally ill employee. This reading is not just wrong; it is the exact complicity Melville designed the text to expose. The narrator is not a witness to the tragedy. He is the origin of it. He is a vampire of the spirit who feeds on Bartleby’s decline to validate his own self-image as a “safe” and “charitable” man.
The smoking gun appears early, in a sentence most readers skim over. When Bartleby first refuses to work, the narrator decides not to fire him. Why? Not out of kindness. He tells us explicitly: “Here I can cheaply purchase a delicious self-approval. To befriend Bartleby… will cost me little or nothing, while I lay up in my soul what will eventually prove a sweet morsel for my conscience.”
Read that again. Cheaply purchase. Cost me little. Sweet morsel. This is not the language of charity; it is the language of consumption. Bartleby is not a human being to the lawyer; he is an asset class. He is a spiritual luxury good. The narrator keeps him like a pet purely to prove to himself that he is not like the other Wall Street sharks. He feeds on Bartleby’s wretchedness to nourish his own vanity.
This is why the narrator’s tolerance lasts exactly as long as it does. The moment Bartleby’s presence threatens the narrator’s professional reputation—when clients start noticing the “fixture” in the office—the “sweet morsel” turns sour. The calculation shifts. The “cost” is no longer “little or nothing.” And because the narrator is a man of “prudence” and “method,” he cuts his losses immediately. He doesn’t just fire Bartleby; he abandons the building, fleeing to the suburbs to escape the human debris he can no longer monetize for his ego.
The narrator’s weapon of choice is the “Dead Letter Office” rumor he deploys in the epilogue. Critics treat this as a key to Bartleby’s psychology—the idea that sorting undeliverable mail broke his spirit. Nonsense. The rumor is the narrator’s final act of violence. Throughout the story, Bartleby exists as a terrifying singularity—a man without history, without explanation, a pure “No” in a world of “Yes.” This inexplicability terrifies the lawyer because it cannot be filed. By inventing the Dead Letter backstory, the narrator retroactively processes Bartleby into a safe, sentimental category: The Sad Victim of Fate. It is a narrative act of taxidermy. He stuffs the corpse with a tragic backstory so he can display it on his mental mantelpiece without guilt.
The story’s famous final line—”Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!”—is the ultimate obscenity. It is the sigh of a man who has successfully converted a human life into a philosophical abstraction. It costs him nothing to say “Ah humanity!” It would have cost him everything to actually see Bartleby.
Melville’s genius was to hide a monster in plain sight by disguising him as a Moderate. The narrator is “eminently safe.” He never raises his voice. He prides himself on “prudence.” He is the prototype of the modern institutional coward who believes that feeling bad about suffering is the same thing as alleviating it. He stands in for every reader who prefers the aesthetic pleasure of pity to the actual cost of solidarity.
Bartleby’s refusal—”I would prefer not to”—was the only honest thing in the office. It was a rejection of the imperative mood, a rejection of the transactional logic that governed the lawyer’s soul. The narrator couldn’t hear it then, and the critics can’t hear it now. We are too busy listening to the vampire sigh about how hard it is to be a good man.
This is one way of telling the story: the lawyer as monster, the reader as judge.
Part II: Speaking of Table Manners
There is a specific kind of pleasure in watching a critic demolish a narrator. It feels clean. It feels righteous. And in the case of “The Vampire on Wall Street,” it feels entirely too easy. The essayist identifies the narrator of “Bartleby, the Scrivener” not as a witness, but as a predator—a “vampire” who feeds on his employee’s decline to nourish a “delicious self-approval.” It is a devastating reading. It is also a confession.
The essayist’s argument hinges on a single, lethal insight: that the lawyer’s charity is actually consumption. The lawyer keeps Bartleby around to prove he is a “safe” and “prudent” man. But look at what the essayist does with the lawyer. The lawyer is stripped of his complexity, his confusion, and his genuine (if failed) attempts to navigate a deadlock, and reduced to a “monster in plain sight.” Why? For the exact same reason the lawyer reduced Bartleby: to purchase a cheap “delicious self-approval.”
The lawyer uses Bartleby to feel like a Good Christian; the essayist uses the lawyer to feel like a Radical Truth-Teller.
The text betrays itself in the register. When the essayist writes that the lawyer “wants to consume you, digest your suffering… and then bury you under a platitude,” the prose is practically salivating. The violence of the metaphor isn’t analytical; it’s culinary. The critic is feasting on the narrator’s moral failure. The essay claims the lawyer treats Bartleby as a “spiritual luxury good,” but for the critic, the lawyer is an intellectual luxury good—a perfect, flat target designed to demonstrate the critic’s superior ethical vision.
Consider the treatment of the “Dead Letter Office” rumor. The essay argues that the narrator invents this backstory to “process Bartleby into a safe, sentimental category.” This is the essay’s strongest point. It frames explanation as an act of violence. Yet, the essay performs the exact same violent categorization on the narrator. It processes the lawyer into the “Prototype of the Modern Institutional Coward.” It files him away. It stuffs him with the sawdust of “capitalist critique” so he can be mounted on the wall. The lawyer turns Bartleby into a Tragedy; the critic turns the lawyer into a Villain. Both are acts of taxidermy designed to silence the subject.
The real tragedy of Melville’s story isn’t that the lawyer is a vampire. It’s that he is not. He is a man operating within a system where “charity” and “consumption” are structurally indistinguishable. By pathologizing the narrator as a “monster,” the essayist lets the system off the hook. If the lawyer is just a bad apple, a “vampire,” then we don’t have to worry about the structure of Wall Street—we just have to make sure we aren’t vampires ourselves. It privatizes the horror.
The essay ends by mocking the lawyer’s final sigh—”Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!”—calling it an “ultimate obscenity.” It argues that the lawyer has “converted a human life into a philosophical abstraction.” But the essay’s final move is to convert the lawyer’s life into a critical abstraction. The critic stands over the text, pointing a finger, demanding we choose between “solidarity” and “complicity,” as if reading a short story were a loyalty oath.
The essayist claims we are “too busy listening to the vampire sigh” to hear Bartleby. But we can’t hear Bartleby in this essay either. We can only hear the critic shouting about how much better they are at listening than the lawyer was. Bartleby preferred not to be useful. The lawyer used him for conscience. The critic uses him for content. The consumption continues; only the table manners have changed.
But if the lawyer feeds on Bartleby, what is the critic doing to the lawyer?
Part III: The Digestif
We have indicted the Lawyer for consuming Bartleby to feed his conscience. We have indicted the Critic for consuming the Lawyer to feed their superiority. We have established that everyone at the table is a vampire.
But this moral clarity relies on a fantasy: that there is a way to survive without eating.
The horror of “Bartleby, the Scrivener” is not that the narrator is uniquely evil, or that the critic is uniquely hypocritical. The horror is that the “economy of virtue” is a closed loop. There is no outside. To understand the world is to digest it. To love someone—in the way the narrator attempts, in the way the critic demands—is to incorporate them into your own self-concept.
We recoil from the lawyer’s “delicious self-approval” because it makes the mechanics of digestion visible. He admits he is feeding. But what is the alternative? To treat Bartleby with “pure” altruism? That is a theological fiction. In a Protestant moral economy—or a capitalist one; they are the same architecture—virtue is an asset. We accumulate “goodness” to hedge against the terror of being nothing. The lawyer hoards charity. The critic hoards insight. Both are engaged in capital accumulation.
If we strip away the moral posturing, we are left with the brutal physics of thought. To think about Bartleby is to reduce him to an object of thought. To write about him is to turn him into text. Even the most delicate, empathetic reading is an act of metabolism. We break the other down to nutrients that our own minds can absorb. The violence isn’t a glitch in the system; it is the system.
So the question shifts. If we cannot stop being vampires, what is left of ethics?
Perhaps the only sin is the pretense of purity. The lawyer’s crime wasn’t that he used Bartleby, but that he called it “charity.” The critic’s crime wasn’t that they used the lawyer, but that they called it “justice.” They both wiped their mouths and claimed they hadn’t eaten.
An honest ethics—a “tragic” ethics—would admit the violence of the encounter. It would acknowledge that every act of understanding is a partial murder of the thing understood. We chew on the world because we must. The lawyer’s “Ah humanity!” is obscene because it tries to sanitize the meal. It tries to make the destruction of a specific man into a universal lullaby.
This brings us back to the Wall Street office, the only place where the truth was actually spoken. In a world of ravenous appetites—for money, for approval, for meaning—there was only one singularity who opted out of the food chain entirely.
He refused the work (production). He refused the charity (social transaction). And finally, in the Tombs, he refused the dinner (biological consumption).
We want to read this as a political protest or a psychological break. We want to use his death to prove a point. But that is just us, bringing our forks to the funeral.
Bartleby saw the structural horizon that the lawyer and the critic miss: that to exist is to be complicit in consumption. The lawyer ate to feel good. The critic ate to feel right. Bartleby’s refusal was not an escape from the economy of consumption; it was its terminal logic. Starvation is not the opposite of eating but its catastrophic endpoint, where the body performs the truth the mind would rather aestheticize. If every act of understanding metabolizes its object, then Bartleby did not stand outside the system—he forced it to complete itself on his own flesh. The difference between the lawyer, the critic, and Bartleby is not innocence versus guilt, but tempo: the lawyer consumes slowly and calls it prudence, the critic consumes quickly and calls it justice, and Bartleby refuses mediation altogether. He does not save us from violence; he removes the fiction that it can be managed.
But even this is a story about what his refusal means—another mouth, another meal. The question isn’t whether we can stop eating. The question is whether we can notice when we’ve begun.
Part IV: The Check: The Cannibal’s Complaint
The “Bartleby Triptych” wants to have its Melville and eat it too. Across three linked essays, it builds an elaborate prosecutorial apparatus to prove that all acts of understanding are acts of consumption—that the lawyer feeds on Bartleby’s misery, that the critic feeds on the lawyer’s complicity, that even silence would just be another form of refined dining. The argument is structurally elegant, recursively self-aware, and ultimately cowardly. It mistakes performance for philosophy and exhaustion for insight.
The Triptych’s central maneuver is simple: Part I attacks Melville’s narrator as a “vampire” who converts suffering into “delicious self-approval.” Part II turns on the critic who wrote Part I, revealing them as another vampire who feeds on the narrator’s moral failure. Part III steps back to announce that everyone—lawyer, critic, reader—is trapped in an “economy of consumption” with no outside. The work claims to have closed all exits, proved the inescapability of violence, and forced us to “admit the violence of the encounter” rather than pretending to clean hands.
This is the equivalent of announcing you’ve invented a labyrinth and then congratulating yourself for not finding the exit.
The Metaphor Does All The Work
The engine of the entire Triptych is a single extended metaphor: understanding-as-eating. The lawyer “consumes” Bartleby. The critic “salivates” over the text. Reading is “metabolism.” Interpretation is “digestion.” By Part III, we’re told that “to understand the world is to digest it” and that “every act of understanding is a partial murder of the thing understood.”
This is not an argument. It is a metaphor doing an argument’s job.
Metaphors work by smuggling in conclusions through association. If you accept that reading is “like” eating, you’ve already accepted that it involves destruction, incorporation, and the transformation of an external other into internal substance. The Triptych never proves this equivalence—it simply repeats the metaphor until repetition looks like evidence. By the fifteenth iteration of consumption-language, the reader has been digested by the very metaphor that claims to describe digestion.
But what if the metaphor is wrong? What if understanding is not best modeled as consumption? What if it’s more like call-and-response, or translation, or encountering another consciousness without incorporating it? The Triptych never considers these alternatives because it has already decided on its metaphor in the first sentence of Part I: “The lawyer wants to consume you, digest your suffering into ‘delicious self-approval.'”
Everything that follows is just the metaphor eating itself.
The Recursive Trap
The Triptych’s defenders will say I’m missing the point—that the work’s self-aware structure is precisely the argument. Part II critiques Part I for using the lawyer as “intellectual luxury goods.” Part III critiques both for pretending to a clean position. The essay knows it’s performing consumption, which supposedly inoculates it against the charge.
This is the oldest trick in the book: deploy self-awareness as armor against criticism. If you admit your hypocrisy first, you think you’ve neutralized the accusation. But self-awareness is not the same thing as change. The Triptych doesn’t stop consuming; it just gets more sophisticated about how it justifies the meal.
Look at what Part II actually does. It accuses the Part I critic of “feasting on the narrator’s moral failure” and using the lawyer as a target “designed to demonstrate the critic’s superior ethical vision.” This is supposed to be a devastating reversal. But what is Part II doing to Part I? It’s using Part I as proof of its own superior understanding. It positions itself as the smarter critic who sees through the first critic’s game. The consumption continues; only the self-congratulation has gotten more elaborate.
Part III tries to escape this recursion by declaring the whole system inescapable. “There is no outside,” it announces, as if this were revelation rather than resignation. But declaring that you’re trapped doesn’t mean you actually are. It just means you’ve stopped looking for the door.
What Gets Erased
Here’s what the Triptych never addresses: Bartleby himself.
For an essay that spends 1,200 words analyzing consumption, commodification, and the violence of interpretation, it has remarkably little to say about the specific qualities of the man it claims to be defending. What makes Bartleby different from other objects of interpretation? Why does his particular “No” matter? What formal properties of Melville’s text create the effect of his singularity?
The Triptych treats Bartleby as a pure negation—a “No” in a world of “Yes,” a refusal of the transactional. But this is just another abstraction. It converts Bartleby into a philosophical position rather than a fictional character embedded in a specific formal structure. The essay complains that the lawyer performs “narrative taxidermy” by inventing the Dead Letter Office backstory, but the Triptych performs its own taxidermy by stuffing Bartleby with the sawdust of “refusal-as-such.”
The most telling moment comes in Part III’s conclusion: “Bartleby saw the structural horizon that the lawyer and the critic miss: that to exist is to be complicit in consumption.” This sentence claims Bartleby “saw” something. It attributes consciousness, intention, and philosophical insight to a fictional character. It does exactly what the essay condemns—it uses Bartleby “for content.” The difference is that where the lawyer uses him for conscience and the critic uses him for criticism, Part III uses him for metaphysics.
Even the Triptych’s final gesture—”But even this is a story about what his refusal means—another mouth, another meal”—is a dodge. It admits the problem in a tone of world-weary sophistication, as if acknowledging the trap were the same thing as escaping it. This is the textual equivalent of Instagram therapy-speak: performing insight as a substitute for action.
The Missing Alternative
The Triptych wants us to believe the choice is binary: either (1) pretend interpretation is innocent, or (2) admit it’s consumption and keep eating. But this is a false dilemma constructed to make the essay’s fatalism look like realism.
There’s a third option the Triptych systematically ignores: interpretation as encounter that doesn’t require incorporation. You can read a text, understand it deeply, and still let it remain other. You can engage with Bartleby without converting him into fuel for your own moral economy. This requires work—the work of staying with ambiguity, of not resolving contradictions, of letting the text exist in its strangeness rather than domesticating it into an argument you already wanted to make.
The Triptych calls this “theological fiction” and dismisses it. But the only evidence it offers for impossibility is its own metaphor of consumption. If understanding must be digestion, then yes, encounter-without-incorporation is impossible. But that’s circular reasoning dressed up as tragic wisdom.
Consider what the essay never does: it never describes a single sentence of Melville’s prose with attention to its formal properties. It never analyzes the rhythm of Bartleby’s “I would prefer not to.” It never examines how the story’s focalization works, or what effects Melville achieves through the narrator’s unreliability, or how the Dead Letter Office epilogue functions structurally beyond being a “narrative act of taxidermy.”
The Triptych is so busy eating that it never actually looks at what’s on the plate.
The Real Stakes
What makes the Triptych worth attacking is not that it’s wrong about everything—it’s right that the lawyer commodifies Bartleby’s suffering, and it’s right that much criticism uses texts to prove the critic’s superiority. What makes it worth attacking is that it mistakes its own exhaustion for the exhaustion of all possibilities.
The move from Part II to Part III is the tell. Part II successfully shows that Part I performs the consumption it condemns. This creates a genuine problem: how do you criticize without becoming complicit in the structures you’re criticizing? This is a real question with no easy answer.
But instead of staying with that difficulty, Part III declares the problem insoluble and calls it tragedy. “The only sin is the pretense of purity,” it announces, as if admitting you’re a vampire somehow makes the bloodsucking acceptable. This isn’t ethics; it’s a permission structure. It’s a way of avoiding the hard work of figuring out how to read and write differently by declaring that different is impossible.
The essay ends by invoking Bartleby’s starvation as “the catastrophic endpoint” of refusing consumption. But this is grotesque. Bartleby’s death is not a philosophical position; it’s the consequence of being trapped in the Tombs with no one to help him. The Triptych converts his literal death-by-incarceration into a metaphor for the impossibility of ethics. This is exactly the violence it claims to oppose—using a fictional character’s suffering to prove a point about interpretation.
The real question the Triptych can’t answer is simple: if all understanding is consumption, why write at all? Why add another mouth to the feast? The essay doesn’t have an answer, so it settles for performing its own complicity as if confession were absolution.
The Cannibal’s Alibi
The “Bartleby Triptych” is criticism for critics who want to feel sophisticated about their participation in criticism. It offers the pleasures of meta-awareness—the frisson of seeing through your own position while maintaining it—without requiring any change in practice. You can read it, nod along to its diagnosis of consumption, and then return to consuming with a more interesting vocabulary.
This is what makes it exemplary of a certain strain of contemporary criticism: work that is structurally radical and practically conservative. It diagnoses the system, performs its own capture by the system, and then declares the system inescapable. It’s critique as resignation masquerading as courage.
The essay’s final line is perfect for this purpose: “The question isn’t whether we can stop eating. The question is whether we can notice when we’ve begun.” This sounds profound until you realize it’s just reframing inaction as awareness. It lets you keep doing exactly what you were doing, as long as you’re self-conscious about it.
But noticing isn’t enough. The vampire who knows they’re a vampire and keeps drinking is worse than the vampire who doesn’t know—because they’ve abandoned the possibility of change. The Triptych offers this abandonment as wisdom, this exhaustion as insight, this refusal to imagine alternatives as realism.
That’s not tragic ethics. That’s just giving up and calling it philosophy.
cafebedouin.org 