le.” -
             “Bartelby appears to be the lawyer chiefly to remind him
             of the inadequacies, the sterile routine, of his world.”
             Marcus is trying to say that Bartelby and the narrator have a sort of inter-connection. Not as two separate entities, but as two separate personalities residing in one, viewing life from separate standpoints. This view that Marcus has on Bartelby (used as a short for the title), can easily be digested due to the descriptive nature of the story itself. The narrator, confidently from the very introduction of Bartelby’s character, describes his every move and demeanors as if it was his own. He is able to successfully convey to the unidentified audience who Bartelby is, while managing to leave room for mystery within the character. The familiarity in the narrator’s description leads to a sort of justification of Marcus’ theory of the narrator and Bartelby as a “Psychological Double.” However, in order to successfully justify this theory, I believe that Marcus should have proceeded to convince his audience that the other
             characters, Turkey, Nippers, and Ginger Nut, are also alter personalities of the narrator. They too were an intricate part of the narrator’s description. Each of these characters possessed several positive and negative qualities quite familiar to the narrator. I feel that it is inadequate for Marcus to solely choose Bartelby and leave out the other characters as alternate personalities.
             The critic, R.K. Gupta, uses “reason” to justify his standpoint on
             Melville’s, Bartelby the Scrivener. Gupta writes:
             “ The unnamed narrator of “Bartelby, the Scrivener” is
             an apostle or reason. His outlook on life is clear,
             unambiguous, and uncluttered by mysticism or
             imagination. Reason and common sense are his deities,
             and he looks upon them as infallible guides to human co...