In our previous class, we discussed the connection between the two-part structure of Herman Melville’s The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tartarus of Maids. Some stated that the role of the narrators connected the two stories while others stated that the connection between the two was the bachelor’s lavish life being at the expense of the women’s hardships. In her article,’The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tartarus of Made’: A Dialogue about Experience, Understanding, and Truth, literary critic Karen Weyler believes that “the narrator is key to understanding this puzzling work”. Weyler expands that the connection of the two stories is through the narrator’s “movement from passivity and observation to direct engagement with life”. I agree with Weyler that through the experiences of the narrator in each story, the readers can view the two-part structure as a one complete story.
The narrator himself becomes the link between these two Melville stories. The narrator in The Paradise of Bachelors is simply a passive, inactive observer who reflects upon the lavish life of the bachelors surrounding him. The narrator is not a lawyer like the bachelors; however, he is a silent guest. The readers see that the narrator does not engage in conversation, but rather self-reflects and self-analyzes those around him. However, in the Tartarus of Maids, though the narrator is still observing, he engages in active conversation with those surrounding him. For example, the narrator asks Cupid, “You make only blank paper; no printing of any sort, I suppose? All blank paper, don’t you?” (Melville 1272). In addition, he further engages in conversation by asking Cupid, “What makes those girls so sheet-white, my lad” (Melville 1274). As the readers can see, the narrator becomes actively engaged through questions into understanding the awful status of these maids.
Weyler believes that it is the narrator’s active engagement with his experience at the paper mill that allows him to understand the paradise of the privileged bachelors. It is common for people to say there can be no rich without the poor, no heaven without hell, no happiness without suffering. In agreement with Weyler, I believe the narrator’s exclamation, “Oh! Paradise of Bachelors! And oh! Tartarus of Maids!” (Melville 1279) suggests to the readers that the he now understands the ‘larger truth’ that no heaven can exist without hell. In other words, the narrator’s movement from passive to active engagement juxtaposes the difference between the two groups of people, allowing for the discovery of a ‘larger truth’, which ultimately connects this two-part structure into one complete story.
