What Is Bartleby's Reasoning Behind Confusion?

With the idea that Bartleby is undefinable in mind, does Bartleby have any kind of form or definition behind him that can relieve the lawyer from said confusion? The answer would be no. Armen Beverungen and Stephen Dunne perfectly explain the reasoning behind this answer, stating:

“As with any truly brilliant literary character, Bartleby somehow defies definition; we cannot seek to pin him down, ascribe a definitive meaning to him nor force him into a form. It is not for us, nor anybody else, to fill him with an essence or a defined existence since he always overcomes these in his ‘being-able’ (Agamben, 1993)” (Beverungen, 173).

Bartleby’s excessiveness of his silence and mysteriousness, his own existence defies meaning, and that is why he

In remaining so vague, his image is blurred. Any other response from him would generate any kind of emotion, which would lead the reader and lawyer to see some form of motive, feeling, or thinking behind Bartleby, thus ruining the foggy effect he has placed upon himself and his logic. This foggy screen Bartleby produces with his mysteriousness is the main agent in formulating the stifling confusion found within the lawyer. Bartleby only states what he prefers not to do, but he never reveals what he wants to do, so as to make his victim assume what he truly wants. Naomi Reed affirms this claim within her article by stating “A deferral is embedded in the very grammar of the phrase. ‘‘I would prefer not to’’ is spoken in the conditional. Bartleby never states his preferences so much as states what they would be.” (Reed, 258). By remaining conditional in his preference, the reader and lawyer are lead into automatic assumption, which is the primary objective of remaining conditional. In falling into this trap, the reader and lawyer are led down an endless spiral of attempting to understand Bartleby by assumption, and since assuming will always

Whereas the confusion discombobulates and weakens the target, the front is what generates the response from them, which feeds onto the effectiveness and continuation of said passive resistance. The front also makes the user appear immotile and invariable, unaffected by any outward force. The lawyer witnesses this himself after the first ‘I prefer not to’ incident, stating “He briefly gave me to understand that on that point my judgment was sound. Yes: his decision was irreversible” (Melville, 303). This sense that Bartleby’s mind is set, and his thinking unchangeable, gives the lawyer a feeling that he cannot truly control this simple minded scrivener. No matter if he resorts to logic, verbal commands, or bargaining, Bartleby’s stature remains stagnant, and his motive, unclear. Even when Nippers approaches Bartleby, angered by Bartleby’s continued rebellion against the lawyer and his irritating responses, and threatens to physically harm him, the lawyer sees that “Bartleby moved not a limb” (Melville, 310). He shows no signs of fear or worry from a threat that is so present with him. If he has not reacted from something as severe as this, then what will spark any kind of ‘human’ response from him? Nothing will, not even the fear of starvation and death, as seen near the end of the story. An even better question, how does Bartleby construct such a resilient front from any control? What process or