Explain your definition of Bartleby's life edict of "I would prefer not to." Be specific.

Interesting question! Your definition of Bartleby's life edict will depend upon your own personal inclinations. Does Bartleby's phrase of "I would prefer not to" (spoken fourteen times in the story) denote apathy, boredom, or fatigue? Or does it signify a sort of passive resistance to corporate authority? Of course, we can also define Bartleby's life edict as a form of self-expression or even a form of self-preservation. 

It seems that Bartleby is intent upon protecting his own intellectual and physical freedom. After performing admirably on an array of tasks, Bartleby seemingly becomes uncooperative overnight. When asked to proofread some documents, Bartleby simply responds with a polite "I would prefer not to." This frustrates the narrator, because Bartleby's reply is surface courtesy without the expected submissive acquiescence. What's even stranger to the narrator is that Bartleby never appears to leave the office for dinner.

It looks like Bartleby's rebellion is both psychological and physical in nature. Meanwhile, the narrator is thoroughly frustrated with him. It is difficult to fire someone like Bartleby because he seems so helpless and child-like:

Poor fellow! thought I, he means no mischief; it is plain he intends no insolence; his aspect sufficiently evinces that his eccentricities are involuntary. He is useful to me. I can get along with him. If I turn him away, the chances are he will fall in with some less indulgent employer, and then he will be rudely treated, and perhaps driven forth miserably to starve.

The narrator tries to work with Bartleby, but to no avail. No matter what he asks Bartleby to do (whether to go to the Post Office or to call another employee into his office), Bartleby answers with his customary "I would prefer not to." Despite Bartleby's stubbornness, the narrator reluctantly admits that his employee is an excellent copier. He just refuses to do anything apart from the task he has been hired for. Eventually, he stops doing even that.

Perhaps, most ominously, Bartleby soon stops taking in nourishment; he engages in the ultimate hunger strike. Bartleby's resistance to corporate culture eventually kills him. Bartleby's actions go beyond anything advocated by passive resistance movements. In fact, he continues to stay in the narrator's office even after he has been dismissed from his position. Bartleby's "I would prefer not to make any change" is startling. However, it also draws attention to his obvious suffering.

He is seized by a mental and physical paralysis. Perhaps, Bartleby's actions highlight a very important fact: corporate culture is least forgiving to those who are by nature "prone to a pallid hopelessness..." In that sense, perhaps we can define Bartleby's life edict as a form of self-expression, his attitude a litmus test of his mental anguish.

Bartleby had been a subordinate clerk in the Dead Letter Office at Washington, from which he had been suddenly removed by a change in the administration. When I think over this rumor, I cannot adequately express the emotions which seize me. Dead letters! Does it not sound like dead men? Conceive a man by nature and misfortune prone to a pallid hopelessness, can any business seem more fitted to heighten it than that of continually handling these dead letters, and assorting them for the flames?