I'm nearly done with the book now, and though I'm glad I'm reading it, I am thoroughly disappointed with Captain Ahab's "obsession." There's a lot of first person narative telling us that he's obsessed with the whale, but precious little direct observation showing it. I guess maybe I'm judging the book against what I've already heard about the book? Also, I wonder if my version is toned down a little since it's in Spanish? not sure. However, it does have pictures (in color!) which is nice, since I'm not very familiar with a lot of these seafaring terms, but which also leads me to believe tha I may be reading the "children's classics" version..
Secondly, WTH is up with the long drawn out story in chapter 15 about Steelkit and Radney? I've yet to see how it plays into the rest of the story at all. I keep waiting for a bomb to drop that Steelkit is actually on the Pequod under an assumed name, but alas, no. The same thing happened in the beginning of the book, when he described Bulkington in some detail - never to reappear in the plot? WTH?
Things that I do enjoy: Queequeg finds fault with Christianity and is painted to be a pure, kindhearted, religious non-christian. Queegueg, though being called a savage by the contracting officers, is paid more than triple what Ishamel is paid, since he is more experienced. Hip Hip Hooray for fair market wages!
hmmmm.. and now after reading wikipedia a bit, I do think that my version is not full as I am nearly finished and have not heard anything about "Pip" who apparently falls overbaord a few times during chase scenes. ARGH! To the bookstore I go for a full, English version!
I think this book club is an excellent idea, because I have just made it past the introduction of Moby Dick and already learned a lot. For starters, Herman Melville is an American! I thought he was British. Aren't all the good novelists British? (Leaving myself open for many angry tirades about the quality of American novelists).
Secondly, Herman Melville and Nathanial Hawthorne were buddies. Do you see any of Hawthorne's influence in Moby Dick? Or any of Melville's influence in any of Hawthorne's work?
Also, I had never made the connection between Hobbes' Leviathon and whales until one of the excerpts in the first chapter of Moby Dick. I always though Hobbes had coined the term!
Finally, my last point requires a short personal anecdote. A year or two ago I co-authored a paper with a colleague. Our writing styels were very different- he tended to be quite wordy while I was quite succinct (hard to believe from my posts, I know). He made the comment to mutual friends one day that if I had written Moby Dick it would have consisted of "Big fish kills man. The end." I did not realize the full meaning of this until I started reading Moby Dick. Melville certainly could not be considered succinct, could he? While I find the extraneous information interesting, it does seem to muddy the plot a bit. I think I prefer my novels more straight forward.
However, as I mentioned above, I have only just finished the introduction and begun digging into the novel itself. My impressions or preferences could, and most likely will, change by tomorrow!
BTW, hollebackgirl, I think you were reading an abridged addition, because (according to the introduction of my edition) Pip plays a relatively large role in the book. But look, now you can compare the Spanish and English version for inconsistencies and differences!
I also read that Melville and Hawthorne were great friends. Now I'm curious to compare their styles! I should be picking up a copy tomorrow at the used book store when Michael and I go shopping. I'm hoping to find something hardcover and classy to contrast with the rest of my home decor.
interestingly: leviathan A transliterated Hebrew word (livyathan), meaning "twisted," "coiled." In Job 3:8, Revised Version, and marg. of Authorized Version, it denotes the dragon which, according to Eastern tradition, is an enemy of light; in 41:1 the crocodile is meant; in Ps. 104:26 it "denotes any large animal that moves by writhing or wriggling the body, the whale, the monsters of the deep." This word is also used figuratively for a cruel enemy, as some think "the Egyptian host, crushed by the divine power, and cast on the shores of the Red Sea" (Ps. 74:14). As used in Isa. 27:1, "leviathan the piercing [R.V. 'swift'] serpent, even leviathan that crooked [R.V. marg. 'winding'] serpent," the word may probably denote the two empires, the Assyrian and the Babylonian.
Do you think we should read a Hawthorne novel next for comparison? I know we've all read Scarlet Letter, but there are some other Hawthorne novels that we probably have not.
Of course, first I should probably finish this novel...
The introduction to my volume (2003 Barnes and Nobles Classic) by Carl F. Hovde, refers to some comments by scholars that the scene between Ishmael and Queequeg in Ch. IV has homosexual overtones. I think that some literature scholars dig too deep into some of these books and come up with extreme interpretations. My take on the chapter was that it was meant to be humerous- not homosexual. Nothing in the chapter struck me as being any less than it appeared on the surface, too guys who end up sharing a bed in a crowded inn, with comic results. What was your take? I know there have been similar sexual connotations to Bram Stoker's Dracula. I agree that there are sexual overtones to Dracula (though I disagree with a few interpretations of the type of overtones). But this? No.
Now having read approx 112 pages of the unabridged (though still illustrated) version of Moby Dick, I hereby retract most of my former criticism from the initial post above.
I was glad to see that Bulkington did, indeed, make a re-appearance, if only for a "6 inch chapter." I hope to learn more about him before he's killed off.
While I enjoy Melville's rants (especially the snippet about feeling warm only if some part of you is cold) I think he overdid it a bit with the foreshadowing in the sermon, don't you?
As to the homosexual overtones of the first few chapters - I don't think it was Melville's intent to create an underlying gay theme. Having spent several nights sharing a bed with near-strangers to save a dime while traipsing around Mexico, I can understand this strange situation and the resulting camaraderie. Granted, the whole death-grip-spooning in the morning is pretty graphic, but I think Melville was trying to be humorous more than anything else. Indeed, haven't we seen the exact same scenario repeated in countless movies and tv shows? The Incredibles has a scene like that between Flash and Violet, and I don't think it was meant to convey an incestual relationship.
My only other comment thus far is regarding the prophet. Clearly Melville is playing on the biblical Elijah, who foretold the fall of King Ahab and Jezebel. I wonder if the story will go on to encompass more parts of the Ahab/Elijah story? Drought = lack of fishing? Worship of Baal = obsession with the whale?
I'm not as far as you, hollenbackgirl, so I cannot yet respond to your comments. However, when you read the chapter "The Street", when Melville is describing the country boys who decide to become whalers, did you think of Troy? I could almost picture some of our ex-classmates all gussied up to go a-whaling. It gave me some chuckles.
I would have to say that Queequeg is my favorite character. He is unflappable, serene, and yet gets things done (for example, stopping the boom from swinging on the ship to Nantucket). I also think that Melville goes against the stereotypes of the day in his description of Queequeg. Although he calls him "savage" and "primitive", he also paints the picture of a likeable, kind-hearted, intelligent man. Kudos to Melville.
About the sermon... I thought it was a great chapter with some really wonderful descriptions of Jonah's feelings. However, I went back to my Bible afterward, and looked up the section on Jonah and the whale and must point out that the preacher (and thus Melville) took quite a bit of license with the story. I must admit that I liked Melville's version better!
Where I need some help is in the chapter describing Nantucket. There is a story about a Native American baby being stolen and taken to Nantucket where it died. WHAT WAS THE POINT? Did I miss something here?
Ah yes, the bird-snatching! I chalk it up to just another creation myth. Maybe Melville needed a little filler? There are times that I truly doubt that every chapter written in these Classics is really meant to have a second-level meaning. I think the shorter chapters, while they do sometimes offer great insights (like the pipe chapter or the ensuing sunrise/sunset chapters) serve mostly to break up the main action of the book. Like Sesame Street.
I'm not sure how much I enjoy the vast male-ness of the novel. I keep half expecting a woman to show up somewhere, but I guess that's pretty unlikely... Sure would change the feel of the book though!
I think I'm around page 200 now, so I'm going to take a little break until you *coaaronugh* catch up a bit.. Lots I want to disucss but don't want to spoil anything. I am planning to return to Dante's Divine Comedy - if anyone's interested.
What??!! Not everything has meaning? While I understand your point... does a 656 page book really require filler?
I agree about the "vast maleness". There are the female innkeepers, you know, showing women in their place- cooking and cleaning up after men. And then the widows in the chapel- mourning their men. Very representative, I'm sure. :-) In Melville's defense, he is writing about a whaling ship, however, and historically I do not think there were many women on these ships. As a side note on this topic, I have a book called "The Great Lakes Women's Reader". It is a collection of stories about, and works by, women in the Great Lakes region. It has a section devoted to women who worked on the ships in the Great Lakes. Very interesting.
Okay, so my new favorite quote is found on the first page of Chapter XVII, "...Heaven have mercy on us all- Presbyterians and Pagans alike- for we are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly neeed mending." Wonderful. Any favorite quotes from you two?
Also, I have to admit that I very much enjoyed the exchanges between Captain Peleg and Captain Bildad. I hope we see more of them, but I am afraid we will not.
Finally, I find it odd that I am over 100 pages into the book and haven't seen a sign of any whale yet. In fact, the whaling ship hasn't even left dock. It has taken Melville over 100 pages to write about a total of 3 days passed? So at this rate, the entire book should cover just 20 or so days of time?
Ok, maybe filler was the wrong word. Spcaers? The short chapters act as spacers to break up the action - allow the reader to have a mental breather. I don't know about you, but I hate books that are just one long, long chapter after another; it's hard to find a comfortable stopping point. I'd like to think that accomplished authors/editors think about the reader's surface comfort for such aspects.
As for not seeing a whale in the first 100 pages -- my only comment is "don't expect to see one in the next 100 pages either...."
Women - I agree with all of your points.
My problem with historical novels is that they hardly ever describe any of the day to day parts of life that fill my mind with wonder. For instance, what was the bathroom situation like? Was there a bucket or did everyone just go over the side? How often did they wash their clothes? Was there a crew member who took one for the team from behind (3 years is a long time to be celibate)?
I've found a few quotes that I just love, and I think we should start another post just for quotes. What do you think? I'll post mine later tonight (alas, didn't bring the book with me to work).
What is the point of Bulkington, do you think? He seems to symbolize civilization and good in man, so is it meant to show the disappearance of these when Bulkington disappears? (Obviously I am going out on a limb here). I also find it interesting that the editor of my volume found it necessary to put a footnote at the end of the "six inch chapter" that we would not read anything further about Bulkington.
Elijah is also an enigmatic character. I can see the role he plays as prophet (which Melville makes clear in the title of the chapter- just so we could not miss it?), though he certainly is not very clear in his prophecy.
I've found another woman, Charity. Again, playing the part of a nurturing woman who ensure the comfort of men even when they are separated from her for years. Third woman, same role. Does Melville change the roles of women in his other books, or does he truly believe this is the purpose of women?
And finally, I heartily concur about your assessment that you would like to see more of the everyday aspects of life in the past reflected in novels, and I would include movies and television here as well. What did women do when they had their period?? This always puzzles me. The bathroom situation also. When I was little I used to think the poop deck was where the latrines were on a ship. Ken cleared up that matter for me. I never thought of who takes one for the team, but I am assuming it would be a smaller man, maybe Pip in this case?
Man, I wish I could arrange the comments so the most recent one is on top!
Bulkington - I think you're on to something with the civilized man idea... if only we could pinpoint the time he died... I think that would be the key to confirming his role.
I think Melville assumes that his readers would have a pretty strong biblical knowledge base, and just naming the prophet Elijah and the Captain Ahab was enough to tie the two together and subtly foretell Ahab's fall.
Regarding women - part of the reason I'm surprised that we haven't seen another woman in the book is that all of the women have been "Marys" and none have been "Eves." I'm really expecting a prostitute or something of the sort at some point.
What did women do when they had their period? Get out of my head! This question has always plagued me too, and there are VERY few books that ever mention it. Have you read The Red Tent? Fascinating! Also The Daughters of Copper Woman. (why won't this thing let me use HTML underline codes?)
Are you really expecting a prostitute? Melville was writing for a main stream audience in the 1800s, somehow I don't think a prostitute blithely tripping across the stage will figure into the plot.
I haven't read those books, yet, but I will definitely look them up.
I read just a couple of chapters of M.D. yesterday while waiting for my nail polish to dry (no, really) and now feel compelled to restate my initial complaint regarding the Radney/Steelkit story within a story within another effing story! Is it really necessary to go through 3 levels of dialogue just to relate that the whale seems to fulfill some sort of divine vengence for the righteous? Not only do I question the way the tale was told, but also the moral that it is supposed to represent. And, one might expect the chapters immediately following to take back up with the action on the ship and explain more about the elusive Steelkit, but NO! Instead let's have a detailed account of paintings of whales and how inverosimil they are! *facepalm*
(Is there an English word inverosimil? I know it exists in Spanish, but for the life of me I can't find a decent translation.. "non life like"?)
I very much enjoy Melville's style and cantor in chapters with action and main character interaction, but the side stories that amused me at first are beginning to annoy me more and more. I guess I'll have to look on the book as not only a novel, but also as some sort of 1800 layman's maritime encyclopedia.
Regarding my prostitute theory - I don't expect a prostitute propper, but at least the appearance of a woman meant to represent Eve. Maybe since the book is so male-based it won't include a female dichotomy but I'm really hoping for one!
I was reading Chapter XXXVI and Ahab's description of Moby Dick as having harpoons stuck in him and scars reminded me of the way bulls look in bull-fighting before the slaughter. They have those little spears (I know we learned the names in Spanish class in high school but I cannot for the life of me remember) hanging from them, are scarred and exhausted. It really put my sympathies with Moby Dick.
Okay, so I just finished Chapter XLI "Moby Dick" and read about how Ahab lost his leg. I then lost any sympathy/empathy for Ahab that I had harbored up to this point. HE JUMPS IN AFTER A GIANT WHALE WITH A SIX INCH KNIFE!!!!!! What did he expect to happen?? Really- I think there was a fair share of insanity in him prior to losing his leg. THEN, blaiming it on the whale as intentional and evil? This appears to be another story about a man who did something stupid, suffered the consequences and then misplaced blame on an innocent being in order to avoid acknowledging his own fault. And yet Melville insists on attempting to portray Ahab as a great man who is a bit crazy when it comes to Moby Dick. I don't see it. So, a crazy man managed to convince a bunch of other men to follow his lead. Hitler did the same thing. I don't think charisma qualifies as greatness. Plus, it isn't like Ahab had to convince a group of reasoning, intelligent men. After all, they did all sign up to kill whales- killing one particular whale does not seem like a huge stretch after that.
Are you having any of these same feelings or is it just me?
Melville does go to great length to describe sperm whales as "sufficiently powerful, knowing, and judiciously malicious, as with direct aforethought to stove in, utterly destroy, and sink a large ship" in chapter 45, The Affidavit. However, the only examples he lists are of whales attacking whaling ships. I certainly can't fault the whale for trying to rid the seas of humans, which to him are merely more predators trying to kill him. If someone tried to kill me with a 6 inch knife, I would do my best to bite his leg off too.
Which leads me to several points:
1. Ahab's wound: Even if malicously inflicted, can really only be seen as karma. Kill lots of whales, a whale will get you back. However, I fail to see how losing his leg has adversely affected his general wellfare. His wife didn't leave him, his colleagues still respect him, he is able to walk, sail, hunt whales in a rowboat... and from what have been told, complete all of his normal pre-injury activities. Hence the constant talk of his madness; it's the only way to rationalize his obsession. You're a concert violinist and lost your fingers when a cow stepped on your hand as you were trying to help deliver her calf? Ok, you have a reason to develop an obsessive vengance, and you have my sympathy. A 52 ton whale bit you in self defense? Sorry, you don't qualify.
2. Man vs. wild: Why do men feel the need to actively stalk and kill other predators? And then publicly display their carcasses? I assume that it's supposed to be some sort of status symbol that will help women chose a powerful and resourceful mate who will be best able to provide for and protect their resulting offspring. In my book, hunting to use prey for food, clothing, other necessities = ok. Hunting for sport = lame. I think this same theme appears in the book. The men hunt the whales for oil (a necessity?) and are shown as valiant. The whales kill humans for general safety (as opposed to immediate safety) and are shown as monsters. Ahab hunts Moby Dick for spite/sport and is shown as insane.
2a. I get this constant feeling of "man can dish it out but he can't take it" when it comes to nature. Why do we feel so... humiliated/degraded (for lack of a better word) when we are subjected to the same laws of nature that affect every other species? Sometimes I think we just need to step back and look at ourselves from the perspective that we are animals too.
3. Predators: Do authors general paint animals who could/do prey on humans as evil? I'm trying to think of other literture that features bears, lions, tigers, wolves.. All I can think of is White Fang. I'll need to research a little more on this point, but I think the general concensus is that humans revere, not demonize, their predators.
4. Ahab's Crew: I like your point about the whalers having already signed on to kill whales. I think the stretch point will be to what extreme will they follow Ahab's orders to persue Moby Dick, and at what cost. Maybe that was the point of the accursed Steelkit/Radney story - to show what happens to sailors who try to mutiny even with good reason? I've never understood the concept of voluntary abject obedience (be it on a whale ship, in the armed forces, etc. By voluntary, I mean that there was a conscious and willing decision made to enter into these institutions). Do something just because you said so? No. Doesn't compute. Do something because it benefits the whole? Ok!
Have you noticed that the more significant a character/event is, the less page time it is given?
Reminds me of the Bible's shortest sentence: "Jesus wept."
I'd also like to take this opportunity to note that while I am not a religious person, I find it very valuable to have a good working knowledge of religious texts. [another note, my inlaws find it offensive when one refers to the story of Adam and Eve as a "creation myth." oops.]
I've been avoiding this section of our book discussion because there is so much to say. I want to allow a lot of time to cover everything but I never do have the time. So, I guess I will post it in small segments instead!
First segment: Ahab's wound. For the sake of argument, maybe it is like a concert pianist's fingers, though. Melville mentions in one chapter, I think "The Gam", that when sailing over to the other ship, the Captains must stand in an awkward position and keep their legs under them. To fail to do so would be a disgrace. He also mentions that Ahab rarely goes through this greeting process, which Ishmael finds rather odd. If Ahab's life is whaling, and whaling captains are respected for their ability to stay on their feet, maybe losing a leg is a major blow to his career choice?
With this argument made, I want to reaffirm that I still have no sympathy for Ahab.
Ok, so I have to take back a *little* of my criticism of Ahab after having read a bit further in the book this weekend. Of course I would read Chapter 100, Leg and Arm. The Pequod, of Nantucket, Meets the Samuel Enderby, of London, which exposes several of Ahab's physical limitations immediately after I post such a tirade! (In my defense, it would have made sense for this chapter to come a bit earlier in the book, and not around page 379!) Thus we see that Ahab is incapable of ascending into another ship (explains the lack of proper gams on this trip, methinks) due to his prosthesis: "Ahab now found himself abjectly reduced to a clumsy landsman again; hopelessly eyeing the uncertain changeful height he could hardly hope to attain. "It has before been hinted, perhaps, that every little untoward circumstance that befell him, which indirectly sprang from his luckless mishap, almost invariably irritated or exasperated Ahab."
However, I still maintain that overall, Ahab has lost very little functionality and needs to just put on his big boy undies and deal with it - from Chapter 50: "I don't think it so strange, after all, on that account," said Flask. "If his leg were off at the hip, now, it would be a different thing. That would disable him; but he has one knee, and a good part of the other left, you know." "I don't know that, my little man, I never yet saw him kneel." [I tack this on just because it's one of my favorite lines of dialogue in the whole book so far]
IMO, the book looses a LOT of forward motion, and indeed the reader's interest, in the middle 170 pages or so. Ahab is barely mentioned between chapters 53 and 100 and though I have previously noted Melville's tendencies towards minimalism, I think he takes it a little too far by not throwing in a few more glimpses of Ahab's obsession here and there. Also, his page-long sentences baffle me. I often find that I have to go back and actively search for the verb, several lines above, to make sense of the ENTIRE PAGE.
The other night I kept my husband up by reading him one of the page long sentences. When I finally finished, while I gasped for air, he says, "So that is one sentence? But what does it mean?" I think this sums up your point about the page long sentences nicely.
I too am against hunting for sport. I'm not sure what drives it since I have never received a convincing reasons from a sports hunter. My gut feeling is that it is much like driving a big fancy car. In order to cover self-esteem issues surrounding deficiencies, some people (mostly men but I haven't heard whether Palin hunts for sport) find that killing a predator makes them feel strong and offers them a false sense of control over the world. But, do you think that Ahab is shown as insane because he is hunting for spite/sport or because he is obsessed. It seems to me that the insanity is as much because he is obsessed and it is hurting him physically (lack of sleep and all that).
I am responding to your point about authors painting predators as evil and demonic. I think, for the most part, that they do. I can think only of a few that do not, for example "The Loop" by Nicholas Evans and "Animal Dreams" by Barbara Kingsolver (I'm not sure I spelled her last name correctly), while there are many that have.
I'm not sure about why Melville included the Radney/Steelkit storyline myself. Maybe it is to show what happens to sailors who mutiny...
Can we consider Melville a minimalist because he writes less about the most important parts of the story or a maximalist because he writes SO MUCH about seemily irrelevent topics?
Apparently I just haven't read enough literaure involving animals to make an informed decision on that point. Curious George probably doesn't count, huh?
I'm glad you came to the same conclusions about Steelkit and Radney.. The story would't have ben so bad if it hadn't been told as a story withing a story! What was the deal woth him being in Peru or wherever he was? You're a whaleman. You travel the world. We get it.
As far as Ahab hunting for sport and his isanity - let me revise my point slightly. I don't think the reason he's shown as insane is entirely based on his hunting for sport, but I think you can vaguely see the connection. Better said, it's one of many contributing factors.
I have a question for you. After reading the gory chapter of killing the first whale, I had nightmare. Which made me wonder, was the graphic description of the whale dying necessary? I waiver between thinking that authors should include graphic descriptions of death and that they shouldn't. What do you think? Did this description work to move the novel forward or was it unnecessary?
Well, a few last thoughts before I send the book to its new owner tomorrow.
1. I was really looking forward to reading Moby Dick and have been disappointed. While there are some excellent chapters and quotes spread throughout the book, altogether I thought it was much too long with too many chapters that did not directly apply to the plot.
2. In addition to too much extraneous information, there was too little writing devoted to the important pieces of the plot. For example, I thought Ahab's character could have been better developed. Another example is the ending of the book, which was exceedingly brief compared to everything leading up to it.
3. Although I already mentioned this in passing, I don't think that Melville developed his characters as fully as possible. We know little of Ahab beside his obsession; little of Pip beside his lunacy; little of anyone at all, including Ishmael. Characters are briefly introduced and then abandoned, for example Steelkit and Radney. While I do not think that characters should be explained ad nauseum by the author, after 650 pages of the book I felt as though all the characters were strangers. I knew more about whaling, the anatomy of the whale, and whale in culture than I knew of any of the characters in the book- including the title character of Moby Dick.
4. Which leads me to another rant- Moby Dick. The title figure of the book shows up only in the last 50 pages and is given short shrift even in those pages. We are told again and again that Moby Dick is demonic and malevolent and yet in no point of the book do we ever see Moby Dick acting so. As far as I can tell from the very brief introduction to Moby Dick at the very end- the poor whale was only acting to defend itself. After multitudes of harpoons and spears sank into the whale throughout its lifetime, can we expect any less?
5. Finally, for now anyway, I was completely appalled at the lack of coverage of Ahab's death. We have (supposedly) followed Ahab's obsession throughout the book with many foreshadowings of a tragic and momentous end. How does Ahab die? He is pulled out of the boat by a rope and that is the end of any discussion of Ahab's death. GIVE ME MORE or at least spend less of the previous 600 pages foreshadowing a tragic end. It was almost comical that after expecting so much the reader is left with so little. But then why expect more from a book that does the same?
I agree with all of your points, but especially about #3. More character development is definitely needed. I can see why this book fell out of print shortly after its initial success. While Melville does paint grand and wonderful pictures (I can clearly see the deck of the boat, the blubber room, the Inn, etc in my mind) of whaling life, he struggles to give his characters any real substance.
Regarding the very abrupt ending of the book - after I finished I turned to Harold and said "Everyone died. EVERYONE. He killed them ALL." I repeated this sentiment for about 3 days until he finally duct taped my mouth shut in an attempt to help me deal with the loss. I just couldn't believe that after all of that reading, ALL of the characters (exempting Ishmael, of course) were killed off. Even the only one I really cared about, Queequeg! What a let down! I'm almost angry at Melville for wasting so much of my time.
And what about nailing the poor hawk to the mast as the boat sank? WTH?
I'd almost love to go back and find the reasoning/symbolism behind each of the other whaling boats that crossed paths with the Pequod, especially the last one, all full of sperm and heading home. Almost. I just don't feel like I owe it to Melville to analyze any more after he KILLED EVERYONE OFF!
I did enjoy the exchanges between Ahab and the Parsee - I thought the little riddle about the two hearses and hemp. etc. was very clever, and indeed, after it came to pass I flipped back to their conversation and re-read it. If only more of the book had that great story-telling quality (or showed more of that dynamic, or had more conversation... or or or...
To sum up, I have come to expect more from "classic" literature than Melville offered. I'm proud to say that I read the entire book, but I won't recommend it to anyone; cliff notes are more than adequate in this case.
I do think it was necessary for various reasons. 1) Paint a lifelike picture of whaling.
2) Realize that it took a strong stomach and/or a certain type of person to do well at whaling. Imagine 30 years of this for Ahab, and how desensitized he may be to the whales' pain.
3) Give the land-lubber reader yet another visual on how massive whales are, and the very real danger of hunting them in little rowboats.
4) Provide a sense of what it must have been like for Ishmael to see this for the first time. Completely overwhelming.
Matt Kish illustrated each page of the Signet Classics paperback edition of Moby Dick. 522 pages!
His illustrations are VERY good, and the media he used are great. Definitely worth a look, even though we didn't give the original book a glowing review.
Read an interview and see some (about 15) images at pbs.org/newshour
30 comments:
I'm nearly done with the book now, and though I'm glad I'm reading it, I am thoroughly disappointed with Captain Ahab's "obsession." There's a lot of first person narative telling us that he's obsessed with the whale, but precious little direct observation showing it. I guess maybe I'm judging the book against what I've already heard about the book? Also, I wonder if my version is toned down a little since it's in Spanish? not sure. However, it does have pictures (in color!) which is nice, since I'm not very familiar with a lot of these seafaring terms, but which also leads me to believe tha I may be reading the "children's classics" version..
Secondly, WTH is up with the long drawn out story in chapter 15 about Steelkit and Radney? I've yet to see how it plays into the rest of the story at all. I keep waiting for a bomb to drop that Steelkit is actually on the Pequod under an assumed name, but alas, no. The same thing happened in the beginning of the book, when he described Bulkington in some detail - never to reappear in the plot? WTH?
Things that I do enjoy:
Queequeg finds fault with Christianity and is painted to be a pure, kindhearted, religious non-christian.
Queegueg, though being called a savage by the contracting officers, is paid more than triple what Ishamel is paid, since he is more experienced. Hip Hip Hooray for fair market wages!
hmmmm.. and now after reading wikipedia a bit, I do think that my version is not full as I am nearly finished and have not heard anything about "Pip" who apparently falls overbaord a few times during chase scenes. ARGH! To the bookstore I go for a full, English version!
I think this book club is an excellent idea, because I have just made it past the introduction of Moby Dick and already learned a lot. For starters, Herman Melville is an American! I thought he was British. Aren't all the good novelists British? (Leaving myself open for many angry tirades about the quality of American novelists).
Secondly, Herman Melville and Nathanial Hawthorne were buddies. Do you see any of Hawthorne's influence in Moby Dick? Or any of Melville's influence in any of Hawthorne's work?
Also, I had never made the connection between Hobbes' Leviathon and whales until one of the excerpts in the first chapter of Moby Dick. I always though Hobbes had coined the term!
Finally, my last point requires a short personal anecdote. A year or two ago I co-authored a paper with a colleague. Our writing styels were very different- he tended to be quite wordy while I was quite succinct (hard to believe from my posts, I know). He made the comment to mutual friends one day that if I had written Moby Dick it would have consisted of "Big fish kills man. The end." I did not realize the full meaning of this until I started reading Moby Dick. Melville certainly could not be considered succinct, could he? While I find the extraneous information interesting, it does seem to muddy the plot a bit. I think I prefer my novels more straight forward.
However, as I mentioned above, I have only just finished the introduction and begun digging into the novel itself. My impressions or preferences could, and most likely will, change by tomorrow!
BTW, hollebackgirl, I think you were reading an abridged addition, because (according to the introduction of my edition) Pip plays a relatively large role in the book. But look, now you can compare the Spanish and English version for inconsistencies and differences!
I also read that Melville and Hawthorne were great friends. Now I'm curious to compare their styles! I should be picking up a copy tomorrow at the used book store when Michael and I go shopping. I'm hoping to find something hardcover and classy to contrast with the rest of my home decor.
interestingly:
leviathan
A transliterated Hebrew word (livyathan), meaning "twisted," "coiled." In Job 3:8, Revised Version, and marg. of Authorized Version, it denotes the dragon which, according to Eastern tradition, is an enemy of light; in 41:1 the crocodile is meant; in Ps. 104:26 it "denotes any large animal that moves by writhing or wriggling the body, the whale, the monsters of the deep." This word is also used figuratively for a cruel enemy, as some think "the Egyptian host, crushed by the divine power, and cast on the shores of the Red Sea" (Ps. 74:14). As used in Isa. 27:1, "leviathan the piercing [R.V. 'swift'] serpent, even leviathan that crooked [R.V. marg. 'winding'] serpent," the word may probably denote the two empires, the Assyrian and the Babylonian.
Do you think we should read a Hawthorne novel next for comparison? I know we've all read Scarlet Letter, but there are some other Hawthorne novels that we probably have not.
Of course, first I should probably finish this novel...
The introduction to my volume (2003 Barnes and Nobles Classic) by Carl F. Hovde, refers to some comments by scholars that the scene between Ishmael and Queequeg in Ch. IV has homosexual overtones. I think that some literature scholars dig too deep into some of these books and come up with extreme interpretations. My take on the chapter was that it was meant to be humerous- not homosexual. Nothing in the chapter struck me as being any less than it appeared on the surface, too guys who end up sharing a bed in a crowded inn, with comic results. What was your take?
I know there have been similar sexual connotations to Bram Stoker's Dracula. I agree that there are sexual overtones to Dracula (though I disagree with a few interpretations of the type of overtones). But this? No.
Now having read approx 112 pages of the unabridged (though still illustrated) version of Moby Dick, I hereby retract most of my former criticism from the initial post above.
I was glad to see that Bulkington did, indeed, make a re-appearance, if only for a "6 inch chapter." I hope to learn more about him before he's killed off.
While I enjoy Melville's rants (especially the snippet about feeling warm only if some part of you is cold) I think he overdid it a bit with the foreshadowing in the sermon, don't you?
As to the homosexual overtones of the first few chapters - I don't think it was Melville's intent to create an underlying gay theme. Having spent several nights sharing a bed with near-strangers to save a dime while traipsing around Mexico, I can understand this strange situation and the resulting camaraderie. Granted, the whole death-grip-spooning in the morning is pretty graphic, but I think Melville was trying to be humorous more than anything else. Indeed, haven't we seen the exact same scenario repeated in countless movies and tv shows? The Incredibles has a scene like that between Flash and Violet, and I don't think it was meant to convey an incestual relationship.
My only other comment thus far is regarding the prophet. Clearly Melville is playing on the biblical Elijah, who foretold the fall of King Ahab and Jezebel. I wonder if the story will go on to encompass more parts of the Ahab/Elijah story? Drought = lack of fishing? Worship of Baal = obsession with the whale?
I'm not as far as you, hollenbackgirl, so I cannot yet respond to your comments. However, when you read the chapter "The Street", when Melville is describing the country boys who decide to become whalers, did you think of Troy? I could almost picture some of our ex-classmates all gussied up to go a-whaling. It gave me some chuckles.
Chris Husband came to mind for some reason..
I would have to say that Queequeg is my favorite character. He is unflappable, serene, and yet gets things done (for example, stopping the boom from swinging on the ship to Nantucket). I also think that Melville goes against the stereotypes of the day in his description of Queequeg. Although he calls him "savage" and "primitive", he also paints the picture of a likeable, kind-hearted, intelligent man. Kudos to Melville.
About the sermon... I thought it was a great chapter with some really wonderful descriptions of Jonah's feelings. However, I went back to my Bible afterward, and looked up the section on Jonah and the whale and must point out that the preacher (and thus Melville) took quite a bit of license with the story. I must admit that I liked Melville's version better!
Where I need some help is in the chapter describing Nantucket. There is a story about a Native American baby being stolen and taken to Nantucket where it died. WHAT WAS THE POINT? Did I miss something here?
Ah yes, the bird-snatching!
I chalk it up to just another creation myth. Maybe Melville needed a little filler? There are times that I truly doubt that every chapter written in these Classics is really meant to have a second-level meaning. I think the shorter chapters, while they do sometimes offer great insights (like the pipe chapter or the ensuing sunrise/sunset chapters) serve mostly to break up the main action of the book. Like Sesame Street.
I'm not sure how much I enjoy the vast male-ness of the novel. I keep half expecting a woman to show up somewhere, but I guess that's pretty unlikely... Sure would change the feel of the book though!
I think I'm around page 200 now, so I'm going to take a little break until you *coaaronugh* catch up a bit.. Lots I want to disucss but don't want to spoil anything. I am planning to return to Dante's Divine Comedy - if anyone's interested.
What??!! Not everything has meaning? While I understand your point... does a 656 page book really require filler?
I agree about the "vast maleness". There are the female innkeepers, you know, showing women in their place- cooking and cleaning up after men. And then the widows in the chapel- mourning their men. Very representative, I'm sure. :-) In Melville's defense, he is writing about a whaling ship, however, and historically I do not think there were many women on these ships. As a side note on this topic, I have a book called "The Great Lakes Women's Reader". It is a collection of stories about, and works by, women in the Great Lakes region. It has a section devoted to women who worked on the ships in the Great Lakes. Very interesting.
Okay, so my new favorite quote is found on the first page of Chapter XVII, "...Heaven have mercy on us all- Presbyterians and Pagans alike- for we are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly neeed mending." Wonderful. Any favorite quotes from you two?
Also, I have to admit that I very much enjoyed the exchanges between Captain Peleg and Captain Bildad. I hope we see more of them, but I am afraid we will not.
Finally, I find it odd that I am over 100 pages into the book and haven't seen a sign of any whale yet. In fact, the whaling ship hasn't even left dock. It has taken Melville over 100 pages to write about a total of 3 days passed? So at this rate, the entire book should cover just 20 or so days of time?
Ok, maybe filler was the wrong word. Spcaers? The short chapters act as spacers to break up the action - allow the reader to have a mental breather. I don't know about you, but I hate books that are just one long, long chapter after another; it's hard to find a comfortable stopping point. I'd like to think that accomplished authors/editors think about the reader's surface comfort for such aspects.
As for not seeing a whale in the first 100 pages -- my only comment is "don't expect to see one in the next 100 pages either...."
Women - I agree with all of your points.
My problem with historical novels is that they hardly ever describe any of the day to day parts of life that fill my mind with wonder. For instance, what was the bathroom situation like? Was there a bucket or did everyone just go over the side? How often did they wash their clothes? Was there a crew member who took one for the team from behind (3 years is a long time to be celibate)?
I've found a few quotes that I just love, and I think we should start another post just for quotes. What do you think? I'll post mine later tonight (alas, didn't bring the book with me to work).
What is the point of Bulkington, do you think? He seems to symbolize civilization and good in man, so is it meant to show the disappearance of these when Bulkington disappears? (Obviously I am going out on a limb here). I also find it interesting that the editor of my volume found it necessary to put a footnote at the end of the "six inch chapter" that we would not read anything further about Bulkington.
Elijah is also an enigmatic character. I can see the role he plays as prophet (which Melville makes clear in the title of the chapter- just so we could not miss it?), though he certainly is not very clear in his prophecy.
I've found another woman, Charity. Again, playing the part of a nurturing woman who ensure the comfort of men even when they are separated from her for years. Third woman, same role. Does Melville change the roles of women in his other books, or does he truly believe this is the purpose of women?
And finally, I heartily concur about your assessment that you would like to see more of the everyday aspects of life in the past reflected in novels, and I would include movies and television here as well. What did women do when they had their period?? This always puzzles me. The bathroom situation also. When I was little I used to think the poop deck was where the latrines were on a ship. Ken cleared up that matter for me. I never thought of who takes one for the team, but I am assuming it would be a smaller man, maybe Pip in this case?
Man, I wish I could arrange the comments so the most recent one is on top!
Bulkington - I think you're on to something with the civilized man idea... if only we could pinpoint the time he died... I think that would be the key to confirming his role.
I think Melville assumes that his readers would have a pretty strong biblical knowledge base, and just naming the prophet Elijah and the Captain Ahab was enough to tie the two together and subtly foretell Ahab's fall.
Regarding women - part of the reason I'm surprised that we haven't seen another woman in the book is that all of the women have been "Marys" and none have been "Eves." I'm really expecting a prostitute or something of the sort at some point.
What did women do when they had their period?
Get out of my head! This question has always plagued me too, and there are VERY few books that ever mention it. Have you read The Red Tent? Fascinating! Also The Daughters of Copper Woman. (why won't this thing let me use HTML underline codes?)
Are you really expecting a prostitute? Melville was writing for a main stream audience in the 1800s, somehow I don't think a prostitute blithely tripping across the stage will figure into the plot.
I haven't read those books, yet, but I will definitely look them up.
I read just a couple of chapters of M.D. yesterday while waiting for my nail polish to dry (no, really) and now feel compelled to restate my initial complaint regarding the Radney/Steelkit story within a story within another effing story! Is it really necessary to go through 3 levels of dialogue just to relate that the whale seems to fulfill some sort of divine vengence for the righteous? Not only do I question the way the tale was told, but also the moral that it is supposed to represent. And, one might expect the chapters immediately following to take back up with the action on the ship and explain more about the elusive Steelkit, but NO! Instead let's have a detailed account of paintings of whales and how inverosimil they are! *facepalm*
(Is there an English word inverosimil? I know it exists in Spanish, but for the life of me I can't find a decent translation.. "non life like"?)
I very much enjoy Melville's style and cantor in chapters with action and main character interaction, but the side stories that amused me at first are beginning to annoy me more and more. I guess I'll have to look on the book as not only a novel, but also as some sort of 1800 layman's maritime encyclopedia.
Regarding my prostitute theory - I don't expect a prostitute propper, but at least the appearance of a woman meant to represent Eve. Maybe since the book is so male-based it won't include a female dichotomy but I'm really hoping for one!
I was reading Chapter XXXVI and Ahab's description of Moby Dick as having harpoons stuck in him and scars reminded me of the way bulls look in bull-fighting before the slaughter. They have those little spears (I know we learned the names in Spanish class in high school but I cannot for the life of me remember) hanging from them, are scarred and exhausted. It really put my sympathies with Moby Dick.
Okay, so I just finished Chapter XLI "Moby Dick" and read about how Ahab lost his leg. I then lost any sympathy/empathy for Ahab that I had harbored up to this point. HE JUMPS IN AFTER A GIANT WHALE WITH A SIX INCH KNIFE!!!!!!
What did he expect to happen?? Really- I think there was a fair share of insanity in him prior to losing his leg. THEN, blaiming it on the whale as intentional and evil? This appears to be another story about a man who did something stupid, suffered the consequences and then misplaced blame on an innocent being in order to avoid acknowledging his own fault. And yet Melville insists on attempting to portray Ahab as a great man who is a bit crazy when it comes to Moby Dick. I don't see it. So, a crazy man managed to convince a bunch of other men to follow his lead. Hitler did the same thing. I don't think charisma qualifies as greatness. Plus, it isn't like Ahab had to convince a group of reasoning, intelligent men. After all, they did all sign up to kill whales- killing one particular whale does not seem like a huge stretch after that.
Are you having any of these same feelings or is it just me?
Melville does go to great length to describe sperm whales as "sufficiently powerful, knowing, and judiciously malicious, as with direct aforethought to stove in, utterly destroy, and sink a large ship" in chapter 45, The Affidavit. However, the only examples he lists are of whales attacking whaling ships. I certainly can't fault the whale for trying to rid the seas of humans, which to him are merely more predators trying to kill him. If someone tried to kill me with a 6 inch knife, I would do my best to bite his leg off too.
Which leads me to several points:
1. Ahab's wound: Even if malicously inflicted, can really only be seen as karma. Kill lots of whales, a whale will get you back. However, I fail to see how losing his leg has adversely affected his general wellfare. His wife didn't leave him, his colleagues still respect him, he is able to walk, sail, hunt whales in a rowboat... and from what have been told, complete all of his normal pre-injury activities. Hence the constant talk of his madness; it's the only way to rationalize his obsession. You're a concert violinist and lost your fingers when a cow stepped on your hand as you were trying to help deliver her calf? Ok, you have a reason to develop an obsessive vengance, and you have my sympathy. A 52 ton whale bit you in self defense? Sorry, you don't qualify.
2. Man vs. wild: Why do men feel the need to actively stalk and kill other predators? And then publicly display their carcasses? I assume that it's supposed to be some sort of status symbol that will help women chose a powerful and resourceful mate who will be best able to provide for and protect their resulting offspring. In my book, hunting to use prey for food, clothing, other necessities = ok. Hunting for sport = lame. I think this same theme appears in the book. The men hunt the whales for oil (a necessity?) and are shown as valiant. The whales kill humans for general safety (as opposed to immediate safety) and are shown as monsters. Ahab hunts Moby Dick for spite/sport and is shown as insane.
2a. I get this constant feeling of "man can dish it out but he can't take it" when it comes to nature. Why do we feel so... humiliated/degraded (for lack of a better word) when we are subjected to the same laws of nature that affect every other species? Sometimes I think we just need to step back and look at ourselves from the perspective that we are animals too.
3. Predators: Do authors general paint animals who could/do prey on humans as evil? I'm trying to think of other literture that features bears, lions, tigers, wolves.. All I can think of is White Fang. I'll need to research a little more on this point, but I think the general concensus is that humans revere, not demonize, their predators.
4. Ahab's Crew: I like your point about the whalers having already signed on to kill whales. I think the stretch point will be to what extreme will they follow Ahab's orders to persue Moby Dick, and at what cost. Maybe that was the point of the accursed Steelkit/Radney story - to show what happens to sailors who try to mutiny even with good reason? I've never understood the concept of voluntary abject obedience (be it on a whale ship, in the armed forces, etc. By voluntary, I mean that there was a conscious and willing decision made to enter into these institutions). Do something just because you said so? No. Doesn't compute. Do something because it benefits the whole? Ok!
And now, on to more reading!
Melville = Minimalist?
Have you noticed that the more significant a character/event is, the less page time it is given?
Reminds me of the Bible's shortest sentence: "Jesus wept."
I'd also like to take this opportunity to note that while I am not a religious person, I find it very valuable to have a good working knowledge of religious texts. [another note, my inlaws find it offensive when one refers to the story of Adam and Eve as a "creation myth." oops.]
I've been avoiding this section of our book discussion because there is so much to say. I want to allow a lot of time to cover everything but I never do have the time. So, I guess I will post it in small segments instead!
First segment: Ahab's wound. For the sake of argument, maybe it is like a concert pianist's fingers, though. Melville mentions in one chapter, I think "The Gam", that when sailing over to the other ship, the Captains must stand in an awkward position and keep their legs under them. To fail to do so would be a disgrace. He also mentions that Ahab rarely goes through this greeting process, which Ishmael finds rather odd. If Ahab's life is whaling, and whaling captains are respected for their ability to stay on their feet, maybe losing a leg is a major blow to his career choice?
With this argument made, I want to reaffirm that I still have no sympathy for Ahab.
Ok, so I have to take back a *little* of my criticism of Ahab after having read a bit further in the book this weekend. Of course I would read Chapter 100, Leg and Arm. The Pequod, of Nantucket, Meets the Samuel Enderby, of London, which exposes several of Ahab's physical limitations immediately after I post such a tirade! (In my defense, it would have made sense for this chapter to come a bit earlier in the book, and not around page 379!) Thus we see that Ahab is incapable of ascending into another ship (explains the lack of proper gams on this trip, methinks) due to his prosthesis:
"Ahab now found himself abjectly reduced to a clumsy landsman again; hopelessly eyeing the uncertain changeful height he could hardly hope to attain.
"It has before been hinted, perhaps, that every little untoward circumstance that befell him, which indirectly sprang from his luckless mishap, almost invariably irritated or exasperated Ahab."
However, I still maintain that overall, Ahab has lost very little functionality and needs to just put on his big boy undies and deal with it - from Chapter 50:
"I don't think it so strange, after all, on that account," said Flask. "If his leg were off at the hip, now, it would be a different thing. That would disable him; but he has one knee, and a good part of the other left, you know."
"I don't know that, my little man, I never yet saw him kneel." [I tack this on just because it's one of my favorite lines of dialogue in the whole book so far]
IMO, the book looses a LOT of forward motion, and indeed the reader's interest, in the middle 170 pages or so. Ahab is barely mentioned between chapters 53 and 100 and though I have previously noted Melville's tendencies towards minimalism, I think he takes it a little too far by not throwing in a few more glimpses of Ahab's obsession here and there. Also, his page-long sentences baffle me. I often find that I have to go back and actively search for the verb, several lines above, to make sense of the ENTIRE PAGE.
The other night I kept my husband up by reading him one of the page long sentences. When I finally finished, while I gasped for air, he says, "So that is one sentence? But what does it mean?" I think this sums up your point about the page long sentences nicely.
I too am against hunting for sport. I'm not sure what drives it since I have never received a convincing reasons from a sports hunter. My gut feeling is that it is much like driving a big fancy car. In order to cover self-esteem issues surrounding deficiencies, some people (mostly men but I haven't heard whether Palin hunts for sport) find that killing a predator makes them feel strong and offers them a false sense of control over the world. But, do you think that Ahab is shown as insane because he is hunting for spite/sport or because he is obsessed. It seems to me that the insanity is as much because he is obsessed and it is hurting him physically (lack of sleep and all that).
I am responding to your point about authors painting predators as evil and demonic. I think, for the most part, that they do. I can think only of a few that do not, for example "The Loop" by Nicholas Evans and "Animal Dreams" by Barbara Kingsolver (I'm not sure I spelled her last name correctly), while there are many that have.
I'm not sure about why Melville included the Radney/Steelkit storyline myself. Maybe it is to show what happens to sailors who mutiny...
Can we consider Melville a minimalist because he writes less about the most important parts of the story or a maximalist because he writes SO MUCH about seemily irrelevent topics?
Apparently I just haven't read enough literaure involving animals to make an informed decision on that point. Curious George probably doesn't count, huh?
I'm glad you came to the same conclusions about Steelkit and Radney.. The story would't have ben so bad if it hadn't been told as a story withing a story! What was the deal woth him being in Peru or wherever he was? You're a whaleman. You travel the world. We get it.
As far as Ahab hunting for sport and his isanity - let me revise my point slightly. I don't think the reason he's shown as insane is entirely based on his hunting for sport, but I think you can vaguely see the connection. Better said, it's one of many contributing factors.
I have a question for you. After reading the gory chapter of killing the first whale, I had nightmare. Which made me wonder, was the graphic description of the whale dying necessary? I waiver between thinking that authors should include graphic descriptions of death and that they shouldn't. What do you think? Did this description work to move the novel forward or was it unnecessary?
Well, a few last thoughts before I send the book to its new owner tomorrow.
1. I was really looking forward to reading Moby Dick and have been disappointed. While there are some excellent chapters and quotes spread throughout the book, altogether I thought it was much too long with too many chapters that did not directly apply to the plot.
2. In addition to too much extraneous information, there was too little writing devoted to the important pieces of the plot. For example, I thought Ahab's character could have been better developed. Another example is the ending of the book, which was exceedingly brief compared to everything leading up to it.
3. Although I already mentioned this in passing, I don't think that Melville developed his characters as fully as possible. We know little of Ahab beside his obsession; little of Pip beside his lunacy; little of anyone at all, including Ishmael. Characters are briefly introduced and then abandoned, for example Steelkit and Radney. While I do not think that characters should be explained ad nauseum by the author, after 650 pages of the book I felt as though all the characters were strangers. I knew more about whaling, the anatomy of the whale, and whale in culture than I knew of any of the characters in the book- including the title character of Moby Dick.
4. Which leads me to another rant- Moby Dick. The title figure of the book shows up only in the last 50 pages and is given short shrift even in those pages. We are told again and again that Moby Dick is demonic and malevolent and yet in no point of the book do we ever see Moby Dick acting so. As far as I can tell from the very brief introduction to Moby Dick at the very end- the poor whale was only acting to defend itself. After multitudes of harpoons and spears sank into the whale throughout its lifetime, can we expect any less?
5. Finally, for now anyway, I was completely appalled at the lack of coverage of Ahab's death. We have (supposedly) followed Ahab's obsession throughout the book with many foreshadowings of a tragic and momentous end. How does Ahab die? He is pulled out of the boat by a rope and that is the end of any discussion of Ahab's death. GIVE ME MORE or at least spend less of the previous 600 pages foreshadowing a tragic end. It was almost comical that after expecting so much the reader is left with so little. But then why expect more from a book that does the same?
I agree with all of your points, but especially about #3. More character development is definitely needed. I can see why this book fell out of print shortly after its initial success. While Melville does paint grand and wonderful pictures (I can clearly see the deck of the boat, the blubber room, the Inn, etc in my mind) of whaling life, he struggles to give his characters any real substance.
Regarding the very abrupt ending of the book - after I finished I turned to Harold and said "Everyone died. EVERYONE. He killed them ALL." I repeated this sentiment for about 3 days until he finally duct taped my mouth shut in an attempt to help me deal with the loss. I just couldn't believe that after all of that reading, ALL of the characters (exempting Ishmael, of course) were killed off. Even the only one I really cared about, Queequeg! What a let down! I'm almost angry at Melville for wasting so much of my time.
And what about nailing the poor hawk to the mast as the boat sank? WTH?
I'd almost love to go back and find the reasoning/symbolism behind each of the other whaling boats that crossed paths with the Pequod, especially the last one, all full of sperm and heading home. Almost. I just don't feel like I owe it to Melville to analyze any more after he KILLED EVERYONE OFF!
I did enjoy the exchanges between Ahab and the Parsee - I thought the little riddle about the two hearses and hemp. etc. was very clever, and indeed, after it came to pass I flipped back to their conversation and re-read it. If only more of the book had that great story-telling quality (or showed more of that dynamic, or had more conversation... or or or...
To sum up, I have come to expect more from "classic" literature than Melville offered. I'm proud to say that I read the entire book, but I won't recommend it to anyone; cliff notes are more than adequate in this case.
In response to the bloody first killing:
I do think it was necessary for various reasons.
1) Paint a lifelike picture of whaling.
2) Realize that it took a strong stomach and/or a certain type of person to do well at whaling. Imagine 30 years of this for Ahab, and how desensitized he may be to the whales' pain.
3) Give the land-lubber reader yet another visual on how massive whales are, and the very real danger of hunting them in little rowboats.
4) Provide a sense of what it must have been like for Ishmael to see this for the first time. Completely overwhelming.
Etc. I could go on, but, meh..
Matt Kish illustrated each page of the Signet Classics paperback edition of Moby Dick. 522 pages!
His illustrations are VERY good, and the media he used are great. Definitely worth a look, even though we didn't give the original book a glowing review.
Read an interview and see some (about 15) images at pbs.org/newshour
Post a Comment