Chapter 55 though 70

[[deleted user]]

I thought first of Hemmingway, and later I thought of Jaws. But Melville did it before either of them.

[Xan]

Yup. Jaws I thought of.

"We're gonna need a bigger boat."

[Sue]

I wondered about the balance issue of the ship, once there is a whale attached to one side...seems these ships would have to be well able to withstand this large imbalance of weight..and is it the tools are long so to cut at the whale from the deck?

Also was trying to figure out the logistics of the line..somehow it was still not clear to me upon reading..hmm....if there are two lines/ harpoons and they are not to be attached to the ship so to not drag a ship down then do they lose these lines/harpoons, or if attached, then they dangle if thrown unnecessarily....causing possible unintended mayhem.......oh, dear...maybe I need to re-read that chapter.

[Sue]

I did note the very poor treatment of Fleece too, Ashley. But alas, I did have to chuckle at the exhortations (in vain) by Fleece to the sharks to quit their lip smacking noises such as when Stub wanted Fleece to be more reverential to the sharks (lol), so Fleece stated, ""Well, den, Belubed fellow-critters...." I agree with Fleece's sentiments...just have Stubb do these exhortations to the sharks himself, if he wants such done! Good grief.

That was quite the imagery of the sharks in a frenzy and then with the stabbing (!) the resulting increased chaos with sharks eating sharks.

I also had to chuckle at the "Hold the steak in one hand, and show a live coal to it with the other, that one, dish it"...

[[deleted user]]

David wrote: "Chapter 64. Stubb's Supper
Stubb gives the cook a hard time for overcooking his whale steak. Is it true, is an angel just a shark, well governed?.."

What a speech, eh? "...dat is natur, and can't be helped..." Certain traits are innate. Our animal nature. "but if you gobern de shark in you..." The importance of self-discipline. Doable. But difficult.

And isn't this a failure on the part of Stubb? Back in chapter 29, Stubb had felt himself deeply wronged by Ahab, due to Ahab's speaking disparagingly to him:"Down, dog, and kennel!"

Stubb: "I am not used to be spoken to in that way, sir; I do but less than half like it, sir." Those "sirs." Stubb maintains discipline...but it's not self-discipline. It's a necessary imposition on him due to shipboard hierarchy...which Ahab would doubtless maintain with any steps necessary.



Stubb even dreams about this upsetting incident... the hurtfulness of his having been insulted --- and not being able to do anything about it. Stubb tells Flask, that his dream made him a wise man.

And now that Stubb has whatever power comes with having killed the whale, he abuses the old cook.

Good self-governance, self-discipline, requires consistent habits. Melville has mentioned habits numerous times, beginning with Ishmael: "...I am in the habit of going to sea whenever I get hazy..." Chapter 60: "Yet habit--strange thing! what cannot habit accomplish?"

And...I'm back in chapter one... wondering about free will vs. determinism..."the Fates... part of the grand programme of Providence...Who ain't a slave?..... cajoling me into the delusion that it was a choice resulting from my own unbiased freewill..."

But you know, Melville has spoken of fixed events..."fixed stars," etc. Are we slaves when we simply allow our innate nature to rule us? Isn't Melville possibly saying that we are NOT fixed... through self-chosen habits... self-discipline... we CAN change. Sharks can't. Stubb hasn't. But it's possible.

[[deleted user]]

Chapter 65: The Whale as a Dish

I find my mind entertaining the question: "Was Melville a vegetarian???" I rather suppose not. Is it a chapter on cultural norms? Is it a chapter on hypocrisy?

[David]

Ashley wrote: ". . .the insinuation that the un-religious man is basically a ravenous beast."

I am missing something! What passage in the chapter points to this insinuation? I felt Stubb was making fun of Fleece's idea of the afterlife or at least of how he would get there, as they fetched Elijah: in 2 Kings 2:11, horses of fire and a chariot of fire appear, and then the prophet Elijah is taken up into heaven in a whirlwind. Maybe it was the, "That's no way to convert sinners, Cook!", also said in jest, and religious people sin too. It is true that religious sinners do not need to convert to religion, but they do need to convert/change or "gobern" their sinful behavior.

There might be something there when he discusses the easy way, through the lubber's hole vs. the hard way, around by the rigging, which I just took as not "goberned" vs. "well goberned". After all:

for all angel is not'ing more dan de shark well goberned.

And another thing, is there anything to the cook being named "Fleece", as in either the noun, a wooly covering, or the verb, to swindle or steal?

[Ashley]

David wrote: "Ashley wrote: ". . .the insinuation that the un-religious man is basically a ravenous beast."

I am missing something! What passage in the chapter points to this insinuation? I felt Stubb was makin..."

I missed the humor! I had taken this all too literally. Thanks for another take, David.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

Caught up again--just in time for the next batch of chapters

I don't know that I have a lot to say about this batch--I thought they were almost all uniformly excellent and thought-provoking.

I thought chapter 60, with it's description of the whale line was fantastic..."All men live enveloped in whale lines..."

I winced at Stubbs treatment of Fleece, though I wasn't as bothered by Fleece's portrayal. If we didn't have Melville's counterbalancing picture of Daggoo, it might have been harder to take, but it seems to me that he was trying to present types that he had actually seen. Fleece's surliness and innate wisdom when addressing the sharks gives his portrayal an individuality that is usual missing in stereotypical presentations. The idea that the shark is nothing more than an angel well-governed is striking, to me--never would I have thought of that comparison. But I've been working my way through The Divine Comedy with another group, and in Purgatorio (Canto 18), Virgil tells Dante nearly the same thing when he explains how love is natural ("Your woraciousness, fellow critters, I don't blame ye so much for, dat is natur and can't be helped"), but free will comes into play when managing proper and improper loves (but to gobern dat wicked natur, dat is de pint.)

(I probably could have done without so much of the 'eye-dialect' though)

I stumbled over the last lines of The Sphynx. I read them over several times, but I never could grasp what Ahab was trying to say here. The best I can gather is that the Pequod is becalmed, as is Ahab becalmed on his quest for Moby Dick. On hearing that another ship is bearing down on them, bringing the breeze with it, Ahab realizes that nature (a breeze as indicated by the moving ship) is about to move the Pequod, and that same breeze is going to move his personal agenda forward as well. The reference to St. Paul, I take it, is a kind of association with the hunt for Moby Dick as the salvation of Ahab's soul.

[Rafael]

David wrote: "Rafael wrote: "At that time (19th century) humans could hear the whale chantings? Anyone heard any whale singing at that time?"

I have also been wondering why Ishmael hasn't gotten around to enlig..."

Great. Thank you for this info.

[Lily]

David wrote: "And another thing, is there anything to the cook being named "Fleece", as in either the noun, a wooly covering, or the verb, to swindle or steal? ..."

Well, I'm probably over extending, but my thoughts went here:



Van Eyck https://icon.org.uk/news/ghent-master...

Another possibility -- Fleece may have had the tightly coiled hair of some men of his (presumed?) African origins.

Lending credence to the sacrificial lamb motif are these words from the Moby Dick Card game: (view spoiler)["Fleece’s sermon to the sharks has been the topic of much academic writing, and this lowly sub sub must defer to other, stronger voices on the subject. Suffice it to say that the offer of redemption given to the sharks from this unlikely voice is truly radical for its time—the clear message being that all men, all creatures, all different natures, are angels, and we angels merely wear the clothing of a shark, or the clothing of a man. And it is a radically personal choice as to whether one accepts one’s angelic nature or continues to feast as a shark, or kill as a man." http://www.mobydickgame.com/officials... (hide spoiler)]

I can't help but imagine that Melville was in an ebullient mood the evening he emerged from his writing room for dinner after having penned this chapter -- assuming he sketched it out in a single day! So much tongue-in-cheek creativity here!

[David]

@ Rafael

Since you mentioned accents earlier, what did you think of the way Fleece's spoke? I wonder how it was translated in your edition? He have sounded like Jim in Twain's, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

[David]

Lily wrote: "Well, I'm probably over extending, but my thoughts went here:"

Nice association Lily. A painting in which Jesus is represented by a lamb may be the key to Fleece's name. Stubb does respond to Fleece's sermon to the sharks with:

"Well done, old Fleece!" cried Stubb, "that's Christianity; go on."

[Rafael]

David wrote: "@ Rafael

Since you mentioned accents earlier, what did you think of the way Fleece's spoke? I wonder how it was translated in your edition? He have sounded like Jim in Twain's, The Adventures of H..."

Ii sounds to me stereotypical, but I guess that Americans are able to opinion about it more accurately than me. It was stereotypical? I don't know if I can judge it, sometimes stereotypical features are not a negative depicting. I have not background information about this age and Melville wrote about his age. I suppose that he knew it good enough to do a good job, and he do not seems to be someone who falls into misinformation or bigotry.

I suppose that it was translated very well in this regard. It was translated to portuguese as brazilian slaves spoke in some movies about that age. As a form of dialect.

[Rafael]

About Fleece, why Stubb was such a jerk to him? Ahab treated him badly so he should not do the same to others. I guess that Paulo Freire, and brazilian educator, was right when he said: "An education that does not liberate, makes the oppressed dream of becoming oppressors."

[Tamara]

Back in Chapter 61, we get this beautiful description of the whale:

But lazily undulating in the trough of the sea, and ever and anon tranquilly spouting his vapory jet, the whale looked like a portly burgher smoking his pipe of a warm afternoon. But that pipe, poor whale, was thy last.

I love the image here—the whale lazily gliding through the water, minding its own business, puffing away, enjoying a peaceful stroll on a quiet Sunday afternoon outing.

Contrast this peaceful image with the blood and gore that ensues.

Unlike Adelle @39, I don’t see Stubb as having a moment of reverence after killing the whale. I see him gloating at the kill. He repeatedly slashes and stabs this magnificent creature, and then reacts with callous, heartless insensitivity:

"Yes; both pipes smoked out!" and withdrawing his own from his mouth, Stubb scattered the dead ashes over the water; and, for a moment, stood thoughtfully eyeing the vast corpse he had made.

To me, this sounds as if he is eyeing the corpse with pride in himself for causing the death of this creature.

This unfavorable depiction of Stubb is reinforced in his treatment of Fleece.

[Tamara]

Rafael wrote: "I guess that Paulo Freire, and brazilian educator, was right when he said: "An education that does not liberate, makes the oppressed dream of becoming oppressors..."

It’s interesting you bring up Paulo Friere. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Friere argues that revolutionary change comes not only from eliminating systems of oppression but also by expunging the piece of the oppressor that is embedded within us.

We saw Stubb being humiliated and called “a dog” by Ahab (Chapter 29). As soon as he has “elevated” himself in the eyes of the crew by killing the whale, what does he do? He turns around and oppresses someone who is lower than him on the totem pole.

His treatment of Fleece is ugly and abusive. He taunts him, holds him up for ridicule, and in a final irony, assumes the right to confer the title of a good Christian on him.

“Well done, old Fleece!” cried Stubb, “that's Christianity; go on.”

The irony lies in the fact that Stubb's treatment of a fellow human being is not one a good Christian--or any person of faith, for that matter--would condone.

[Tamara]

I am reluctant to inject a bit of a dissenting voice, but here I go, anyway.

I don’t have a problem with the length of the novel or the length of some of the sentences. I read 18thC Brit. Lit novels with sentences that can go for several lines—sometimes even a whole paragraph.

My issue with MD lies elsewhere.

I not only find the shifting points of view distracting—from Ishmael’s first-person to limited omniscient—but I also think the shift in genres is problematic.

We chug along following the story when, for no apparent reason, we are taken on a detour that has little to no bearing on the plot. I’m thinking of the Cetology chapter, for example, or the chapters on the artistic portrayals of whales. They may belong in an encyclopedia or in a book discussing the aesthetic merits or demerits of various works of art. They may be interesting, educational, and humorous. But unless I’m missing something, I don’t see how these chapters advance the plot. Maybe I’m not seeing it.

It’s almost as if we have one main story—the skeleton of the plot—and Melville has fleshed it out by adding a lot of unnecessary padding. The digressive chapters can be excised with no damage to the main story line. So I’m wondering why they’re included. I’m guessing it’s because Melville wanted to educate his readers about whales before the days when information was just one click away. Is that it or do they serve another purpose I’m just not seeing?

[Lily]

Tamara wrote: "Is that it or do they serve another purpose I’m just not seeing? ..."

LOL! I have been asking myself if Melville would have passed an MFA course today! At times I feel as if I am wandering through a gallery of early American paintings, contrasting with how the art world evolved in Europe, and what happened when trends in creativity began to span the Atlantic. I think of William James writing (dictating?) his great novels at the turn of the century.

But, not the trained observer you are, Tamara, I do feel the digressive chapters are essential to the greatness of the novel. It would not sit alongside the Iliad and Don Quixote in the canon of the literary giants without them -- and it is so that I do feel Moby Dick can be regarded. Can I justify that statement? Well....

It is as messy a book as the culture(s) and the time in history that spawned it. Before oil rigs in the Gulf and on the sands of the Middle East, before the incandescent bulb emerged from a laboratory in West Orange where a masculinity quite different (?) than those portrayed here plied its tenacity.

I am having my doubts that it shall have any scene as poignant as that of Hector and Andromache with their young son. Or as humane as Priam and Achilles. But we shall see -- shall read....

[[deleted user]]

Tamara wrote: "I am reluctant to inject a bit of a dissenting voice, but here I go, anyway.

I don’t have a problem with the length of the novel or the length of some of the sentences. I read 18thC Brit. Lit nov..."

If Melville had done that----kept to the plot only---do you think Melville would still have had a great book? Or might it have been nothing more than a great read--- an adventure novel.... something Melville had been successful with... but didn't want to write anymore.... It seems he wanted to Write as a Writer.... and he hoped that the public would find his work valuable... but I think he was done writing for a public.

I do think the chapters serve another purpose. The different narrators also.... I feel it makes the book more than it otherwise would be.

I just think without all that "extra" the book would now be a forgotten sea yarn...

Those chapters, I think, necessarily take us out of the plot line... jarringly at times... and a part of the reader's mind subconsciously continues mulling on the story line without the author directing the reader... This I think provides the reader the space to find the meaning and importance independently--- the only way.

[Tamara]

Adelle wrote: "If Melville had done that----kept to the plot only---do you think Melville would still have had a great book?..."

Honestly, I think it still would have been a great book.

I see Moby Dick as a story about a man's obsession for revenge with a creature whom he has personified as evil. I see this obsession as destructive and taking such a hold on the man that it is as if the evil has embedded itself in him. He has become possessed with the idea of killing MD to the extent that it has erased every other aspect of his life. His obsession is demonic.

This is a powerful story. It reminds me a lot of Conrad's Heart of Darkness--a character peering into the abyss and jumping right in instead of pulling back.

I think novels that shed light on the human spirit, that tell us something about what it means to be human, about where we can go wrong and where we can go right, and do it in such a way that is profoundly moving are great novels. Because of that, I think MD could/would never have been dismissed as just "a forgotten sea yarn" without the extraneous chapters. I would put it right up there with Don Quixote, the latter because it is a great novel about a man's vision of what the world should be when honor and chivalry meant something. Again, it sheds light on the human spirit.

But as I said earlier, I know I'm a dissenting voice. It's not the first time I've expressed an opinion that goes against the grain, and it probably won't be the last :-)

No worries. We can agree to disagree.

[Tamara]

Lily wrote: "But, not the trained observer you are, Tamara, I do feel the digressive chapters are essential to the greatness of the novel. .."

Thank you for the compliment, Lily. But I don't see myself as "a trained observer." I see myself as someone who looks at things with a slightly different (warped?) set of lenses.

I used to frustrate the heck out of my teachers in school.

[Lily]

Tamara wrote: "...I see myself as someone who looks at things with a slightly different (warped?) set of lenses. .."

Stream of consciousness comment, Tamara, from someone else whose view is not always orthodox or conservative: some of the side chapters or diversions seem to express that human desire for omnipotence, to be all knowing (to be God-like), and perhaps that only omnipotence can be the effective or the final curative of Evil.

[[deleted user]]

Tamara wrote: ".No worries. We can agree to disagree"

Lol, Tamara... it's not a issue of disagreeing, :-)... It's seeing the book through different---entirely legitimate---perspectives. And I can see revenge aspects, too... but for me, that's not what the book is about.

That's what's wonderful about reading... It's not just the author.... it's the reader as well!

[Rafael]

Tamara wrote: "Rafael wrote: "I guess that Paulo Freire, and brazilian educator, was right when he said: "An education that does not liberate, makes the oppressed dream of becoming oppressors..."

It’s interestin..."

Exactly, Tamara.

[David]

Tamara wrote: "I not only find the shifting points of view distracting—from Ishmael’s first-person to limited omniscient—but I also think the shift in genres is problematic."

Caution: Novice sub-sub Moby-Dick apologist at work.

That is certainly a fair and valid. But maybe we need to consider more than the rules when it comes to Moby-Dick, the novel.

Maybe we need to consider a condition that may be contributing to the disjointed appearance of the book is that it spans several types of books at once: expository, philosophical, political, theological, and imaginative literature, and for us today, historical. What set of rules covers all of that? We might as well condemn the bible for the same reasons. That perspective change between testaments is quite the challenge. :)

It seems to me, that each chapter has its place; some are more challenging to place than others. The chapter on Cetology, it may be argued, demonstrates that life is an unfinished journey, messy and incomplete no matter the effort expended to categorize and explain it. I think it also shows how sperm whales rank as the kings of whaledom, implying Moby-Dick a king of kings among whales. Ahab is not set against any old whale.

Melville seems like a professional writer who would have certainly been well versed on the rules of literature if not an authority. Why would he choose to break them so blatantly?

What if by not following the "rules" of literature he is simply hanging a question mark on those rules and conventions as stagnant and uneccessary constraints on literature and life that deserve to be questioned from time to time.

Maybe these broken rules serve as an elaborate simile and we are meant to take issue with them as we take issue with with the fact we live in a world by fickle and often broken convention; (view spoiler)[See Chapter 89: Fast Fish and Loose Fish where Melville asks us to consider that everything, I will include literature, is a "loose fish". (hide spoiler)] One can either accept the broken or untidy things in a book, or life, or go all Ahab on them at the expense of their own life's experience.

Finally, Ishmael seems to be a person who likes to talk that may be prone to putting words in other people's mouth as Melville puts words into Ishmael's mouth? Maybe it is not as big of a change in point of view as it appears but part of Ishmael's character to speak this way for other people when telling a story.

[[deleted user]]

At #46 Ashley wrote: "Melville starts ch. 55 [….] ch. 55 by adding a new genre to his anthology on whales. How fun!

I also do not think we should have been so quick to dismiss the significance of the color yellow from our discussion earlier. In ch. 58 the substance on which a right whale typically feeds (Brit), is described as yellow. I’ve been noticing as I read how yellow is often mentioned just before a whale sighting. Like… a signal of impending danger.
.."

Ashley, you may well be on to something. I never noticed the yellows until your post. I see now in chapter 70, The Sphynx: "An intense copper calm, like a universal yellow lotus, was more and more unfolding its noiseless, measureless leaves upon the sea."

I'll keep an eye out during the rest of the book.

[[deleted user]]

Chapter 69: The Funeral

I found this to be the saddest chapter in the book. "...wafted by the joyous breezes, that great mass of death floats on and on..."

[[deleted user]]

Chapter 70: The Sphynx

This seems to be another of the significant chapters such as The Lee Side... but I'm not sure what I'm to take from it.

So... we have Moby Dick associated with the Sphynx. A female monster. Do we know for certain that Moby Dick is male? I simply assumed he was... but perhaps not. Or perhaps gender is a non-issue.

The Sphynx in Oedipus asked riddles and it seems destroyed those who could not answer them. We see Ahab (bizarrely) there alone in the unfolding silence talking to the whale's head. But I don't see him asking --- even if he is the voice of the whale --- any questions. So... what's going on here?


Is there supposed to be some association with Medusa? As the whale has been beheaded --- and there are at least two references to Perseus and therefore Medusa in the book? They must be there for a reason. The voice of Ishmael: "Surely all this is not without meaning." (Ahab like "Cellini's cast Perseus." "Starbuck: "Oh, God! to sail with such a heathen crew .... Whelped somewhere by the sharkish sea. The whale is their demigorgon." (I think that's related to Medusa.)


I feel as though I'm to take away something very important from this chapter. But I don't know what.

[[deleted user]]

At 79 David wrote: "Why would he choose to break them so blatantly?.."

From Chapter 69: "There's your law of precedents; there's your utility of traditions; …. There's orthodoxy!"

Well, he must have had his reasons. Me, I just chug along and ponder and I enjoy reading the various perspectives of my fellow readers. It's like reading the book two or three times --- seeing new points --- without having to read the book two or three times. :-)

[Susan]

Tamara wrote: "I am reluctant to inject a bit of a dissenting voice, but here I go, anyway.

*******

I appreciate your sharing a different point of view, Tamara. In my opinion, it adds to the discussion and raises some important points about the novel.

Someone raised the question earlier on about Moby Dick as the first post modern novel, and I think the chapters about aspects of the whale and whaling have a very modern flavor. Do they contribute to the plot? Yes, sometimes they do — Melville explains technical points that may come up later — as in the chapters about how the line encircles the rowers in the whaleboats. Sometimes, though, I think they contribute to a different sort of quest — for understanding/comprehending/knowing the whale — which can be seen in parallel to Ahab’s quest, but in contrast to it.

Perhaps recently reading W. G. Sebald’s “The Rings of Saturn” where a walk along the English Coast by its narrator takes off on tangents on seemingly unrelated but ultimately meaningful topics like silkworm cultivation in China, Sir Thomas Browne’s writings and Belgium’s exploitation of the Congo makes Moby Dick seem very restrained in its tangents to me ;).

Moby Dick is indubitably a spacious carpetbag of a novel, but I believe there’s method to Melville’s mad piling up of detail on detail. YMMV

[Tamara]

David wrote: "Melville seems like a professional writer who would have certainly been well versed on the rules of literature if not an authority. Why would he choose to break them so blatantly?

What if by not following the "rules" of literature he is simply hanging a question mark on those rules and conventions as stagnant and uneccessary constraints on literature and life that deserve to be questioned from time to time..."

David, I do see your point. And believe it or not, I'm not a stickler for rules. But I do think that when a rule is broken, it draws attention to itself. And because it draws attention to itself, it has to have a legitimate reason for doings so.

I’m sure Melville had good reasons for writing the novel the way he did. I’m just having a hard time figuring out what those reasons are. I’m struggling to understand what is gained in the novel by incorporating a hodge podge of different genres. But that is a failure on my part—not Melville’s.

I asked the question because I’m interested in how others perceive these digressive chapters and if and how they can be seen as being integral to the novel. I appreciate the range of responses so far. They suggest to me that I may have to tweak my lens and approach the novel from a different angle.

The challenge continues.

[Tamara]

Susan wrote: "Perhaps recently reading W. G. Sebald’s “The Rings of Saturn” where a walk along the English Coast by its narrator takes off on tangents on seemingly unrelated but ultimately meaningful topics like silkworm cultivation in China,...

Susan, your post helped me pinpoint the issue. I think it has to do with my expectations as a reader.

If I read a novel about a walk along the English coast, I expect it to meander, to digress because that's what we do when we walk. We mosey along, following whatever path our feet and/or our mind take us.

But when I read a novel about a man and his lust for revenge, I expect it to stay focused. I don't expect digressions or tangents. And i get frustrated when I find myself taken down a path that seems irrelevant. I think this probably says something about my limitation as a reader.

You've given me some food for thought. So thank you.

[[deleted user]]

Speaking of expectations. I wonder occasionally whether this is a book about Ishmael--- with Ahab something of a tangential story which may have influenced the course of Ismael's life? Or whether it is a book about Ahab--- with a long intro of the narrator?

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "Speaking of expectations. I wonder occasionally whether this is a book about Ishmael--- with Ahab something of a tangential story which may have influenced the course of Ismael's life? Or whether i..."

Or a book about the hodgepodge that is America -- perhaps more so than Melville himself even realized? Nor even his earliest readers. This was not a NYT bestseller of its day.

[David]

Adelle wrote: "Speaking of expectations. I wonder occasionally whether this is a book about Ishmael--- with Ahab something of a tangential story which may have influenced the course of Ismael's life? Or whether i..."

Since the first chapters, Ishmael has become somewhat of a bystander.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

David wrote: "Since the first chapters, Ishmael has become somewhat of a bystander...."


That reminds me of the boy in Blood Meridian

About Melville as meanderer:

I tried reading MD several years ago, but found I just didn't have the patience for yet another digression that got in the way of the main storyline. This time, I'm enjoying it all--the digressions as much or more than the chapters that advance the plot. I think, for me, the difference has been that back then, I had trained myself to read in a way that focused on what happens next. Most of my reading over the last decade has either been plotless, like Sebald, as Susan mentioned at #84, or the plot is so inconclusive (like 2666) that finding out what happened next wasn't crucial to enjoying the book. I also have to credit some of the book discussions I've taken part in here on GR--it's made me slow down and enjoy the journey, so to speak, rather than rush toward the destination.

It's seemed to me that each digression has had some nugget in it that contributes to the overall point--so far, I don't really see MD as a book about a man's obsession, I see it as book that probes the limits of man's will as opposed to a force that checks that will. When, for instance, in the chapter about the whale-line, we get the technical description of one of the details of whale-hunting, it's also an allegory used to strip away our comfortable illusions about how we are situated in the world. The book, then, is Ishmael's entire stable of thought on the problem, or perhaps the legitimacy, of forcing the world to submit vs. implacable resistance, given to us in bite-sized chunks.

Actually, I feel like the book is even more than that, but I just don't have the mental firepower to break it down.

[[deleted user]]

Bryan wrote: ".also an allegory used to strip away our comfortable illusions about how we are situated in the world. ."

Yes! That!

[Kerstin]

Ashley wrote: "In ch. 68 whale blubber is described as a blanket or counter-pane. The only other time I’ve heard the term counterpane is when Ishmael beds down with Queequeg. Queequeg is the thing (person), shiel..."

A counterpane is a bedspread, often quilted or embroidered. So you have two panes/pieces of fabric sewn together with padding in the middle. They "counter" one another. I've seen the word also used with knitted or crochet bedspreads, even though you don't have any padding there.

[Kerstin]

I must admit these digressive chapters are getting a little tedious. Not that I don't appreciate Melville's detail to mid-19th century whaling, but here we are hundreds of pages into the book and I'd like a better feel for where we're going.

[Ignacio]

Lily wrote: "Or a book about the hodgepodge that is America -- perhaps more so than Melville himself even realized? Nor even his earliest readers. This was not a NYT bestseller of its day."

Wow, what a fascinating discussion! I fell behind due to traveling, so now though I'm caught up with the reading, I'm still behind on posting and reading these discussions. Lily, I think your comment is spot on: the more I read the digressions the more I think this is a book about "the whale" (as idea or symbol) about the whaling industry and its people as a mirror of the (still young) American society that was developing, and about Ishmael as a silent and somewhat marginal witness to everything that is happening. Ahab's madness and quest for revenge is, I think, the "tune" that carries the story, but is not the main story Melville wants to tell...

Tamara: I share your frustration with the endless digressions and have found it difficult to keep reading sometimes. I also find myself wondering why Melville didn't more artfully "work" these digressive points "into" the narrative ... But then I have to remind myself he was perhaps not writing a "novel" per se, but a "book" about "the whale": the storyline may be the actual "padding" to make his observations palatable to the reader?

Why write this story? I feel like Ishmael (and through him Melville) thought there was something about whaling (or seafaring) that captured a not fully understood (perhaps even to himself) aspect of American (and modern industrial) life, a kind of "truth" he desperately wanted to tell. And I agree with what someone said, that it really anticipates Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

Thus we get philosophical passages like these: "All men live enveloped in whale-lines. All are born with halters round their necks; but it is only when caught in the swift, sudden turn of death, that mortals realize the silent, subtle, everpresent perils of life." etc ... (ch. 60)

I also found it very interesting that Ishmael/Melville reflects upon his own digressive writing (as in a self-referential postmodern novel!): Out of the trunk, the branches grow; out of them, the twigs. So, in productive subjects, grow the chapters. (ch. 63)

[Susan]

Ignacio wrote: "Lily wrote: "Or a book about the hodgepodge that is America -- perhaps more so than Melville himself even realized? Nor even his earliest readers. This was not a NYT bestseller of its day."

Wow, w..."

Thanks for your thoughts here. I’ve been pondering why the title is “Moby Dick or The Whale” and the idea from you and others that this is as much or more about “The Whale” helps make sense of the title and that “or”. After all, it’s not just “Moby Dick”