Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Moby Dick
>
Resources and background
I recommend folks read Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Dana. I haven't, myself, but my husband is reading it concurrently with my reading of Moby Dick and it's been great fun quoting passages at each other. Richard Dana was an upper class young man when he decided to go to sea as a common sailor (just like Ishmael!) He eventually wrote this book on his experiences. It was published roughly ten years before Moby Dick and Melville definitely read it- it very likely influenced Moby Dick.
Melville himself wrote a book about his "years before the mast" which again I haven't read but my husband has. It's called White Jacket and Rob says that it's not nearly as good as either Moby Dick or Two Years Before the Mast, but is worth reading if you're curious about Melville's relationship with the sea.
I doubt there are spoilers per se in either work, but as I haven't read either I can't vouch. Both are available free online.
This would be a better location for the amazing resource my sister found; can be used with or without the links that define unusual terms and names:
http://www.powermobydick.com/
http://www.powermobydick.com/
Jonah story in the Bible (but please don't ask me about this particular translation; just happens to be the one I found first, so I hope it's okay!)
http://ebible.org/bible/kjv/Jonah.htm
http://ebible.org/bible/kjv/Jonah.htm
By calling attention to Two Years Before the Mast and to Melville's own earlier books, S.Rosemary is onto something important in my opinion. Moby Dick took him longer to write than previous books. It probably started out to be similar to them--a description of his time on a whaling ship. But obviously it didn't turn out that way--otherwise we wouldn't have the saying, "X is about Y like Moby Dick is a book about whaling."
In 1850, while writing the book Melville spent time on vacation in the Berkshires with Nathanial Hawthorne.He subsequently relocated his family to be near Hawthorne. I don't want to say anything about Hawthorne's possible influence on moving the book beyond a conventional adventure because to do so would require spoilers.
Suffice to say, for now, that Hawthorne provided Melville with a great reader and friend who could respond to Melville's metaphysical speculations. In a letter from 1851, Melville described him as having " 'a certain tragic phase of humanity' that goes deeper than divinity."
In 1850, while writing the book Melville spent time on vacation in the Berkshires with Nathanial Hawthorne.He subsequently relocated his family to be near Hawthorne. I don't want to say anything about Hawthorne's possible influence on moving the book beyond a conventional adventure because to do so would require spoilers.
Suffice to say, for now, that Hawthorne provided Melville with a great reader and friend who could respond to Melville's metaphysical speculations. In a letter from 1851, Melville described him as having " 'a certain tragic phase of humanity' that goes deeper than divinity."
Zeke wrote-- "In 1850, while writing the book Melville spent time on vacation in the Berkshires with Nathanial Hawthorne.He subsequently relocated his family to be near Hawthorne."I visited Pittsfield, Massachusetts, a couple of years ago whilst attending the Edith Wharton conference, and I took the opportunity to visit 'Arrowhead', Melville's home where he wrote Moby Dick. I also went hiking in a nearby beautiful state park that encompasses Monument Mountain. It was on Monument Mountain where on August 5, 1850, Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville enjoyed a well-documented picnic and hiking expedition. A vicious thunderstorm forced them to hunker-down in a cave for shelter. I very much enjoyed my time up on the mountain realizing that those two literary giants had trod the same ground. If you're ever in this part of Massachusetts, I highly recommend visiting Melville's home and Monument Mountain. Cheers!
Wow, Christopher, I grew up in the Berkshires and never even knew about this! Next time I go home I'll check it out. Thanks!
Everyman, quick question re: spoilers-I've not read this book and don't know how it ends. I'm ahead but I'm not THAT ahead. However, I've picked up multiple references that I'm pretty sure are foreshadowing the following- (view spoiler).
Am I OK to point this out so we can discuss whether it is or is not foreshadowing- and then find out together whether it is? Or should I not point it out at all, for fear of upsetting someone's ending?
S. Rosemary wrote: "Everyman, quick question re: spoilers-I've not read this book and don't know how it ends. I'm ahead but I'm not THAT ahead. However, I've picked up multiple references that I'm pretty sure are ..."
The basic principle here is that if you genuinely do not know what is going to happen, it's acceptable to speculate that certain passages may foreshadow certain events, and is indeed an interesting part of a shared reading of the book But if you know, from reading ahead, from seeing the movie, or from other sources that something will happen, then the discussion of how a passage might foreshadow that event should be saved until we have reached the point in the book where that event does happen, and then point out the earlier foreshadowing.
In short, genuine speculation in the absence of knowledge is perfectly fine; postings about future events with knowledge that they are going to happen should be reserved.
Does that make sense?
from an article by Milton R. Stern
"Some Techniques of Melville's perception"
No actual spoilers....but it lists some of the techniques that we readers are beginning to become aware of...
Apparently, Melville tended to use these techniques in many of his books.
(view spoiler)
"Some Techniques of Melville's perception"
No actual spoilers....but it lists some of the techniques that we readers are beginning to become aware of...
Apparently, Melville tended to use these techniques in many of his books.
(view spoiler)
Thanks a lot Adelle - that is most enlightening!
Smile. That's because you're a background person too!
What's cool about that reference to me is that some of the astute readers in this forum picked up right away on the #1 and #2 techniques and brought our attention to them. Well done!
M wrote: "What's cool about that reference to me is that some of the astute readers in this forum picked up right away on the #1 and #2 techniques and brought our attention to them. Well done!"That's why I am not in favor of background information being posted too soon in a discussion. I think it's valuable first for us as readers to have a chance independently to develop our own views of and responses to a work, and only then compare those with the views of others who have more experience with the work and author than we do.
To me, the value of the great books is not only that they are great reading, which they are, and that they are integral to the history and development of Western intellectual thought, which they are, but also that in reading them we can test ourselves against them, can look for how they interact with our lives and thoughts and beliefs, at how they challenge or affirm or inspire us, and then can share what we find about our relationship with the books with others through discussion, and in the process refine and develop our thoughts and interaction into an even richer total experience. But if you start with the ideas of others in your mind, with the way you're "supposed" to see the text, you never get to the stage of what you learn by encountering the text directly for yourself, mind to mind with the author, because you have started out by putting someone else between you and the author, and that's a bell that cannot be unrung.
I've heard there are - even clicking this link may be a spoiler if you know nothing about the story! - a pair of first-person accounts by first mate Owen Chase and cabin boy Thomas Nickerson of the source incident for Moby-Dick.Nathaniel Philbrick wrote the intro for the above book, and also a whole nother, well-liked book about the incident (same warning applies): In the Heart of the Sea. I plan to read one of those.
Either would come after Moby-Dick itself, though, as they're obviously just big fat spoilers.
Everyman wrote: "... if you start with the ideas of others in your mind, with the way you're "supposed" to see the text, you never get to the stage of what you learn by encountering the text directly for yourself, mind to mind with the author, because you have started out by putting someone else between you and the author, and that's a bell that cannot be unrung."
I agree with you completely, based on my own recent experiences with The Oresteia and Huck Finn. Reading The Oresteia, I was totally lost, and so I allowed myself to become completely dependent on the introductory material and the notes in my copy. Needless to say, I developed very few thoughts of my own and so had little if anything to add to the discussions here. My copy of Huck had no notes, but it did have an Introduction which I foolishly read before reading the text, and it colored my reading of the book against my will, exactly as you describe.
But Moby! Moby, I read on my own a few years ago with no input from anyone, and I was awestruck. And my own ideas about it grew naturally as I read. And that experience was very satisfying, even if I do find out later on that my ideas were all "wrong" according to the experts!
I agree with you completely, based on my own recent experiences with The Oresteia and Huck Finn. Reading The Oresteia, I was totally lost, and so I allowed myself to become completely dependent on the introductory material and the notes in my copy. Needless to say, I developed very few thoughts of my own and so had little if anything to add to the discussions here. My copy of Huck had no notes, but it did have an Introduction which I foolishly read before reading the text, and it colored my reading of the book against my will, exactly as you describe.
But Moby! Moby, I read on my own a few years ago with no input from anyone, and I was awestruck. And my own ideas about it grew naturally as I read. And that experience was very satisfying, even if I do find out later on that my ideas were all "wrong" according to the experts!
Everyman wrote: "That's why I am not in favor of background information being posted too soon in a discussion. I think it's valuable first for us as readers to have a chance independently to develop our own views of and responses to a work, and only then compare those with the views of others who have more experience with the work and author than we do..."
What you write, Everyman, is absolutely true. And yet....I loves the backgrounds as much as the books---and there's never an opportunity to read the background afterwards...as a new book is clamoring.
So despite the wisdom of your words, I try to integrate the background reading with the actual book reading.
For myself, I've found it brings me the most satisfactory reading experience.
What you write, Everyman, is absolutely true. And yet....I loves the backgrounds as much as the books---and there's never an opportunity to read the background afterwards...as a new book is clamoring.
So despite the wisdom of your words, I try to integrate the background reading with the actual book reading.
For myself, I've found it brings me the most satisfactory reading experience.
Adelle wrote: "And yet....I loves the backgrounds as much as the books---and there's never an opportunity to read the background afterwards...as a new book is clamoring. "For Moby Dick, Laurel scheduled two weeks rather than the more traditional one for the entire book. We'll see whether the discussion sustains for that whole time, but it does give some extra time to incorporate thoughts from background materials. And of course one point of the Interim Reads is to give time to start the next book so you don't have to cram the closing posting on one book and getting started on the next book into the last week of the closing read.
But whatever works for people is fine. I'm just sometimes sorry to see people, as M comments, closing off their chance to encounter these books with minds not already preformatted by the opinions of others. Certainly influenced by my experience reading these books in college where the focus was on personal encounter with the books and the minds behind them.
Patrice, I read W&P earlier this year...I loved the hell out of it, so maybe it'll grow on you too. Good luck! :)
I have to fade away for about 5 days...I have to re-read Crime & Punishment for a F2F discussion this week. Looking forward to returning to the discussion here afterwards.
And again, I do agree with Everyman ... that if one has the time, it is beneficial to contend with the novel without reading introductions and such first.
And again, I do agree with Everyman ... that if one has the time, it is beneficial to contend with the novel without reading introductions and such first.
Adelle wrote: I try to integrate the background reading with the actual book reading....For myself, I've found it brings me the most satisfactory reading experience. Me too Adelle. As 'M' reports, sometimes reading without any background material can overawe you and not only can you get off on completely the wrong track but you can get bogged down in trivia. To me it seems a great shame that people can read a really great book, full of all kinds of nuances, and yet only end up seeing the bare bones. Moby Dick is a good example of that - on the surface a seafaring story but underneath, if you bother to delve, so much more, a cornucopia. Whether or not you get to the underneath in dribs and drabs as you read or by an Introduction/background at the beginning does not IMO matter, because you can and will put your own interpretation on what you read. I was certainly encouraged to read this way when I was at school, and at university, so there are two ways of looking at the question, which really boils down to a matter of personal taste - no-one forces anyone to read background material if it is provided/available.
MadgeUK wrote: "so there are two ways of looking at the question"Which makes it good that some groups here emphasize some approach, and some groups the other. Both approaches are available; it would be a shame if that diversity of intellectual approach were to be lost.
I just don't see that it can be 'lost' - if folks don't want background material, they don't have to read it as it generally appears in a separate thread! I like to see it and I very much appreciate the effort that people like Zeke put into it but if I thought it would 'spoil' my read then I wouldn't go there or open links etc.
MadgeUK wrote: "I just don't see that it can be 'lost'"No, you don't, and that is the problem. The approach here doesn't fit with your approach to reading these books. It would be better for you to stick with groups that do.
Everyman wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I just don't see that it can be 'lost'"
No, you don't, and that is the problem. The approach here doesn't fit with your approach to reading these books. It would be better for you to stick with groups that do..."
.....Oh, but I know there's a message between the lines, as it were, that I probably should be able to understand; I'll just address the issue straight out.
I'm confused. Most if not all of the reads here have had a thread for background resources. And, I've "confessed" I feel that background information brings additional layers to my reading of a novel.
Granted, sometimes such information touches too directly on the story at hand and comes without my having to do yeoman's work. Which, if I'm reading rightly, I think, is what Everyman is advocating for.
Mmmm. What am I misunderstanding? No offense taken, Everyman; no offense intended: Could you define a little the parameters of what background information you would prefer not to see posted? Or what kind you feel is legitimate to the discussion?
I'm asking because I had intended to return to the Moby Dick discussion. But now I'm wondering whether you would prefer me not to, or if you would prefer me to follow a set of guidelines that I haven't perhaps been following.
I'm AOK with either option, truly, if you so have a preference (sp??), I could change my evil ways, smile, and join a subsequent read if you think that would be better for the group. Thanks.
No, you don't, and that is the problem. The approach here doesn't fit with your approach to reading these books. It would be better for you to stick with groups that do..."
.....Oh, but I know there's a message between the lines, as it were, that I probably should be able to understand; I'll just address the issue straight out.
I'm confused. Most if not all of the reads here have had a thread for background resources. And, I've "confessed" I feel that background information brings additional layers to my reading of a novel.
Granted, sometimes such information touches too directly on the story at hand and comes without my having to do yeoman's work. Which, if I'm reading rightly, I think, is what Everyman is advocating for.
Mmmm. What am I misunderstanding? No offense taken, Everyman; no offense intended: Could you define a little the parameters of what background information you would prefer not to see posted? Or what kind you feel is legitimate to the discussion?
I'm asking because I had intended to return to the Moby Dick discussion. But now I'm wondering whether you would prefer me not to, or if you would prefer me to follow a set of guidelines that I haven't perhaps been following.
I'm AOK with either option, truly, if you so have a preference (sp??), I could change my evil ways, smile, and join a subsequent read if you think that would be better for the group. Thanks.
No, you don't, and that is the problem. The approach here doesn't fit with your approach to reading these books. It would be better for you to stick with groups that do.!!! Are (and Laurel) you asking me (and possibly Adelle) to leave this group even though I have not posted any background material? Or are you just telling me not to disagree with you?
I'm confused now, too. With the background information isolated in a separate thread, I think it should be there for people to read or not read as they choose. Reading "expert" views of a book has hurt my own reading of them in the past, but reading, say, the information Zeke posted about Mark Twain, and about attitudes regarding escaped slaves in that era was really helpful.
Also, in a 2nd reading of any great work, I love access to any and all resources possible, though of course it should not be placed where it could ruin the experience for first-time readers.
I am also confused now about whether I should not have posted the powermobydick link, or links to the Jonah story in the Bible, and if I should not post one to the Ahab story, which I was planning to do.
And I would be upset if Adelle and Madge felt like they ought to stop posting because of having a different view. But maybe I'm misreading?
Also, in a 2nd reading of any great work, I love access to any and all resources possible, though of course it should not be placed where it could ruin the experience for first-time readers.
I am also confused now about whether I should not have posted the powermobydick link, or links to the Jonah story in the Bible, and if I should not post one to the Ahab story, which I was planning to do.
And I would be upset if Adelle and Madge felt like they ought to stop posting because of having a different view. But maybe I'm misreading?
Adelle wrote: "but I know there's a message between the lines, as it were, that I probably should be able to understand; I'll just address the issue straight out....No offense taken, Everyman; no offense intended: Could you define a little the parameters of what background information you would prefer not to see posted? Or what kind you feel is legitimate to the discussion?
."
Yes, there was a message there; I hope it was understood.
I'll be as clear as I can, but realize that this is an issue with fuzzy edges. There are two opposites that are pretty clear, but it's where to draw the line inbetween them that is harder.
I do not object to background information as such. It can be very helpful used properly -- Zeke's information on Father Mapple was an excellent example of that.
What I believe, and what I hope to convey through this group, is that the best way to learn from the Great Books is first to engage directly with the books and the authors oneself, to test ourselves and our ideas against them, and then to expand our understanding of them by comparing what we find in them with what others, including those who have studied them for years, have found in them. The books are rich enough to sustain many different approaches to and interpretations of them. That's one beauty of them; there is no single right way to interpret or understand them. And the engagement with them is, I believe, as important as the eventual understanding you come to of what they mean to you.
But I believe that if you first look at what others have said about them you severely limit your own opportunity of engaging with them yourself on your own terms. If you "know" before reading them what the books are supposed (by others) to mean, I believe that you do not get the most out of them that you can.
I'm not dogmatic about that; there are times when some initial knowledge of the times or culture in which the book was written is helpful or even necessary; for example, it doesn't make much sense to read Dante's Divine Comedy if you have no background knowledge of the Bible or of Christian theology, it helps a lot to make sense of Shakespeare's history plays if you know what his audience knew about English history, and it's hard to appreciate the power of the Iliad if you don't understand the Greek concept of kleos. To know what an author expected the intended readers of a text to know is usually valuable and sometimes critical.
But to start by looking at what a book is supposed to mean or what its major themes are according to other readers is a different matter.
Now, obviously, everybody here can engage in the book any way they find right for them. I have no argument with that. But as a principle, I want the process here to encourage the process of starting with the individual engaging with the book, and then moving on to what others have said about it.
The conflict between Madge and myself, which goes back quite awhile, is that I have asked her on multiple occasions to tell us not just what others think about the books but what SHE thinks about them, what they mean to HER, and her answer consistently has been that she doesn't think she has the ability to have any personal thoughts of value, that what interests her is what scholars who have studied them have concluded that they mean. If that's her belief, then it is, and that's fine, but it is precisely the opposite of the way I hope to encourage people here to engage with the books.
The term "education" comes from the Greek for "to draw out." If you have read the Meno you will know perfectly what this means. Learning, as I view the terms, is putting into a person; education is the process of drawing out of the individual. Education is much richer and more complex than learning. Anybody can read the Cliff Notes for a book and think that they know what the book means, what the themes of the book are, and what they should take from the book. I'm after something more than that here; I'm after a group of people engaging with the books together, wrestling with what they say to us and mean to us and to our lives as much as, if not more than, what they "mean" to scholars.
So when somebody posts, before the reading starts, sites which discuss what the reader should look for or think about or understand the book to mean, that is contrary to the whole concept of the group working together to understand and appreciate the texts. I welcome such information coming after we have read a section and engaged with it initially; then enriching our group discussion with additional insights and ideas from others who have also read and engaged with the book is valuable, and indeed welcome. But not before.
As I said, I don't think in terms of absolutes, of it being no background at all or nothing but background. But I want to encourage a spirit of personal engagement with a book. And when a group member's basic approach is that I have nothing to give to the group from my engagement with the book, all I have to give is what others have found from their engagement with the book, that is not helpful, in my opinion, to what this group is, for me, all about.
That's a long answer, but you asked a serious question.
And to answer your specific question, I very much want you to continue with the discussion. Your comments throughout have been positive, helpful, and informative. The only formal "guideline" that I have for the group is no spoilers. The rest is aspirational. But whatever you have been doing has been working well for the group, and I hope for you, and I certainly hope that you will continue with us here for many years to come.
I have asked her on multiple occasions to tell us not just what others think about the books but what SHE thinks about them, what they mean to HER, and her answer consistently has been that she doesn't think she has the ability to have any personal thoughts of value, that what interests her is what scholars who have studied them have concluded that they mean.With respect Everyman, that is a misreading of my position. There are many times when I give my own opinion, especially when it comes to historical or political matters and I frequently quote from the text to back up my opinions. I just value the work of scholars more than my own, and I do not like to speculate. I have also been accustomed to backing up what I write about, hence my links and quotes from other material. However, I am happy to withdraw from the group if my approach does not find favour.
MadgeUK wrote: "!!! Are you asking me (and possibly Adelle) to leave this group "Why on earth would you think I am asking Adelle to leave the group? After all, she wrote:
"And again, I do agree with Everyman ... that if one has the time, it is beneficial to contend with the novel without reading introductions and such first. ."
Why on earth would you think that I wanted somebody with exactly the approach I am encouraging to leave the group.
As to yourself, you know my views. I would love to have you talk to us here about how you view the books, what they mean to you, what with your extensive and impressive background you find these books saying to you. I welcome you joining in that discussion.
MadgeUK wrote: " With respect Everyman, that is a misreading of my position."With respect, it is almost an exact quote of what you have written to me in the past.
And now I don't think there is any profit in continuing this. Let's get back to the book.
You wrote: Why on earth would you think I am asking Adelle to leave the group?I was referring to Adelle's sentence in her post 33:
'I'm asking because I had intended to return to the Moby Dick discussion. But now I'm wondering whether you would prefer me not to, or if you would prefer me to follow a set of guidelines that I haven't perhaps been following.'
I would love to have you talk to us here about how you view the books, what they mean to you, what...you find these books saying to you.
Thanks, I will continue to do just that.
Thank you, Everyman, for your thoughtful response. I appreciate the clarification. Yes, I think see I exactly what you're saying.
It IS the engagement of your group, after all, which is a large part of its attraction.
Very well then, I shall be thinking twice, I shall, afore I reads the extraneous Moby Dick materials...and shall try to weigh their worth as would Everyman: Read them now? Or Later?
It IS the engagement of your group, after all, which is a large part of its attraction.
Very well then, I shall be thinking twice, I shall, afore I reads the extraneous Moby Dick materials...and shall try to weigh their worth as would Everyman: Read them now? Or Later?
Adelle wrote: "Very well then, I shall be thinking twice, I shall, afore I reads the extraneous Moby Dick materials...and shall try to weigh their worth as would Everyman: Read them now? Or Later? "The only thing I think I was too unclear about, I mentioned it in passing but maybe not enough -- is the difference between references related to the times and environment the book was written in, what the author would have expected his audience to know, and references referring to the content of the book or subsequent events and comments about it, or which is thought interesting as a result of having read the book. It's the latter, not the former, that I prefer holding back on.
It's easy to distinguish between them. All one has to ask is, "Is this information which the author of the book would reasonably have expected his initial readers to know?" If yes, I think it's valuable material and can enhance the understanding of the work. If no, it's the sort of material I encourage holding off on.
As a simplistic example, a general understanding of the geography of the world, where Manhattan and Nantucket are, where the oceans and continents are, etc., is general information that Melville would presumably have expected his readers to know before they opened the book. But the exact track of the Peaquod, exactly where it went, and references to places (if any, I don't know whether they exist or not being only on chapter 41) that it put into port for some purpose, is only information that would be known after reading the book.
Everyman, thank you for taking the time to spell out what type of resources are and are not welcome during the reading of a book.
According to these criteria, I think the Biblical links would be fine, because in Melville's time I think that a familiarity with names and stories from the Bible would be expected of most readers. Today many of us are basically ignorant of these and so we miss out on a lot, not only in Moby Dick but in many other classics of the Western canon. Maybe we should put at least the Old Testament (where it seems most of the literary references come from) in the reading list for a future read!
According to these criteria, I think the Biblical links would be fine, because in Melville's time I think that a familiarity with names and stories from the Bible would be expected of most readers. Today many of us are basically ignorant of these and so we miss out on a lot, not only in Moby Dick but in many other classics of the Western canon. Maybe we should put at least the Old Testament (where it seems most of the literary references come from) in the reading list for a future read!
Especially since this year is the 400 year anniversary of the King James Bible.
M wrote: "Maybe we should put at least the Old Testament (where it seems most of the literary references come from) in the reading list for a future read! "I agree that knowledge of the Bible is critical. I'm not sure the group would hold together trying to read and discuss the whole book.
Avast, mates! I think there is room for all on this ship. Those who do not want any outside opinions of the book should not open links from shipmates who tend to slip. And those who like outside opinions, let's try to hold off on them till the last two weeks; that will give us plenty to talk about toward the end of our sail. Lastly, I promise to be more active as soon as I can.
Arggg. I be signing on to such an agreement as thee, Laurele, hast proposed. Me eyes have never seen the man at the helm, he being one Everyman, but I be certain he hath a sound mind, and I be supposing he hath two sound legs, and even if he be a leg or two short, why, 'tis certain he be no Cap'n Ahab.
I be signed aboard! And will be collecting me generous share (1/300th or so) of outside opinions when the voyage be done!
Arrrg!
(Hope to catch up on the reading by the 5th.)
I be signed aboard! And will be collecting me generous share (1/300th or so) of outside opinions when the voyage be done!
Arrrg!
(Hope to catch up on the reading by the 5th.)
Adelle wrote: "Arggg. I be signing on to such an agreement as thee, Laurele, hast proposed. Me eyes have never seen the man at the helm, he being one Everyman, but I be certain he hath a sound mind, and I be su...";<)
I do hope you all will be doing something special for Talk like a Pirate Day. (Last year we taught our African Grey to say "Arrrr, I'm a Pirate." and "Walk the plank!" We tried to learn "shiver me timbers" but that is still a work in progress.)
For anyone who wants a taste of the Puritan doctrine that is being explored/challenged in Moby Dick you could do worse than this short article.
http://americanliteraryblog.blogspot....
http://americanliteraryblog.blogspot....
Reading some reviews of a new book that is a seafaring epic, I came across the following quotation. It seemed relevant to issues Moby Dick . The book is We, the Drowned by Carsten Jensen.
Q: You have called the sailor the forefather of globalization. Do you, as a journalist, relate to the sailor?
A: When the sailor returned to his hometown he knew one thing the farmers back home never knew: that there was more than one way of doing things. The farmer thought he was the center of the world, the sailor knew he wasn’t. I think this a healthy knowledge.
Q: You have called the sailor the forefather of globalization. Do you, as a journalist, relate to the sailor?
A: When the sailor returned to his hometown he knew one thing the farmers back home never knew: that there was more than one way of doing things. The farmer thought he was the center of the world, the sailor knew he wasn’t. I think this a healthy knowledge.
The forefather of globalization. I like that -- though I think it could also apply to the Marco Polos of the world as well as the Magellans.
Laurel wrote: Avast, mates! I think there is room for all on this ship.Message in bottle: 'Slippy deck. Fell overboard. Swimming to shore.'
Read the Patrick O'Brian novels (Aubrey/Maturin) and one can certainly see the globalization opportunities afforded the mariners, and especially that of the Royal Navy at its heyday. When we stop and think about it, most of the advances that various civilizations benefited from were the result of these intrepid voyagers, and this occurred over several millenia.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex (other topics)The Loss of the Ship Essex, Sunk by a Whale (other topics)
Please be careful to identify resources which include spoilers (beyond the full text, which obviously contains spoilers for later chapters); where resources discuss the book as a whole or major aspects of it, it may be better to defer posting such resources until we are further into the discussion.