Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion - Moby Dick
>
Week 5 - through Chapter 108
Regarding the account in Ch 102 about the cub sperm, I assumed this was supposed to be from a whaling voyage after the Pequod but before Ishmael wrote his memoirs. But given the other oddities in the book, a simple blunder by Melville is at least as likely.
Personally, I felt that Stubb really showed his dark side in this series of chapters. Hitherto, we've only seen him as a humorous fellow who is fond of his creature comforts and is "unprejudiced" enough to eat whale.Then, we have the episode of the ambergris, where Stubb thinks nothing of using his charisma to charm everyone into giving him their only potentially profitable whale--and think he was doing them a favor.
When it came to Pip, I was horrified that he was so ready to prioritize money over Pip and simply let someone else pick him up--if they noticed he was there. While I am sure that the loneliness of being in the water like that would have been very traumatic, I believe that the crew's indifference to him must have been the greater part of what caused his insanity. Imagine being choked by a line and having Tashtego ask permission before cutting it and saving your life. "We can't afford to lose whales by the likes of you; a whale would sell for thirty times what you would, Pip, in Alabama." I think Stubb's handling of the situation says a lot about who he is.
To put in another word for Starbuck (who was accused in the last thread of being mercenary) I think these chapters illustrate the vast difference between pursuing the business purpose of the whaling trip and being downright mercenary.
It also says something about Tashtego, whom we don't know all that well. I can't imagine Queequeg hesitating, or even asking for permission. It wouldn't occur to him that the whale might be more valuable than the person. And I think back to Queequeg's "agile obstetrics" in saving Tashtego from drowning in a whale head. Suddenly, it occurs to me that Tashtego in that position would have let Queequeg die.
I thought Pip had suffered brain damage in his near-drowning. I imagine this episode reflects some real incident Melville witnessed, or heard of. I didn't think it was so much valuing money over life as wanting to teach Pip a lesson he wouldn't forget. And if unintended consequences were more drastic than intended--well, whaling is a hard life. Or that's the message I got.
I am rather mystified by Ch. 95, the Cassock. I read it three times and could make no sense of it; finally I went to the notes on Power Moby Dick and found out what "grandissimus" means. Now I have to wonder -- what practical purpose can this garment possible have? And if it has no practical purpose, if it's purely symbolic, what on earth does it mean?
Everyman wrote: "
One thing that confuses me. In Chapter 102, he writes”In a ship I belonged to, a small cub Sperm Whale was once bodily hoisted to the deck for his poke or bag, to make sheaths for the barbs of the harpoons, and for the heads of the lances. Think you I let that chance go, without using my boat-hatchet and jack-knife, and breaking the seal and reading all the contents of that young cub?” But I had the impression that this was his first whaling trip. Was I wrong? Or is this an error on Melville’s part? "
Like Roger, I assumed that Ishmael, at the time he's narrating the story, is now looking back on other whaling voyages he participated in after, not before, his Pequod trip. I think he told us early on that many years have passed since his Pequod trip.
One thing that confuses me. In Chapter 102, he writes”In a ship I belonged to, a small cub Sperm Whale was once bodily hoisted to the deck for his poke or bag, to make sheaths for the barbs of the harpoons, and for the heads of the lances. Think you I let that chance go, without using my boat-hatchet and jack-knife, and breaking the seal and reading all the contents of that young cub?” But I had the impression that this was his first whaling trip. Was I wrong? Or is this an error on Melville’s part? "
Like Roger, I assumed that Ishmael, at the time he's narrating the story, is now looking back on other whaling voyages he participated in after, not before, his Pequod trip. I think he told us early on that many years have passed since his Pequod trip.
M wrote: "Everyman wrote: "One thing that confuses me. In Chapter 102, he writes”In a ship I belonged to, a small cub Sperm Whale was once bodily hoisted to the deck for his poke or bag, to make sheaths for..."
That makes sense.
Everyman wrote: "One thing that confuses me. In Chapter 102, he writes”In a ship I belonged to, a small cub Sperm Whale was once bodily hoisted to the deck for his poke or bag, to make sheaths for the barbs of the harpoons, and for the heads of the lances. Think you I let that chance go, without using my boat-hatchet and jack-knife, and breaking the seal and reading all the contents of that young cub?” But I had the impression that this was his first whaling trip. Was I wrong? Or is this an error on Melville’s part? "
This chapter reads like a tall tale -- the whale skeleton coming back to life as a pagan idol is pretty spectacular. It's also a bit silly when the priests start fighting like stooges over the whale's measurements, allowing Ishmael to take his own measurements and tattoo them on his right arm, as "there was no other secure way of preserving such valuable statistics. But as I was crowded for space, and wished the other parts of my body to remain a blank page for a poem I was then composing..."
If Ishmael isn't simply unreliable as a narrator, it is safe to say he isn't altogether serious either.
Roger wrote: "Regarding the account in Ch 102 about the cub sperm, I assumed this was supposed to be from a whaling voyage after the Pequod but before Ishmael wrote his memoirs. But given the other oddities in ..."
I am with Roger and M...I think it is from a whaling trip AFTER Moby Dick but BEFoRE Ishmael wrote his memoirs.
I am with Roger and M...I think it is from a whaling trip AFTER Moby Dick but BEFoRE Ishmael wrote his memoirs.
Audrey wrote: Regarding Chapter 91 "The Pequod Meets the Rose-Bud"
At first I wasn't sure where I was going to come down on this. The two "laws" listed seemed so open to interpretation. Fast-Fish. Loose-Fish. I had first thought that since Stubbs said he recognized his marker tangled in the lines, that maybe he was trying to con the Rose-Bud out of the whale so that the crew of the Pequod wouldn't have to come to blows over it. (Ishmael having written that there were "scientific commentaries; bu the commentaires of the whalemen themselves sometimes consist in hard words and harder knocks" (412).
But come to find out, the whale with the marker that was possibly Stubbs' wasn't even the whale Stubbs wanted!
I was disheartened at the lack of integrity...the telling of blatent lies. The fact the Rose-Bud hadn't any other whales yet was, to my thinking, a non-issue. IF Stubb had a claim to the whale, then he should have done his best to acquire that whale no matter how badly the French ship might have needed a whale for themselves.
2 things. I found it interesting that Ishmael wrote of "Possession being half the law." How strange. I've always heard that possession is 9/10s of the law. Does possession seemingly count for more now than it did back then???
Melville/Ishmael had those two long paragraphs at the end of chapter 89 in which he put down possession ---as the basis of "right"---pretty hard. But then he seemed to put down Loose-Fish concepts pretty hard, as well. Unless he's saying that countries/people that can't stand up for themselves are Loose-Fish and there for the taking. Which might almost seem to justify Stubbs taking that whale away from the Rose-Bud. ???
Isn't that what that sentence means: "What to the ostentatious smuggling verbalists are the thoughts of thinkers but Loose-Fish? I had a difficult time with that paragraph, so I could be misinterpreting it.
I thought he was saying that if you don't know your own mind, know your own opinions, (know WHY you want that whale), then someone can easily come along and talk you into HIS opinions. Your thinking and your whale then belong to someone else.
??
I wonder, too, what American/French relations were at the time. Might that have played a part?
At first I wasn't sure where I was going to come down on this. The two "laws" listed seemed so open to interpretation. Fast-Fish. Loose-Fish. I had first thought that since Stubbs said he recognized his marker tangled in the lines, that maybe he was trying to con the Rose-Bud out of the whale so that the crew of the Pequod wouldn't have to come to blows over it. (Ishmael having written that there were "scientific commentaries; bu the commentaires of the whalemen themselves sometimes consist in hard words and harder knocks" (412).
But come to find out, the whale with the marker that was possibly Stubbs' wasn't even the whale Stubbs wanted!
I was disheartened at the lack of integrity...the telling of blatent lies. The fact the Rose-Bud hadn't any other whales yet was, to my thinking, a non-issue. IF Stubb had a claim to the whale, then he should have done his best to acquire that whale no matter how badly the French ship might have needed a whale for themselves.
2 things. I found it interesting that Ishmael wrote of "Possession being half the law." How strange. I've always heard that possession is 9/10s of the law. Does possession seemingly count for more now than it did back then???
Melville/Ishmael had those two long paragraphs at the end of chapter 89 in which he put down possession ---as the basis of "right"---pretty hard. But then he seemed to put down Loose-Fish concepts pretty hard, as well. Unless he's saying that countries/people that can't stand up for themselves are Loose-Fish and there for the taking. Which might almost seem to justify Stubbs taking that whale away from the Rose-Bud. ???
Isn't that what that sentence means: "What to the ostentatious smuggling verbalists are the thoughts of thinkers but Loose-Fish? I had a difficult time with that paragraph, so I could be misinterpreting it.
I thought he was saying that if you don't know your own mind, know your own opinions, (know WHY you want that whale), then someone can easily come along and talk you into HIS opinions. Your thinking and your whale then belong to someone else.
??
I wonder, too, what American/French relations were at the time. Might that have played a part?
Thomas wrote: "I am rather mystified by Ch. 95, the Cassock. I read it three times and could make no sense of it; finally I went to the notes on Power Moby Dick and found out what "grandissimus" means. Now I have..."
I was lost there, too.
I was lost there, too.
The Castaway.
Intriging chapter. That whole early part about diamonds and how they look better than they are when lit up by some unnatural gasses. It does seem that this is to say something about Pip or Stubb. But I don't know what it's saying.
I feel terrible for Pip. He's timorous by nature. To be TWICE in the water. I would be frightened beyond words.
But I can't think of anything that Stubb might have done differently or better. Stubb, to his credit, had kept a close eye on Pip on that first boat ride and afterwards "exhort him to cherish his courageousness to the utmost, for he might often find it needful" (429).
And in this chapter I really admired Tashtego. I was so proud of him. Because even though Tashtego hated Pip, and even though Tashtego was "full of the fire of the hunt," nevertheless, he stood right up, and grabbed that knife and was ready to cut that line. So, really, he's going against 2 of his natural inclinations: to hate Pip and let him die; to continue on the hunt and let Pip die. But no, Tashtego is already READY to cut that line. And he's not the person to make the decision. Chain of command. It's not Tashtego's decision to make.
Stubb, and I can understand that he HATES to have to say cut, yet, Stubb, too, does the right thing. "Damn him, cut!" roared Stubb; and so the whale was lost and Pip was saved. (Even from Ishmael's point of view, it seems to me, since the whale was mentioned first, the most important aspect of this was that the whale was lost.)
And AGAIN Stubb gives Pip good advice. "Stick to the boat." What more could the man do? And he WARNS Pip that they won't stop for him a 2nd time. And the whale IS worth a fortune more than Pip. I don't believe that for any other man, not just Pip, would Stubb have stopped the hunt a 2nd time.
And that 2nd time, Pip's life wasn't in danger. No lines were going to drown him. I would have made the same decision. chase the whale. And Stubb thought the other boats would pick Pip up.
But if words hold power, then Stubb had damned Pip. "Damn him, cut."
I have to think that I would have done the same as Stubb in that situation. People back home are depending on the Pequod to bring home whale oil. Whaling is dangerous, money must be made, and Pip was seemingly in no great danger. I can't fault Stubb here.
Intriging chapter. That whole early part about diamonds and how they look better than they are when lit up by some unnatural gasses. It does seem that this is to say something about Pip or Stubb. But I don't know what it's saying.
I feel terrible for Pip. He's timorous by nature. To be TWICE in the water. I would be frightened beyond words.
But I can't think of anything that Stubb might have done differently or better. Stubb, to his credit, had kept a close eye on Pip on that first boat ride and afterwards "exhort him to cherish his courageousness to the utmost, for he might often find it needful" (429).
And in this chapter I really admired Tashtego. I was so proud of him. Because even though Tashtego hated Pip, and even though Tashtego was "full of the fire of the hunt," nevertheless, he stood right up, and grabbed that knife and was ready to cut that line. So, really, he's going against 2 of his natural inclinations: to hate Pip and let him die; to continue on the hunt and let Pip die. But no, Tashtego is already READY to cut that line. And he's not the person to make the decision. Chain of command. It's not Tashtego's decision to make.
Stubb, and I can understand that he HATES to have to say cut, yet, Stubb, too, does the right thing. "Damn him, cut!" roared Stubb; and so the whale was lost and Pip was saved. (Even from Ishmael's point of view, it seems to me, since the whale was mentioned first, the most important aspect of this was that the whale was lost.)
And AGAIN Stubb gives Pip good advice. "Stick to the boat." What more could the man do? And he WARNS Pip that they won't stop for him a 2nd time. And the whale IS worth a fortune more than Pip. I don't believe that for any other man, not just Pip, would Stubb have stopped the hunt a 2nd time.
And that 2nd time, Pip's life wasn't in danger. No lines were going to drown him. I would have made the same decision. chase the whale. And Stubb thought the other boats would pick Pip up.
But if words hold power, then Stubb had damned Pip. "Damn him, cut."
I have to think that I would have done the same as Stubb in that situation. People back home are depending on the Pequod to bring home whale oil. Whaling is dangerous, money must be made, and Pip was seemingly in no great danger. I can't fault Stubb here.
Chapter 99, "The Doubloon"
Great chapter. On meaning and interpretation. "And some certain significance lurks in all things, else all things are little worth, and the round world itself but an empty ciper, except to sell by the cartload..." (446).
The opening of the chapter made me think about how it's true in our own lives. We use symbols or artifacts to remind of us of what's important in our lives. We may wear a cross to remind of us to keep our religious principles in mind; we may stop 5 times a day to turn to Mecca and pray; we may keep a photo of our child on our desktop or in our purse or loaded in our phone...to remind us of what's important to us.
Ahab here does the same. Every day he sees that doubloon. And Ahab's interpretation was so great. It was SO all about Ahab. And I loved that line: "which like a magician's glass, to each and every man but mirrors back his own mysterious self." "From storm to storm!" Ahab acknowledges he has woe, but he's channeling towards a goal, making it work for him'
And, lol, because we see what we want to see or what we've already determined we're going to see, I see Starbuck even more diminished in my sight as I see him inspecting the doubloon.
Because, to me, Starbuck still appears as one not willing or able to speak up for what he believes. "...murmured Starbuck to himself" And what good does the truth do, if Starbuck knows the truth, if he only tells it to himself? I think it then only makes him feel self-righteous good about himself. But it does no good that I can see for the rest of the ship. Or am I missing something? And again, and yes, it's me seeing what I've already determined about Starbuck, he can't stand up for what he believes: "leaning against the bulwarks."
And also, he's a follower. It took Ahab a long time before he marched over there and inspected that coin and interpreted it. But he WAS the first. The rest were all followers of Ahab.
And that last sentence of Starbuck's gave me pause. I don't quite understand it. "I will quit it, lest Truth shake me falsely."
That's Truth with a capital "T." Why would Starbuck choose to quit Truth?
It was a most interesting chapter to read.
And who, I wonder, is "the green miser" that Pip refers to?
Great chapter. On meaning and interpretation. "And some certain significance lurks in all things, else all things are little worth, and the round world itself but an empty ciper, except to sell by the cartload..." (446).
The opening of the chapter made me think about how it's true in our own lives. We use symbols or artifacts to remind of us of what's important in our lives. We may wear a cross to remind of us to keep our religious principles in mind; we may stop 5 times a day to turn to Mecca and pray; we may keep a photo of our child on our desktop or in our purse or loaded in our phone...to remind us of what's important to us.
Ahab here does the same. Every day he sees that doubloon. And Ahab's interpretation was so great. It was SO all about Ahab. And I loved that line: "which like a magician's glass, to each and every man but mirrors back his own mysterious self." "From storm to storm!" Ahab acknowledges he has woe, but he's channeling towards a goal, making it work for him'
And, lol, because we see what we want to see or what we've already determined we're going to see, I see Starbuck even more diminished in my sight as I see him inspecting the doubloon.
Because, to me, Starbuck still appears as one not willing or able to speak up for what he believes. "...murmured Starbuck to himself" And what good does the truth do, if Starbuck knows the truth, if he only tells it to himself? I think it then only makes him feel self-righteous good about himself. But it does no good that I can see for the rest of the ship. Or am I missing something? And again, and yes, it's me seeing what I've already determined about Starbuck, he can't stand up for what he believes: "leaning against the bulwarks."
And also, he's a follower. It took Ahab a long time before he marched over there and inspected that coin and interpreted it. But he WAS the first. The rest were all followers of Ahab.
And that last sentence of Starbuck's gave me pause. I don't quite understand it. "I will quit it, lest Truth shake me falsely."
That's Truth with a capital "T." Why would Starbuck choose to quit Truth?
It was a most interesting chapter to read.
And who, I wonder, is "the green miser" that Pip refers to?
Chapter 100, "Leg and Arm"
Just laugh out loud funny!
I did laugh out loud at that first exchange:
Ahab: Have you seen the White Whale?
Capt of other boat: See this? (Look, ma, no arm.)
Ahab: Man my boat!
Just laugh out loud funny!
I did laugh out loud at that first exchange:
Ahab: Have you seen the White Whale?
Capt of other boat: See this? (Look, ma, no arm.)
Ahab: Man my boat!
Adelle wrote: "I have to think that I would have done the same as Stubb in that situation. People back home are depending on the Pequod to bring home whale oil. Whaling is dangerous, money must be made, and Pip was seemingly in no great danger. I can't fault Stubb here."
I can see the same decision needing to be made in wartime. I'm not so sure I like it in a commercial situation. (Sometimes a whole mine is shut down for days or weeks to save one or a few miners trapped underground. Is this a similar situation? Should we say, forget those miners, let them fend for themselves, keeping digging coal is the important thing?)
Adelle wrote: "Chapter 100, "Leg and Arm"Just laugh out loud funny!"
I also found it LOL. One wonders whether Moby Dick found the arm and leg palatable, or spit them out?
I also tend to see Stub's behavior in that light, Everyman. After all, what Stubb is really saying is that making money is more important than his fellow crew-members. I cannot give credence to the idea that Stubb is motivated by any consideration for people back home, because I do not think he feels any loyalty to the investors or anybody else. There has never yet been an instance when Stubb has chosen the greater good over his own good, and I believe that he is motivated purely by a desire to make the most of his lay. Melville/Ishmael is not in the habit of spelling things out for us, but, in my opinion, he makes his feelings on this point extremely clear: "Hereby perhaps Stubb indirectly hinted that though man loves his fellow, yet man is a money-making animal, which propensity too often interferes with his benevolence."
And, at the end of the chapter,
"For the rest, blame not Stubb too hardly. The thing is common in that fishery..."
I can't help but see that as sarcastic.
And then there's the fact that he chooses to have Pip permanently scarred by the experience.
As to Tashtego's following the chain of command, I think that it is very revealing of his personality that he felt the need to observe the chain of command at all in this instance. I think most of us will agree that, in emergencies, it is sometimes necessary to act quickly, without going through the usual channels. Queequeg, for instance, felt no need to ask permission before dealing with the boom which knocked his heckler off the boat in Chapter 13. Normally, you would not mess with anything on a boat which you weren't employed on, and you certainly wouldn't do it without asking permission. But it was an emergency, and Queequeg didn't stand there and ask the captain for permission. He dealt with the problem. I would have expected Tashtego to react in the same way to Pip's near-asphyxiation. This isn't like the second instance, where Pip's life seemed in no immediate danger. This was a very clear choice between money and a human life. Not only did Tashtego feel the need to ask which was more valuable, he was presumably willing to let Pip die in the name of money if his commander told him to do so.
I was very much struck by the contrast between the two captains in "Leg and Arm." I should preface this by saying that, whatever we of this forum think of Ahab's quest for Moby Dick, I am firmly convinced that Melville is morally against it. I think he has made this extremely clear in previous chapters. And I think that he is putting forward the captain of the Samuel Enderby as a model for how a person SHOULD respond to such catastrophes:"He's welcome to the arm he has, since I can't help it, and didn't know him then; but not to another one."
There's something almost Stoic about the English captain.
Chapter 108: Ahab and the CarpenterThe carpenter in this chapter reminded me of the stock-character fool often seen in plays. Though Ishmael insists, in the previous chapter, that "his brain, if he had ever had one, must have early oozed along into the muscles of his fingers," he is very acute in an anti-intellectual, common-sense sort of way. I particularly enjoyed his description of Captain Ahab as "his old Mogulship."
Audrey wrote: "I was very much struck by the contrast between the two captains in "Leg and Arm." ... I think that he is putting forward the captain of the Samuel Enderby as a model for how a person SHOULD respond to such catastrophes:"He's welcome to the arm he has, since I can't help it, and didn't know him then; but not to another one."
"
Would anyone ever say a whale was "welcome" to an arm? That doesn't ring true to me, stoic or otherwise.
I'm interested in your view that Melville disapproves of Ahab's quest and puts forth Enderby as an example of how one ought to respond to losing a limb to a whale. I'm not so sure that Melville disapproves of Ahab's quest. He certainly does see it as quixotic, and also I think thinks that it's cheating the owners of the ship (though Ahab does hunt sperm oil while looking for MD), but I am rather seeing Melville's position as an uncle who sees h is nephew committed to some crazy adventure -- walking across darkest Africa, for example, but also secretly somewhat admires his dedication to the impractical and almost crazy adventure. I have a sneaking suspicion that Melville likes and maybe even admires Ahab, certainly more than Starbuck, who is practical and solid but has no zing to excite the admiration, and maybe even more than Ishmael, though I'm not sure about that.
Post 16 Everyman wrote: "
I can see the same decision needing to be made in wartime. I'm not so sure I like it in a commercial situation. (Sometimes a whole mine is shut down for days or weeks to save one or a few miners trapped underground. Is this a similar situation? Should we say, forget those miners, let them fend for themselves, keeping digging coal is the important thing?)
be ..."
Everyman, you worded that so diplomatically.
I don't quite see the men-trapped-in-a-mine example as a workable comparison. If the mine is shut down, whether for a day, a week, or a month, the coal isn't going to run away. The income from the coal will be put on hold for a time, but the value of the coal will still be there, and there will still be the CERTAINTY that the coal will still be there. There is no certainty that the Pequod will find another whale. That whale might make all the difference between a successful voyage and an unsuccessful voyage.
[Edit added] from chapter 87, "But sperm whales are not every day encountered; while you may, then, you must kill all you can" (402).
Stubbs must instantly weigh leaving Pip behind (and in the belief that Pip's life is not at stake and that another boat will pick him up) against the livihoods of all the men on board and the shareholders back home. Stubbs is 2nd mate, obviously aware of the financial aspects of the voyage, and, according to Ishmael, a "momentous" man (133).
Further considerations:
The decision to abandon or not abandon the whale must be made immediately. The decision to shut down or not shut down the mine can be thought about/logically weighed/discussed with others.
The decision to abandon or not abandon the whale is made at sea. There is no where else for the men to find gainful employment once they are at sea ('though they could in dire circumstances, mutiny). The men who work in mines, but aren't caught in the cave-in, could refuse to work, or they could leave and try to find other employment.
Also, in the mining towns, the families would be there, bring pressure on the mine owners, perhaps talking to the press, generating bad publicity if no concern is shown for the miners. No such restraints would be there on the Pequod.
Also, (view spoiler)
I can see the same decision needing to be made in wartime. I'm not so sure I like it in a commercial situation. (Sometimes a whole mine is shut down for days or weeks to save one or a few miners trapped underground. Is this a similar situation? Should we say, forget those miners, let them fend for themselves, keeping digging coal is the important thing?)
be ..."
Everyman, you worded that so diplomatically.
I don't quite see the men-trapped-in-a-mine example as a workable comparison. If the mine is shut down, whether for a day, a week, or a month, the coal isn't going to run away. The income from the coal will be put on hold for a time, but the value of the coal will still be there, and there will still be the CERTAINTY that the coal will still be there. There is no certainty that the Pequod will find another whale. That whale might make all the difference between a successful voyage and an unsuccessful voyage.
[Edit added] from chapter 87, "But sperm whales are not every day encountered; while you may, then, you must kill all you can" (402).
Stubbs must instantly weigh leaving Pip behind (and in the belief that Pip's life is not at stake and that another boat will pick him up) against the livihoods of all the men on board and the shareholders back home. Stubbs is 2nd mate, obviously aware of the financial aspects of the voyage, and, according to Ishmael, a "momentous" man (133).
Further considerations:
The decision to abandon or not abandon the whale must be made immediately. The decision to shut down or not shut down the mine can be thought about/logically weighed/discussed with others.
The decision to abandon or not abandon the whale is made at sea. There is no where else for the men to find gainful employment once they are at sea ('though they could in dire circumstances, mutiny). The men who work in mines, but aren't caught in the cave-in, could refuse to work, or they could leave and try to find other employment.
Also, in the mining towns, the families would be there, bring pressure on the mine owners, perhaps talking to the press, generating bad publicity if no concern is shown for the miners. No such restraints would be there on the Pequod.
Also, (view spoiler)
Post 17Audrey wrote: "Melville/Ishmael is not in the habit of spelling things out for us, but, in my opinion, he makes his feelings on this point extremely clear:
"Hereby perhaps Stubb indirectly hinted that though man loves his fellow, yet man is a money-making animal, which propensity too often interferes with his benevolence."
And, at the end of the chapter,
"For the rest, blame not Stubb too hardly. The thing is common in that fishery.." I can't help but see that as sarcastic.
Oh, we so delightfully disagree! Truly, a book open to different readings!
I, too, thought that Melville/Ishmael was making himself clear. But I did not take the quote about man's propensity to love money to be directed towards Stubbs. I only saw Stubbs as indirectly being used as a handy example to make a point about ALL men.
And for myself, I read the 2nd quote, not as sarcastic, but as philosophical: don't blame Stubbs overmuch, that's just how men in the fishery business are (and the implied extension: that's how ALL people pretty much are...it's human nature).
Oh, it's like the doubloon, don't you think? We each studying the markings (we read the words), and we each come away with a different interpretation. Stubbs would find it, I think, jolly fun.
Edit: But really, Stubbs didn't CHOOSE to have Pip scarred. I think that rather unfair to say. That was just the consequence of Stubbs' decision to continue the chase. Very seldom do we know in advance what the consequences of our actions are going to be. And in Stubbs' defence, HE thought the consequences would be negliable...that another boat would pick Pip up.
"Hereby perhaps Stubb indirectly hinted that though man loves his fellow, yet man is a money-making animal, which propensity too often interferes with his benevolence."
And, at the end of the chapter,
"For the rest, blame not Stubb too hardly. The thing is common in that fishery.." I can't help but see that as sarcastic.
Oh, we so delightfully disagree! Truly, a book open to different readings!
I, too, thought that Melville/Ishmael was making himself clear. But I did not take the quote about man's propensity to love money to be directed towards Stubbs. I only saw Stubbs as indirectly being used as a handy example to make a point about ALL men.
And for myself, I read the 2nd quote, not as sarcastic, but as philosophical: don't blame Stubbs overmuch, that's just how men in the fishery business are (and the implied extension: that's how ALL people pretty much are...it's human nature).
Oh, it's like the doubloon, don't you think? We each studying the markings (we read the words), and we each come away with a different interpretation. Stubbs would find it, I think, jolly fun.
Edit: But really, Stubbs didn't CHOOSE to have Pip scarred. I think that rather unfair to say. That was just the consequence of Stubbs' decision to continue the chase. Very seldom do we know in advance what the consequences of our actions are going to be. And in Stubbs' defence, HE thought the consequences would be negliable...that another boat would pick Pip up.
Post 17 Audrey wrote: I think most of us will agree that, in emergencies, it is sometimes necessary to act quickly, without going through the usual channels. As to Tashtego's following the chain of command, I think that it is very revealing of his personality that he felt the need to observe the chain of command at all in this instance.Queequeg, for instance, felt no need to ask permission before dealing with the boom which knocked his heckler off the boat in Chapter 13. Normally, you would not mess with anything on a boat which you weren't employed on, and you certainly wouldn't do it without asking permission. But it was an emergency, and Queequeg didn't stand there and ask the captain for permission. He dealt with the problem. I would have expected Tashtego to react in the same way to Pip's near-asphyxiation. This isn't like the second instance, where Pip's life seemed in no immediate danger. This was a very clear choice between money and a human life. Not only did Tashtego feel the need to ask which was more valuable, he was presumably willing to let Pip die in the name of money if his commander told him to do so.
I see this so very differently.
I think most of us will agree that, in emergencies, it is sometimes necessary to act quickly, without going through the usual channels.
In reading the characters, I think it's legitimate to try to put ourselves in their places, and think, "If I were in their place, would I do the same?" But I don't really think that we can try to put them (the characters) into OUR place, we can't think, "I would have done thus and thus, therefore they should have done thus and thus."
As to Tashtego's following the chain of command, I think that it is very revealing of his personality that he felt the need to observe the chain of command at all in this instance.
In this particular instance, if I try to put myself in Tashtego's place, then I have to remember that I'm not in any way equal to Stubbs. Stubbs is in command above me. My JOB, almost by definition, is to do whatever he orders me to do. Also, Stubbs is a white man. Although the crew is very diverse, only white men are in positions of power. If I'm Tashtego-the-Indian, and I cut that rope without Stubbs' express order, and I lose tons of money for the Pequod, I KNOW that I'm going to be flogged and probably dimissed. If I'm Tashtego the Indian, and there are potentially a hundred barrels of oil at stake there are NO emergencies that I decide on my own.
Queequeg, for instance, felt no need to ask permission before dealing with the boom which knocked his heckler off the boat in Chapter 13. Normally, you would not mess with anything on a boat which you weren't employed on, and you certainly wouldn't do it without asking permission. But it was an emergency, and Queequeg didn't stand there and ask the captain for permission. He dealt with the problem.
I can't see the parallel with the boom in chapter 13. Am I missing something? It's true that Queegueg doesn't ask for permission....but then, his jumping to action doesn't come with any negative cost to the ship or the ship's crew. In fact, his actions are beneficial to the ship and the crew. And, in the long run, it's in Queegueg's interest to do so, as it makes the men on the ship like him.
Regarding PipThis was a very clear choice between money and a human life.
But I think, perhaps, that's one of the points that Melville is making. That there is no very clear choice between money and a human life. That there are almost always complications. And, that we almost always choose the money over the human life.
If I were to consistently to buy coffee that is clearly marked that it has been picked by people making a living wage, then I would be choosing human life over money. But I will confess, I buy the coffee that is on sale---and I try not to think about the dismal poverty that that choice brings to coffee pickers.
If I were to consistently buy clothing that is clearly labeled "made in the USA" then I would be fairly sure that the people who were making that clothing were being paid at least minimum wage and that they were working in fairly decent conditions. Then I would be choosing human life over money. But I always consider the price when I buy clothing. I only have so much money. And so, my clothes are probably made by people making very, very little money, living in terrible conditions, possibly made by children. But I buy based on priced and I try not to think about what it costs the people who produce it.
I know that lots of products that I buy are produced overseas under unsafe/unhealthy conditions...probably conditions so unsafe that there will be birth defects...and the air in China is so poluted that the sky is hardly ever blue...and that can't be healthy...and if the producers felt they could charge more for the products, then maybe the products could be produced under safer conditions. But me and almost everyone else wants to buy stuff inexpensively. We are every day chosing money [ours] over human life [someone elses].
People back then wanted oil and they wanted it affordable. And they didn't particularly care about what it cost the whalers at sea. Especially if the people didn't have to know about it.
It sure seems to me that Melville is making this point. People almost invariablly will choose to save their own money over saving someone else's life...if the people involved aren't right in front of us. Melville puts them right in front of us and forces us to realize there are costs and complications to everything.
I see this so very differently.
I think most of us will agree that, in emergencies, it is sometimes necessary to act quickly, without going through the usual channels.
In reading the characters, I think it's legitimate to try to put ourselves in their places, and think, "If I were in their place, would I do the same?" But I don't really think that we can try to put them (the characters) into OUR place, we can't think, "I would have done thus and thus, therefore they should have done thus and thus."
As to Tashtego's following the chain of command, I think that it is very revealing of his personality that he felt the need to observe the chain of command at all in this instance.
In this particular instance, if I try to put myself in Tashtego's place, then I have to remember that I'm not in any way equal to Stubbs. Stubbs is in command above me. My JOB, almost by definition, is to do whatever he orders me to do. Also, Stubbs is a white man. Although the crew is very diverse, only white men are in positions of power. If I'm Tashtego-the-Indian, and I cut that rope without Stubbs' express order, and I lose tons of money for the Pequod, I KNOW that I'm going to be flogged and probably dimissed. If I'm Tashtego the Indian, and there are potentially a hundred barrels of oil at stake there are NO emergencies that I decide on my own.
Queequeg, for instance, felt no need to ask permission before dealing with the boom which knocked his heckler off the boat in Chapter 13. Normally, you would not mess with anything on a boat which you weren't employed on, and you certainly wouldn't do it without asking permission. But it was an emergency, and Queequeg didn't stand there and ask the captain for permission. He dealt with the problem.
I can't see the parallel with the boom in chapter 13. Am I missing something? It's true that Queegueg doesn't ask for permission....but then, his jumping to action doesn't come with any negative cost to the ship or the ship's crew. In fact, his actions are beneficial to the ship and the crew. And, in the long run, it's in Queegueg's interest to do so, as it makes the men on the ship like him.
Regarding PipThis was a very clear choice between money and a human life.
But I think, perhaps, that's one of the points that Melville is making. That there is no very clear choice between money and a human life. That there are almost always complications. And, that we almost always choose the money over the human life.
If I were to consistently to buy coffee that is clearly marked that it has been picked by people making a living wage, then I would be choosing human life over money. But I will confess, I buy the coffee that is on sale---and I try not to think about the dismal poverty that that choice brings to coffee pickers.
If I were to consistently buy clothing that is clearly labeled "made in the USA" then I would be fairly sure that the people who were making that clothing were being paid at least minimum wage and that they were working in fairly decent conditions. Then I would be choosing human life over money. But I always consider the price when I buy clothing. I only have so much money. And so, my clothes are probably made by people making very, very little money, living in terrible conditions, possibly made by children. But I buy based on priced and I try not to think about what it costs the people who produce it.
I know that lots of products that I buy are produced overseas under unsafe/unhealthy conditions...probably conditions so unsafe that there will be birth defects...and the air in China is so poluted that the sky is hardly ever blue...and that can't be healthy...and if the producers felt they could charge more for the products, then maybe the products could be produced under safer conditions. But me and almost everyone else wants to buy stuff inexpensively. We are every day chosing money [ours] over human life [someone elses].
People back then wanted oil and they wanted it affordable. And they didn't particularly care about what it cost the whalers at sea. Especially if the people didn't have to know about it.
It sure seems to me that Melville is making this point. People almost invariablly will choose to save their own money over saving someone else's life...if the people involved aren't right in front of us. Melville puts them right in front of us and forces us to realize there are costs and complications to everything.
chapter 88 and 89
I found these sad chapters to read. Ishmael writes of the "all-grasping western world" and the tribute-demanding pirates of the orient. Man wants money. Man kills whales to get money.
And then, barely do I have time to be happy for the crew of the Pequod for their having found a bunch of whales, before Ishmael then makes me aware, very aware, of what whales are: whales are thinking creatures {like men}---that knowing they're being hunted, they've changed their behavior; whales are mammals {like men} with babies born and attached to their mothers by umbilical cords [like men}; whales try to protect the members of their herds or families {like men}
which made me think again from the whales' perspective. Earlier, Ishmael made me ever so aware of the whales' physical feelings...panic...pain. Now, he's made me aware that whales very, very probably have emotional feelings, as well.
"
what mixed feelings Melville must have had. Admiring whales. Working on whalers. The thrill of the chase. The realization that these creatures are much like us. Choosing money over the lives of whales. Because he needed money to maintain life for himself, for his family if he had one at that time. "gripe your oars, and clutch your souls, now!" (407)
How complicated life is.
I found these sad chapters to read. Ishmael writes of the "all-grasping western world" and the tribute-demanding pirates of the orient. Man wants money. Man kills whales to get money.
And then, barely do I have time to be happy for the crew of the Pequod for their having found a bunch of whales, before Ishmael then makes me aware, very aware, of what whales are: whales are thinking creatures {like men}---that knowing they're being hunted, they've changed their behavior; whales are mammals {like men} with babies born and attached to their mothers by umbilical cords [like men}; whales try to protect the members of their herds or families {like men}
which made me think again from the whales' perspective. Earlier, Ishmael made me ever so aware of the whales' physical feelings...panic...pain. Now, he's made me aware that whales very, very probably have emotional feelings, as well.
"
what mixed feelings Melville must have had. Admiring whales. Working on whalers. The thrill of the chase. The realization that these creatures are much like us. Choosing money over the lives of whales. Because he needed money to maintain life for himself, for his family if he had one at that time. "gripe your oars, and clutch your souls, now!" (407)
How complicated life is.
chapter 107, "The Carpenter"
I couldn't help but see the carpenter as a reference to Jesus. And of course I'm reading with an eye towards religious considerations.
Jesus was a carpenter.
Ishmael writes that most men are duplicates; but "the Pequod's carpenter was no duplicate.
The sea-voyage is a symbol for our voyage through life. Ishmael writes that all sea-going vessels need a carpenter. (From a Christian perspective, we need Jesus, "the carpenter")
I considered the play on words regarding the vice-bench. The men would come to him with problems [a pin too large, etc]/ (the men who came to him had vices); and the carpenter would try to correct.
the carpenter had "a certain impersonal stolidity" which "shaded off into the surrounding infinite of things, that it seemed one with the general stolidty discernible in the whole visible world...eternally holds its peace..and ignores you, though you dig foundations for cathedrals"
as though he "might have served to pass the time during the midnight watch on the bearded forecastle of Noah's ark"
He was a stripped abstract; an unfractioned integral; uncompromised as a new-born babe
If anyone has an unfractioned integral soul, it would be Jesus.
there was a "strange uncompromisedness in him"
"he did not have a common soul in him"
yes, quirkiness also.
I couldn't help but see the carpenter as a reference to Jesus. And of course I'm reading with an eye towards religious considerations.
Jesus was a carpenter.
Ishmael writes that most men are duplicates; but "the Pequod's carpenter was no duplicate.
The sea-voyage is a symbol for our voyage through life. Ishmael writes that all sea-going vessels need a carpenter. (From a Christian perspective, we need Jesus, "the carpenter")
I considered the play on words regarding the vice-bench. The men would come to him with problems [a pin too large, etc]/ (the men who came to him had vices); and the carpenter would try to correct.
the carpenter had "a certain impersonal stolidity" which "shaded off into the surrounding infinite of things, that it seemed one with the general stolidty discernible in the whole visible world...eternally holds its peace..and ignores you, though you dig foundations for cathedrals"
as though he "might have served to pass the time during the midnight watch on the bearded forecastle of Noah's ark"
He was a stripped abstract; an unfractioned integral; uncompromised as a new-born babe
If anyone has an unfractioned integral soul, it would be Jesus.
there was a "strange uncompromisedness in him"
"he did not have a common soul in him"
yes, quirkiness also.
chapter 108, Ahab and the Carpenter
"Carpenter standing before his vice-bench"
"and by the light of two lanterns" (no where else have there been 2 lanterns. Who would have more light than Jesus?)
Ahab calls the carpenter "manmaker"
I wondered, too, about the exchange between Ahab and the carpenter:
"The fellow's impious! What art thou sneezing about?"V
"Bone is rather dusty, sir"
"Take the hint, then; and when thou art dead, never bury thyself under living people's noses."
This gave me pause because normal human beings can't bury themselves after they have died...they can only have themselves buried. So if one has died and one still has the power to bury oneself "under living people's noses"...then one almost has to be alive
(since Melville seeminly rejected religion/or struggled with it/or both, I thought this might have been Melville "telling" Jesus not to bother him)
"Canst thou not drive that old Adam away?" --- very much a question Jesus would be asking.
The carpenter had two chapters, and I didn't see much point to the chapters in view of advancing the plot, so I looked from a different angle.
"Carpenter standing before his vice-bench"
"and by the light of two lanterns" (no where else have there been 2 lanterns. Who would have more light than Jesus?)
Ahab calls the carpenter "manmaker"
I wondered, too, about the exchange between Ahab and the carpenter:
"The fellow's impious! What art thou sneezing about?"V
"Bone is rather dusty, sir"
"Take the hint, then; and when thou art dead, never bury thyself under living people's noses."
This gave me pause because normal human beings can't bury themselves after they have died...they can only have themselves buried. So if one has died and one still has the power to bury oneself "under living people's noses"...then one almost has to be alive
(since Melville seeminly rejected religion/or struggled with it/or both, I thought this might have been Melville "telling" Jesus not to bother him)
"Canst thou not drive that old Adam away?" --- very much a question Jesus would be asking.
The carpenter had two chapters, and I didn't see much point to the chapters in view of advancing the plot, so I looked from a different angle.
Adelle wrote: "I am with Roger and M...I think it is from a whaling trip AFTER Moby Dick but BEFoRE Ishmael wrote his memoirs. "Ibid. It's clear from other chapters (like the tale of the town-ho) that Ishmael has plenty of other whaling adventures between the Pequod and the memoir.
Melville admires Ahab kind of like Milton admired Satan.
While I didn't do the Paradise Lost read, I think I agree with that. I think Melville sympathizes a great deal with Ahab, and that he is very much intrigued by Ahab. But I think that, in the end, Melville believes Ahab's quest to be ill-advised and possibly blasphemous. I gather this from the many bad omens, references to blasphemy, and insinuations on the subject of Ahab's pride that Melville has employed so far:He names Ahab after a "wicked" (Captain Peleg's word) king--and I can't help but wonder if Moby Dick is analogous in some way to Jezebel.
He's described as an "ungodly, godlike man"--an intriguing title very fitting for Ahab, but not one that most people would apply to a model man.
The contrast between Ahab and Father Mapple's repentant Jonah is striking.
Father Mapple: "And eternal delight and delicious-ness will be his, who coming to lay him down, can say...I have striven to be Thine, more than to be this world's, OR MINE OWN [emphasis mine]." Ahab definitely strives to be his own.
Elijah's cryptic comment about souls at the beginning of Chapter 19
Chapter 36, Ahab: "That inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate; and be the white whale agent, or be the white whale principal, I will wreak that hate upon him. Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me." This quote encompasses two sentiments generally condemned in religion and literature: action out of blind hatred and blasphemy.
The ritual described in Chapter 36 has been compared by a different forum member (I can't remember who) to an anti-eucharist.
Immediately after this rite, there is a terrific storm, which would seem to show heaven's disapproval of Ahab's intention.
Fedallah, who seems tied to Ahab's quest, is repeatedly compared to the devil.
Gabriel, in The Jeroboam's Story, insists that Moby Dick is "the Shaker God incarnated" and shouts to Ahab: "Think, think of the blasphemer--dead, and down there!--beware of the blasphemer's end!"
The first mate of the Jeroboam died after ignoring this same warning from Gabriel.
As Ishmael points out a few pages into The Jeroboam's Story, "the crazy sea seemed leagued with him [Gabriel]" throughout their conversation.
In Ahab and the Carpenter: "Here I am, proud as a Greek god, and yet standing debtor to this blockhead for a bone to stand on! Cursed be that mortal inter-indebtedness which will not do away with ledgers." It's a very telling quote, in terms of showing Ahab's essential pride, as well as his frustration with the fact that he is not above the ordinary problems of mortality. He even goes so far as to compare himself to Greek gods.
I should add that I am not a religious person. I do not believe in omens or any of the rest of it. But Melville makes such frequent use of omens and Christian theology that I think he means both to be taken seriously in this story.
Adelle, I don't think our opinions are as widely variant as all that. I don't think Melville is answering the question definitively. I think he's trying to force people to think about the question more seriously than they normally do. He could easily have chosen to let Pip escape unscathed. Instead, he chose to scar Pip for life, and he must have had a reason for that. I think he did it to bring up the question of "When is money more important than safety?" He doesn't want people to be able to brush it off, because Stubb's a pleasant, jovial guy and can't be blamed for wanting to make some money. I don't think he's saying that you can't, in the end, come down on Stubb's side of the question, just that there's a dark side to it, whether intentional or not.
Adelle wrote: "In reading the characters, I think it's legitimate to try to put ourselves in their places, and think, "If I were in their place, would I do the same?" But I don't really think that we can try to put them (the characters) into OUR place, we can't think, "I would have done thus and thus, therefore they should have done thus and thus.""
That's a very interesting distinction.
Adelle wrote: "cThe carpenter had two chapters, and I didn't see much point to the chapters in view of advancing the plot, so I looked from a different angle. "And I think you're right that there is a relationship between Jesus and the carpenter. But also, a major difference -- the carpenter heals Ahab's body, but not, I think, his soul, does he?
Pip and Ahab are alike in a strange way -- both are positioned against the forces of nature, both are victims of it, and both are driven mad by their injuries. It doesn't seem right that Pip is in the boat again, after jumping the first time; and it doesn't seem right that Ahab is Captain again, absurdly testing fate in his pursuit of Moby Dick. The difference between them is one of intelligence and power, but they seem to share a similar stupidity.
Post 29 Audrey wrote: "While I didn't do the Paradise Lost read, I think I agree with that. I think Melville sympathizes a great deal with Ahab, and that he is very much intrigued by Ahab. But I think that, in the end,..."
VERY nice job building support for your point of view. That quote of Ahab's: "Here I am, proud as a Greek god" was especially powerful. That's a lot of pride. And brings to mind Greek tragedy. Which is always tragic tragedy. Nice.
I, too, see Melville as "very much intrigued by Ahab." My favorite character. Can't say more as I finished the book and have been influenced.
VERY nice job building support for your point of view. That quote of Ahab's: "Here I am, proud as a Greek god" was especially powerful. That's a lot of pride. And brings to mind Greek tragedy. Which is always tragic tragedy. Nice.
I, too, see Melville as "very much intrigued by Ahab." My favorite character. Can't say more as I finished the book and have been influenced.
Post 30 Audrey wrote: "Adelle, I don't think our opinions are as widely variant as all that. I don't think Melville is answering the question definitively. I think he's trying to force people to think about the questio..."
That's so odd to read, because it does seem to me that our opinions are rather far apart. I agree with you on that core sentence, an excellent point, "I think he's trying to force people to think about the question more seriously than they normally do."
However I don't share your reading of Stubb. I never cut Stubb any slack due to his pleasant personality. (In fact, that was one of the aspects of Stubb that I didn't care for. It put me off.)
The dark side... yes, I can see that. There was a dark side that resulted from Stubb's decision. I think, though, that Melville presented the decision as totally justified. I can't help but believe that had Stubb decided the other way, to go back for Pip, that there would have been an equally dark side to that decision.
There ARE no simple, uncomplicated, clear-cut choices in life.
That's so odd to read, because it does seem to me that our opinions are rather far apart. I agree with you on that core sentence, an excellent point, "I think he's trying to force people to think about the question more seriously than they normally do."
However I don't share your reading of Stubb. I never cut Stubb any slack due to his pleasant personality. (In fact, that was one of the aspects of Stubb that I didn't care for. It put me off.)
The dark side... yes, I can see that. There was a dark side that resulted from Stubb's decision. I think, though, that Melville presented the decision as totally justified. I can't help but believe that had Stubb decided the other way, to go back for Pip, that there would have been an equally dark side to that decision.
There ARE no simple, uncomplicated, clear-cut choices in life.
Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "In reading the characters, I think it's legitimate to try to put ourselves in their places, and think, "If I were in their place, would I do the same?" But I don't really think that ..."
Well....when I wrote it it made sense to me. lol.
OK, here's the deal, if I can word it clearly In reading the characters, I think it's legitimate to try to put ourselves in their places, and think, "If I were in their place [with THIER background, THEIR sensibilities, THEIR cultural world view], would I do the same?"
I'm giving more power to us as readers because we're living, sentient beings, and I'm ascribing to us readers a truly wonderful capacity for fairness: I'm thinking that we can try to put ourselves into the characters' place(s) because we will fairly try to leave our modern culturalizations...we will say to ourselves, well, I have to try look at blacks, or women, or social relationships like people back then would look at them...I must be careful not to think in modern day terms...I must carefully keep in mind that I mustn't think that blacks or women or social decisions should be considered as they are in modern times.
And in reading the characters, I don't really think that we can try to put them (the characters) into OUR place [a place with OUR backgrounds, OUR modern sensibilites, OUR curtural world view], we can't think, "I would have done thus and thus, therefore they should have done thus and thus."
And here I'm looking at the characters as being ... merely characters... they only have the background that the author has given them... they're so very limited...so non-flexible in who they are... they simple "are" as the author has written them... So, it seems to me, that they don't have the capacity to even consider making decisions as we would in today's times... It wouldn't be fair to the characters to expect them to modern day social sensibilities. It would be unreasonable for me to say to myself, I would have done x, y, or z...because that's what a decent human being nowadays "should" do, therefore that character should do x, y, or z.
Well....when I wrote it it made sense to me. lol.
OK, here's the deal, if I can word it clearly In reading the characters, I think it's legitimate to try to put ourselves in their places, and think, "If I were in their place [with THIER background, THEIR sensibilities, THEIR cultural world view], would I do the same?"
I'm giving more power to us as readers because we're living, sentient beings, and I'm ascribing to us readers a truly wonderful capacity for fairness: I'm thinking that we can try to put ourselves into the characters' place(s) because we will fairly try to leave our modern culturalizations...we will say to ourselves, well, I have to try look at blacks, or women, or social relationships like people back then would look at them...I must be careful not to think in modern day terms...I must carefully keep in mind that I mustn't think that blacks or women or social decisions should be considered as they are in modern times.
And in reading the characters, I don't really think that we can try to put them (the characters) into OUR place [a place with OUR backgrounds, OUR modern sensibilites, OUR curtural world view], we can't think, "I would have done thus and thus, therefore they should have done thus and thus."
And here I'm looking at the characters as being ... merely characters... they only have the background that the author has given them... they're so very limited...so non-flexible in who they are... they simple "are" as the author has written them... So, it seems to me, that they don't have the capacity to even consider making decisions as we would in today's times... It wouldn't be fair to the characters to expect them to modern day social sensibilities. It would be unreasonable for me to say to myself, I would have done x, y, or z...because that's what a decent human being nowadays "should" do, therefore that character should do x, y, or z.
Adelle wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "In reading the characters, I think it's legitimate to try to put ourselves in their places, and think, "If I were in their place, would I do the same?" But I don't r..."Very well put
Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "The carpenter had two chapters, ..."
! Nope, the carpenter didn't help Ahab with his soul. Nice leg replacement? Yes. Conversation that might have nudged Ahab to re-examine the state of his soul? Nope.
Must re-examine my suppositioning in those chapters...or come up with a different interpretation.
! Nope, the carpenter didn't help Ahab with his soul. Nice leg replacement? Yes. Conversation that might have nudged Ahab to re-examine the state of his soul? Nope.
Must re-examine my suppositioning in those chapters...or come up with a different interpretation.
Vikz wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "In reading the characters, I think it's legitimate to try to put ourselves in their places, and think, "If I were in their place, would I do the same?..."
Smile. Oh, good. Because, you know, I've found that it's not always easy to get what's in my head...and which seems to make sense there... well, to then put those thoughts into words that make sense to someone else... Tricksie.
Thanks.
Smile. Oh, good. Because, you know, I've found that it's not always easy to get what's in my head...and which seems to make sense there... well, to then put those thoughts into words that make sense to someone else... Tricksie.
Thanks.
Susanna wrote: "Ch. 105 Does the Whale's Magnitude Diminish?—Will he Perish?Melville gets it wrong here. He is too optimistic about the effect of whale hunting on the numbers of whales. Although whales are not..."
Melville is talking of a different sort of whaling, or at least I think he is. His whaling, while I'm not justifying it, gives the whale the upper hand. In fact, given the difficulties that he outlines, I'm amazed that any whales were caught. Today, the odds are definitely with the massive, highly scientific, metal whaling ships. There's no way out for the whale and more are caught. That's why the numbers are going down.
Adelle wrote: "EAnd in reading the characters, I don't really think that we can try to put them (the characters) into OUR place [a place with OUR backgrounds, OUR modern sensibilites, OUR curtural world view], we can't think, "I would have done thus and thus, therefore they should have done thus and thus."And here I'm looking at the characters as being ... merely characters... they only have the background that the author has given them... they're so very limited...so non-flexible in who they are... they simple "are" as the author has written them..."
Ah. I see.
That's one way of looking at characters in books. But I like a somewhat different way -- to look at them as people of whom the author has only captured a limited picture, and one which may not be totally fair to the character, but with "reality" beyond what the the limited amount the author tells us.
Think for a moment of this situation -- you are about to take on a new job, and a person who has worked there for a year is telling you about the boss you'll be working for. You only get a limited amount of information, and that conveyed by one person. But there is much, much more about that boss than you're learning, and the co-worker may have a distorted picture of the boss that you won't agree with when you meet her. I see characters in books more in that light. I like to ask, for example, how did Lady Macbeth get to be the kind of person she is? What clues has Shakespeare given us? What king of mother would she have been? How will Lizzie and Darcy get along ten years from now? Would Odysseus have been content to say home with Penelope and die quietly with her, or would he, as Tennyson posits in his wonderful poem Ulysses, have felt the need to go off again and seek new adventures?
In one sense, yes, the characters are creations of the author and have no existence beyond the pages of the book. But in another sense, successful characters do, I believe, have a life beyond the book, that we are permitted to fill in (we do this all the time, don't we, when we try to analyze Ahab in terms beyond the strict words that Melville has given us?). To this extent, I think it's not unfair, though it's all speculative, to ask what, for a wild example, Ahab would have been like if he had been the captain of one of the crabbing vessels featured on the show The Deadliest Catch.
Ha! I've never even seen The Deadliest Catch, but I suddenly DID try to imagine Ahab in charge there. Sadness...because I really, really like Ahab. And I would have to suppose that OSHA and ACLU and PETA and I don't know what all other acronyms would have been there with lawyers and the media before the close of Ahab's first day!
(towards post 42) Possibly too far off topic
Lizzie and Darcy, ten years out, they 'll be getting along GREAT!
(view spoiler)
Lizzie and Darcy, ten years out, they 'll be getting along GREAT!
(view spoiler)
When is money more important than safety?..."
When you need money; (or when you love the work so much that you weigh that love higher than the risks involved; or when you are running away from something...and therefore weigh the risks of disregarding safety as a risk worth taking)
I was thinking this morning back to the early section of Moby Dick. Chapter 7, "The Chapel"
"In this same New Bedford there stands a Whaleman's Chapel, and few are the moody fishermen, shortly bound for the Indian Ocean or Pacific, who fail to make a Sunday visit to the spot" (50).
And then the tablets with black borders. "age 18, lost overboard," etc.
Every man knew before boarding a whaling ship that he was putting his life on the line---many, if not most of them, because they needed the money. It was a risk they apparently felt they had to take.
The miners are in the mines because they apparently need the money.
If we hold that men have free will, then they are in those dangerous situations of their own choice...knowing the risks.
I don't mean here to disregard the lives of men...when possible...taking into both the consideration of men lives AND the consideration of the need for money and the consideration of how great the danger might be, when possible the effort should be made to save the men.
But consider, if the men are signing on as sailors, knowing the risks, because they need the money; we must consider, too, that the men representing the corporation [in this case Stubb] ALSO are there for money. And they are representing more lives than that of a single man.
Miners owners, too, they're not going to operate mines if it's a money losing concern. Those men won't have jobs if the mines are closed.
So both aspects, lives and money, must be considered.
Many, many products could be made safer. But consumers wouldn't pay the cost. It's not worth it to them. If cars were built costing twice as much, or three times as much, or four times as much, I do believe that those cars would have more safety aspects built in...but people are not willing to pay that much ... even for safely ... car consumers, too, have to find a balance between safety and money.
{When my daughter was born we moved to an apartment complex that wasn't in a particularly "safe" neighborhood...but we didn't have the money to live in a neighborhood with more "safety.")
When you need money; (or when you love the work so much that you weigh that love higher than the risks involved; or when you are running away from something...and therefore weigh the risks of disregarding safety as a risk worth taking)
I was thinking this morning back to the early section of Moby Dick. Chapter 7, "The Chapel"
"In this same New Bedford there stands a Whaleman's Chapel, and few are the moody fishermen, shortly bound for the Indian Ocean or Pacific, who fail to make a Sunday visit to the spot" (50).
And then the tablets with black borders. "age 18, lost overboard," etc.
Every man knew before boarding a whaling ship that he was putting his life on the line---many, if not most of them, because they needed the money. It was a risk they apparently felt they had to take.
The miners are in the mines because they apparently need the money.
If we hold that men have free will, then they are in those dangerous situations of their own choice...knowing the risks.
I don't mean here to disregard the lives of men...when possible...taking into both the consideration of men lives AND the consideration of the need for money and the consideration of how great the danger might be, when possible the effort should be made to save the men.
But consider, if the men are signing on as sailors, knowing the risks, because they need the money; we must consider, too, that the men representing the corporation [in this case Stubb] ALSO are there for money. And they are representing more lives than that of a single man.
Miners owners, too, they're not going to operate mines if it's a money losing concern. Those men won't have jobs if the mines are closed.
So both aspects, lives and money, must be considered.
Many, many products could be made safer. But consumers wouldn't pay the cost. It's not worth it to them. If cars were built costing twice as much, or three times as much, or four times as much, I do believe that those cars would have more safety aspects built in...but people are not willing to pay that much ... even for safely ... car consumers, too, have to find a balance between safety and money.
{When my daughter was born we moved to an apartment complex that wasn't in a particularly "safe" neighborhood...but we didn't have the money to live in a neighborhood with more "safety.")
On the subject of fast fish and loose fish, I stumbled across this today at work...The sedentary nature of clams and oysters has resulted in statutory and case law that departs from the general rule that an animal found in the wild is owned by no person until it is reduced to possession; this divergence is rooted in the perception that the fixed habitation of clams when imbedded in the soil makes them, in a very material sense, belong with the land.
Washington State Geoduck Harvest Ass'n v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Res., 101 P.3d 891 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)
I just love those quirky little side bits. Thanks for posting that!
Adelle wrote: "Post 17Audrey wrote: "Melville/Ishmael is not in the habit of spelling things out for us, but, in my opinion, he makes his feelings on this point extremely clear: "Hereby perhaps Stubb indirect..."
This particular part of the novel makes it clear just how dangerous whaling was, the experienced whalers already knew it and Ahab certainly knew it, but to the readers today and even in Melville's time it becomes very clear.
Thomas wrote: "On the subject of fast fish and loose fish, I stumbled across this today at work...The sedentary nature of clams and oysters has resulted in statutory and case law that departs from the general..."
Interesting find, Thomas, the "sedentary nature of clams and oysters" - for some reason that made me chuckle.
Evalyn wrote: "Interesting find, Thomas, the "sedentary nature of clams and oysters" - for some reason that made me chuckle. "And yet up here in the Pacific Northwest, where clams and oysters are grown and harvested, people have been shot for trying to steal oysters from somebody else's beds. I used to represent an oyster farm, and to get the right to grow on certain tidelands is a complex and expensive process, and you don't want somebody else coming in and poaching your crop!
But soon enough we get back to the business of whaling with the discussions of ambergris and spermaceti (no, I am not going to make any connection between spermaceti and the title of the chapter, A Squeeze of the Hand, though I suspect that the all male crew on the years long voyage did engage in certain activities not approved of by Victorians).
As a lawyer, I appreciated Ishmael’s discussion of the problems of enforcing voluntary legal codes at sea and the strange (to us) fishing laws of England, as well as the fact that Stubb had to persuade the captain of the Rose-Bud to release the whale before he can harvest the ambergris.
What do folks think of the incident with Pip?
Those who have been looking at the theological aspects of MD might comment on what, if any, particular meaning they give to the statement in Chapter 97 that the interior of the whale ship is illuminated like a shrine, the whalemen perpetually living in light.
And then how much philosophy there is, in Chapter 100, in the passage "No, thank ye, Bunger," said the English Captain, "he's welcome to the arm he has, since I can't help it, and didn't know him then; but not to another one. No more White Whales for me; I've lowered for him once, and that has satisfied me. There would be great glory in killing him, I know that; and there is a ship-load of precious sperm in him, but, hark ye, he's best let alone; don't you think so, Captain?"—glancing at the ivory leg.
"He is. But he will still be hunted, for all that. What is best let alone, that accursed thing is not always what least allures. He's all a magnet!
One thing that confuses me. In Chapter 102, he writes”In a ship I belonged to, a small cub Sperm Whale was once bodily hoisted to the deck for his poke or bag, to make sheaths for the barbs of the harpoons, and for the heads of the lances. Think you I let that chance go, without using my boat-hatchet and jack-knife, and breaking the seal and reading all the contents of that young cub?” But I had the impression that this was his first whaling trip. Was I wrong? Or is this an error on Melville’s part?
Onward to death or glory!