Moby Dick--the book as a whole

[Audrey]

I really think Melville leaves his view of God fairly ambiguous in Moby Dick. There's certainly plenty of evidence of very Christian, Calvanist ideas in it--besides the fact that you need look no farther than Starbuck's asides and soliloquies to find overtly Christian, and, in my opinion, fairly astute, interpretations of events. At the same time, Melville makes plenty of jibes at Christianity and treats Queequeg's religion (at least in my opinion) with respect. So I can also see the case for the book as arguing against organized religion and orthodoxy. Of course, this is not the same thing as arguing against religion itself.

My opinion is that Melville is using nature in the novel as a kind of personification (for lack of a better word) of the power of God. Nature is an active force in the book. It is the medium used to communicate the many omens of doom present in the book. Whether Melville conceived of God in a traditional Judeo-Christian way I can't say. I wouldn't really be surprised either way.

I'm not sure I would personally go this far, but I think there is certainly a case to be made for Moby Dick being, in fact, a symbol of God and Ahab's desire to kill him symbolic of Ahab's unwillingness to accept divine power and his own powerlessness and ignorance in comparison to it.

However, I think it is also possible to see nature in the book as being just nature, and not symbolic of the divine. I wouldn't say this is a misreading, because Melville doesn't really make it clear whether or not God exists in the context of the novel. I think he's got conflicting views on religion, and so does the book.

[[deleted user]]

I do not think that I said (and I hope I did not imply) that this novel is necessarily pro-Calvinist. But something that those who lump authors by category, and those who do not consider the author's life or historical context, is that this novel is intensely concerned with God, specifically Western Christianity (and Calvinism in particular). That is nothing to say of Melville's point, but that it has something to do with God. The natural aspects of Moby-Dick are undeniable and work on many levels of meaning (the point of an allegory, after all), one of which is certainly the religious level. The novel is immensely complex and highly unconventional (as Everyman has pointed out), and therefore it is difficult to say, without a thorough exegesis, what Melville is saying about culture, Nature, religion, the West, Man himself, God, Calvinism, &c, &c, &c.

[Thomas]

Audrey wrote: "So I can also see the case for the book as arguing against organized religion and orthodoxy. Of course, this is not the same thing as arguing against religion itself.

My opinion is that Melville is using nature in the novel as a kind of personification (for lack of a better word) of the power of God."

An excellent analysis, Audrey, which I agree with in almost every way. The only difficulty I have is with Moby Dick cast as God -- a personification of a god, I can accept, but a symbol of God in the Judaeo-Christian sense, no. (If I'm reading you correctly you don't necessarily buy this either.)

The primary problem I have is with the malice of Moby Dick and how this is to be interpreted theologically. I don't see how it can be, unless the theology is that of the "merry May-day gods of old," who were in fact not always so merry. In an ancient Greek sense the whale is a perfect god, and maybe this is how Moby should be interpreted, as Poseidon wreaking vengeance on Odysseus.

I think Kazin is right when he says that Melville speaks "for the whirlwind, for the watery waste, for the sharks," but his reference to a covenant seems to me completely out of place. (A great essay by the way -- thanks, Laurele.) But in the end I think the novel has much more to say about humanity and our connection to the natural world than it does about God.

[Roger]

On multiculturalism: Melville has a predecessor in James Fennimore Copper, whose Leatherstocking novels have American Indian characters deeply and symnpathetically portrayes, as mu or more so than Queequeg.

[Everyman]

Roger wrote: "On multiculturalism: Melville has a predecessor in James Fennimore Copper, whose Leatherstocking novels have American Indian characters deeply and symnpathetically portrayes, as mu or more so than..."

Well, yes, he has a few "good" Indians, but his overall approach to the Native American populations is almost wholly negative (and most of his good Indians are outcasts from their tribes and are perhaps more akin to Uncle Tom characters.) So while you're right about his having a few sympathetically portrayed Indians, I'm not sure I would take him as a good example of multiculturalism.

Melville seems to me to be a much more "legitimate" multiculturalist, since he doesn't demean the groups from which he takes his characters.

[Laurel]

Thomas wrote: "Audrey wrote: "So I can also see the case for the book as arguing against organized religion and orthodoxy. Of course, this is not the same thing as arguing against religion itself.

My opinion is ..."

To me, Moby Dick the whale is a symbol of the absence of God, just as his whiteness is the absence of color. In Ahab's mixed-up mind, he is attacking his own conjecture that there is no God, or that God does not care, and that has driven him into the depths and the crew with him. But that's just my idea of the moment.

[Roger]

Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "On multiculturalism: Melville has a predecessor in James Fennimore Copper, whose Leatherstocking novels have American Indian characters deeply and symnpathetically portrayes, as mu o..."

Well, maybe we need to put The Deerslayer on the reading list, because my impression was totally opposite. Cooper certainly portrays Indians realistically, including their occasional savagery, but Cooper's hero Natty Bumppo was raised by them and always accepts them on their own terms. Chingachgook and Uncas are certainly as noble a pair of savages as you'll ever meet in literature.

[Everyman]

Roger wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "On multiculturalism: Melville has a predecessor in James Fennimore Copper, whose Leatherstocking novels have American Indian characters deeply and symnpathetically p..."

We're getting a bit off topic, but we're close to the end of the MD discussion, so I'll just cite for you Twain's comment on Cooper's writing:

http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/pro...

[Roger]

I would like to read Twain's comments on Melville!

[Thomas]

Laurele wrote: "To me, Moby Dick the whale is a symbol of the absence of God, just as his whiteness is the absence of color. In Ahab's mixed-up mind, he is attacking his own conjecture that there is no God, or that God does not care, and that has driven him into the depths and the crew with him. But that's just my idea of the moment.
"

I agree with this, but I go a step further. It's not just God, it's human limitation in general that Ahab is attacking. Ahab believes there is nothing above him. The implication is that he is absolutely free and that he is his own man; he defines himself however he chooses, and his choice is to defy the power that is Moby Dick. (I think Moby can symbolize God, or Nature, or nature personified, or whatever it is that delimits us as human beings.) But in his quest to be a god without limitations, he shows that the limitations are precisely what make us human. In the process he loses his humanity.

What is astonishing to me is that Ahab is fully cognizant of this. He knows in that final scene with Pip that the sacrifice he is about to make is love. He throws love away in the same way he throws away his pipe and smashes the quadrant, because love is yet another limitation. What is so sad about this is that our limitations are what define us as human beings, and we need them to exist at all. But Ahab throws it all away.

I know this is all a bit vague and existential, but I am reminded of this quote, which might help. I hope.

My freedom will be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles. Whatever diminishes constraint diminishes strength. The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one's self of the chains that shackle the spirit.

--Igor Stravinsky, The Poetics of Music

[Everyman]

Any final thoughts on Moby Dick before we move on?

For myself, I'm glad we voted the book in. I have never managed to finish it before, and probably never would have if we hadn't voted it in here. I'm still not sure I appreciated the amount of whaling information provided, though I think I understand why Melville put it in, but the overall story line, the philosophical comments, and particularly Ahab's almost Shakespearean soliloquies, were all very enjoyable. If I ever revisit the book, I'll focus on them and figure that I remember enough of the whale details to skip those chapters!

Another thought that struck me is that this book should not be studied in high school. I don't think that any but the most extraordinary high school students would find the value in the book, and the shale chapters would not appeal to any but the very few.

If I believed in abridged versions of books I would think this would be an appropriate one to abridge for a high school readership, but I don't believe in them.

Finally, my thanks to Laurel for spending time during a very difficult and busy period for her to moderate the discussion and provide all the excellent background information and commentaries.

[[deleted user]]

Everyman wrote: "Any final thoughts on Moby Dick before we move on?
"

Heck, no! I'll probably have a liitle part of me thinking about Ahab and Moby Dick now for the rest of my life.


I found it a remarkable read, and, like you, I probably wouldn't have engaged with the book as much as I did had it not been for the ... engaging ...participation of everyone here.

Thanks to all who voted for the book and all those who contribued and to the moderators.

[Rosemary]

I can't have final thoughts- I'll still be thinking about it for a while to come! This has been one of my favorites since joining the group. I'm so glad we read it.

[Everyman]

Well, Adelle and Rosemary, you have just explained clearly why Moby Dick can truly be considered a great book.

But while you continue thinking about it, don't neglect starting to think about Boethius!

[Rosemary]

I've already finished Book I of Boethius! When do we start? ;-) (I know the answer to that question . . . you can ignore it!)

[[deleted user]]

Everyman wrote: "Well, Adelle and Rosemary, you have just explained clearly why Moby Dick can truly be considered a great book.

But while you continue thinking about it, don't neglect starting to think about B..."

I shall have to pass. This summer is to be jam packed with relatives. I counted myself fortunate to get MD completely read, partially contemplated, and somewhat discussed.

But I shall peek in now and again this summer as time allows.

[Everyman]

S. Rosemary wrote: "I've already finished Book I of Boethius! "

So have I, but I feel the need to read it a few more times. There's a lot there!

[[deleted user]]

Long ago, before the voyage, we were discussing the sections that begin the book.

This blog
http://evidenceanecdotal.blogspot.com...

introduces the fascinating possibly that "“The pale Usher--threadbare in coat, heart, body, and brain; I see him now. He was ever dusting his old lexicons and grammars, with a queer handkerchief, mockingly embellished with all the gay flags of all the known nations of the world. He loved to dust his old grammars; it somehow mildly reminded him of his mortality.”..... is Charles Lamb.

[Laurel]

Great find, Zeke!

Zeke wrote: "Long ago, before the voyage, we were discussing the sections that begin the book.

This blog
http://evidenceanecdotal.blogspot.com...

introduces the..."

[Everyman]

Zeke wrote: "Long ago, before the voyage, we were discussing the sections that begin the book.

This blog
http://evidenceanecdotal.blogspot.com...

introduces the..."

Ah, my beloved Lamb. I can certainly understand Melville loving him. Though I wasn't aware of his proclivity for late night drink!

[Lily]

Came across this tonight (11/15/2020) from the NY Library: https://www.nypl.org/blog/2015/11/13/...

Not sure why I am finding most quickly this board's 2011 read rather than our more recent one, but anyway I'm tacking this tidbit here. Feel free to add it elsewhere, like the tea room, or the read David led that finally got me through the whole thing!