Moby-Dick discussion
This topic is about
Moby-Dick or, The Whale
Weekly Discussions (Moby-Dick)
>
Week One: Chapters 1 -11
Jennifer wrote: "Donald wrote: "Petra, no luck with Queequeg's boots!"Rats!! This particular scene, while highly entertaining with the visual I managed to create in my brain, is really, really getting the better of my curiosity and I have no good answer to satisfy. :D
..."
Rats is right! I do like NE's thoughts on this. Melville seems to like to poke fun at conventions. I forgot to consider Melville's love of inserting a laugh.
Jennifer, I agree with your thoughts on not getting too mired in analyses. The story is so much fun and I'd hate to lose that sense.
Petra wrote: "Rats is right! I do like NE's thoughts on this. Melville seems to like to poke fun at conventions. I forgot to consider Melville's love of inserting a laugh..."NE is likely absolutely correct in his thinking on this, I agree. I would have loved something even more outrageous than this! I may have to 'Balderdash' an explanation, just to see how inventive I can get with it?? Hahaha.
Petra:I agree with your remarks about getting bogged down with analysis. But here's the great thing about MB, you
can either go deep and try to plumb the great depths
of this novel or you can treat it as just a Tall Fish tale. Either way the reader won't be disappointed.
So far, I've got:~ Roaring case of Whaler's Foot that is too gross to be seen by any human eye. Ever!
~ An extreme case of extra-digits-itis and Queequeg has 11 toes on each foot.
~ An extreme case of no-digits-itis and Queequeg's toes are all fused together into one giant toe.
~ An embarrassment of syndactyly.
In all cases, Queequeg felt the need to hide the peculiarity.
No toes might be the answer Jennifer, or missing some.
Donald wrote: "Jennifer: Although my book didn't list any "symbolic" meaning for the boots, NewEngland's explanation above ismost certainly the correct meaning."
Whoa! Most certainly? Mine is just a guess... a harpoon cast into the phosphorescent spray over midnight waves.
Meaning? I was just winging it there. But thank you for your support, Donald, et al. It's been a long time since my literary musings have brought me any (positive) attention.
Newengland wrote: "It's been a long time since my literary musings have brought me any (positive) attention."Awww!!! NE ~ you always offer great insights! Shall we offer more sucking up? Would that help?? :D
Donald wrote: "Fins!"
HA!! Ishmael was a mer-man! (Hence the syndactyly)
Donald wrote: "Petra:I agree with your remarks about getting bogged down with analysis. But here's the great thing about MB, you
can either go deep and try to plumb the great depths
of this novel or you can tr..."
Sorry but is this an attack? I'm not the only one to mention getting bogged down and yet I'm being singled out? I may be reading this message wrong but I feel it says that perhaps I'm not able to plumb the depths of this book.
I apologize if I'm reading more into this remark than is meant.
Jennifer: If you enjoy (over)analysis on MB, I recentlypicked up a book made to order: "The Game of Creation" by Viola Sachs. It deals with Melville's use of numerology, Kaballah, Black magic, etc. I'm a third of the way through and it's really fascinating. Probably
not something you'd find at your friendly County Public
library, you'd probably need to go to a College library to get it.
Jennifer wrote: "Newengland wrote: "It's been a long time since my literary musings have brought me any (positive) attention."Awww!!! NE ~ you always offer great insights! Shall we offer more sucking up? Would th..."
Sucking up is always gratefully accepted. And Ishmael is not related to Ethel Merman last I checked, though it makes a nice match: "Call me Ishmael" and "Call Me Madam."
Donald wrote: "Jennifer: If you enjoy (over)analysis on MB, I recently picked up a book made to order: "The Game of Creation" by Viola Sachs. It deals with Melville's use of numerology, Kaballah, Black magic, etc..."Thank you for the recommendation, Donald; it sounds fascinating. I am in the camp of just going wherever Melville is taking me, though. While I enjoy thinking about the different facets of his storytelling, some of the (over)analysis is definitely bogging me down and making me feel like I am back in a lecture hall. :D
(My feelings might change once I have finished the story but, for now and at this stage in the read, sometimes too much is too much.)
Or something.
:D
Newengland wrote: "Sucking up is always gratefully accepted. And Ishmael is not related to Ethel Merman last I checked, though it makes a nice match: "Call me Ishmael" and "Call Me Madam."Hahaha! Mer-man v. Merman. Quick!
Note to self: suck up more to NE and tell him how great he is more frequently.
Petra: No attack, no foul, no harmful intent intended! I was actually agreeing with you that yes, sometimes there is unnecessary over analysis. What I was saying, and forgive me if I was unclear, is that a great classic supports both deep analysis and straightforward reading. You have a choice. "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood..." or as Yogi Berra said, "I came to a fork in the road and I took it!"
Donald, thank you for the explanation. Language can be so ambiguous at times. I agree that a good classic can be read on many, many levels. I suppost that this is one of the characteristics that makes them stories that hold up to the test of time.
Jennifer wrote: "Sue wrote: "I like this Jennifer."Thanks, Sue. It could really be that simple, I think."
I think it possibly could be this simple as well :)
Sue makes a good point. It's a yarn spinner's opening, but it has its power from the suggestion of a connection between the narrator of the novel and the figure in the Bible, which gives it weight, Jennifer's "this is important." I don't think it's a particularly exact connection -- as I said, I see both souls as dislocated, denied what their birth promised (which was true of Melville) -- but it's suggestive.If the novel began, "Call me Herman" it would not have the same power.
Sue Grafton's first mystery begin with "My name is Kinsey Milhone..." Doesn't work either.
_____
The book is not only one exaggerated diction and high style, it is a mix of literary forms. I liked this summary:
“The book that will not pass up the chance also to do an Elizabethan soliloquy, and also a Calvinist sermon, and also a parody of a legal brief, and also an experimental operatic ensemble number (as in “Midnight,Forecastle”) is a work strong in the sense of he whole, unfractioned power of literary utterance – a work that glories in the recognition, behind the separate generic forms that define an constrain it, of what all writing can express or do.” -- Richard Brodhead, introduction in New Essays on Moby-Dick
Legal brief to the side, the theatricality to my mind is front and center – opera is theater and so is sermonizing from the pulpit. Melville often thinks in terms of theater. I half expected to find Melville was an actor at some point.
“And, doubtless, my going on this whaling voyage, formed part of the grand programme of Providence that was drawn up a long time ago. It came in as those stage managers, the Fates, put me down for this shabby part of a whaling voyage, when others were set down for magnificent parts in high tragedies, and short and easy parts in genteel comedies, and jolly parts in farces – though I cannot tell why this was exactly, yet, now that I recall all the circumstances, I think I can see a little into the springs and motives which being cunningly presented to me under various disguises, induced me to set about performing the part I did, besides cajoling me into the delusion that it was a choice resulting from my own unbiased freewill and discriminating judgment.”
I also think the question of "unbiased freewill" -- whatever that means, exactly -- is a suggestion of musings to come.
LauraT wrote: "By the way, I have a vague remembrance of something I had to study for my reading of Moby Dick in University, saying that the expression "Call me Ishmael" instead of "My name is Ishmael" or "I'm Ishmael" had a deep meaning...."I'm not sure what they said in your course, but, as an aspiring writer who's been paying attention to such things lateley, that first sentence said a LOT to me.
"Call me Ishmael" rather than "I'm called Ishmael" is assertive. Its a warning that the narrator is not passive and feels that he is in control. And also it connotes that Ishmael may not be his real name... perhaps we have an unreliable narrator, he may not always tell us the gospel truth. And it very deftly claims knowledge of the bible but also claims an outcast status.
Not bad for three words!
Authors pride themselves on their first sentences. This one probably was the result of untold thought.
I wonder if HM also recalled that it was the Ishmaelites who carried Joseph off into bondage in Egypt where he had to labor for a long spell before emerging a rich and powerful man... perhaps a sly warning that this was going to be a long read but unltimately a worthwhile one?
Finally, it struck me that it was first person POV (point of view) a form that has been much criticized lately as being the mark of the novice writer due to its similarity to journal writing. I'll have to remember to mention this book the next time I hear THAT particular jibe.
I think I've had it with the first three words. :-)But when you say "Authors pride themselves on their first sentences. This one probably was the result of untold thought."
Or not. It's as likely that's what he began with. Creative process is entirely different from critical process. Some sentences come naturally. Some are labored over.
A lot of great literature has been written in the first person.
David Copperfield
Moby-Dick
Jane Eyre
Huckleberry Finn
A Farewell to Arms
The Great Gatsby
Lolita
The Cather in the Rye
For many novices the first person point of view is more comfortable, but it has major limitations (for example, if your narrator didn't see it, you can't talk about it and that can be a problem) and is not always the best choice for a particular story.
Bill wrote: "Because I don't think the problem of reliability is really any different from what we encounter in real life. ..."I've heard it said that we should never let the truth stand in the way of a good story... but I've also herad it put that "That's the Truth, no matter what the Facts are"
I was raised a "church twice a week Methodist" and recall hearing a lot of the parables that Jesus told. It's only been in later years that I've questioned whether there actually was a Samaritan or widow with her mite. The Truth of these stories was NOT whether or not they actually happened but what the story illustrated.
While the bibilical strict interepretationists would damn me as a born again heretic and say that I'm calling Jesus a liar, I think that Jesus was
just assuming the role of storyteller to illustrate his point.
Just as Melville does here by assuming the role of the unreliable narrator, thereby asking us to consider what we read and judge for ourselves as to what truth it contains.
Isn't that what a writer does? He writes the story and leaves it up to the reader, as to which direction the reader wants to go. The writer can direct to a certain extent , but ultimately it is the understanding of that reader as to what is truth , narrator etc. according to their personal experience .
As to Queequeg's boots... or the fact that he dons them and his beaver hat and parades around the room in nothing else...I'm reminded of the story about how porno actors in the earliest adult films would always have their feet covered. Apparently some laws had been written that considered it "unseemly" if an actor's feet were uncovered. Since the laws didn't mention any other states of undress... Hence the weird black socks in early porn... and the expression about "knock your socks off".
And as to the beaver hat... It was the height of fashion when this book was written. I recall a story of when Lincoln came to Manhattan for the first time (a few year later than in our story) One of the first things he does is buy a new silk top hat to replace his old beaver one (as they'd gone out of fashion by then).
Stephen,I do not think Melville's Ishmael is an unreliable narrator. He's a narrator. Period.
An unreliable narrator in fiction is simply a narrator who reveals information about a fictional universe which turns out not to be true. Point to a case where that's the case with Ishmael, but keep it to chapters I-XI.
In the fictional universe of the Good Samaritan, if it were much, much longer, and it turned out the Samaritan didn't in fact help the man, then Jesus would be an unreliable narrator.
But that's not the case. Whether Jesus invented the story to make a point or actually in fact knew about a Samaritan is not usually what we mean by unreliable narrator in literature. The point is, it's never challenged in the narrative itself.
Similarly, the narrator in Genesis is not "unreliable" because the Big Bang theory is a more reasonable estimate of what happened way back then. It questions whether the account in the Bible is literally true or false. Similarly, if later in Genesis it turned out God didn't create the Heaven and the Earth, then narrator would be unreliable.
Of course, a third person omniscient narrator is reliable in principle, and third person omniscient is how the Bible is written - pun unavoidable. It's a character who's a narrator who can be unreliable.
Marlow in "Heart of Darkness" could be unreliable, but he's not. I would argue the "Knight-at-Arms" in Keats short poem, "La Belle Dame Sans Merci" is not reliable when he says "And sure in language strange she said/"I love thee true." I think the rest of poem strongly suggests that ain't what she said.
An excellent example of an unreliable narrator is "You Know Me, Al" by Ring Lardner, Jr. in which by the way the information is presented we always understand the letter writer is clearing trying to present things in a favorable light, where the truth is somewhat different.
Bill wrote: "I do not think Melville's Ishmael is an unreliable narrator. He's a narrator. Period..."OK I concede that I didn't use the term in it's conventional literary sense. I guess that I was just trying to indicate that, at least to some degree what follows is a "fish story."
BTW.. I love Melville's imagery but am glad to see that he's not above resorting to alliteration, particularly for comic effect. "...dowers to their daughters and portion off their nieces with a few porpoises a-piece."
Stephen: Thanks for the interesting remarks about Q's socks and Hat. Will have to take your word for it about early porn. It's nice to know the origin of a phrase I use occasionally.As to unreliable narrators - I enjoy reading stories
with such narrators. It gives the story an extra
character. (I don't consider the 3rd person omniscient narrator a character although that is certainly arguable.) As with any form, in the hands of an inexperienced or poor writer, things can go awry. So far, Ishmael is NOT an unreliable narrator.
Another bit of trivia... While in the church Ishmael reflects on the saying that deadmen tell no tales and yet adds that they contain more secrets than the Goodwin Sands. I was unfamiliar with the Goodwin Sands and it was NOT among the notes in my annotated text so I looked it up. It's a very famous navigation hazard in the English Channel and was littered with the wrecked hulks of ships for much of history. It was even referred to in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice as the place where one of Antonio's ships ran aground.
Wonder if that's another example of HM's trying to be bardy... er bawdy.. err..
Moby-Dick is a story, but I don't know in what sense it's a "fish story." I think its cumulative power is that it's highly realistic, even gruesome. And the ending was based on/influenced by Owen Chase's account of the Essex -- and that influence was no secret.I do think Melville is playing with mythmaking, that is, a telling a story with profound resonance. and mixing Bible stories, Shakespeare, sea stories, scientific accounts, Owen Chase's account of the Essex, gritty realism and anything to create the myth and the resonance, while at the same time undercutting it. The book is quite modern in that regard. For example, he is attracted by nobility of Queequeg while still seeing a certain absurdity in his portable god. And this continues.
I think the first 11 chapters anticipate this, but it takes a good deal longer to appreciate what I think Melville is up to.
Melville loved Shakespeare, it's apparent throughout the book, and some of the later scenes as presented as Elizabethan soliloquies and some of his language is a prose version of Shakespearean diction.
All books can be read on more level than one, this one in particular is "tantamous" of this complexity!Always remembering my long ago studies, unother bit of this novel that was considered highly important was the precher on top of the Church, and Jona's Story... Someone wants to comment on this?
I don't have a theory, I don't know how the Jonah theme will play out. Chapter 83 addresses Jonah again in a very different way, but I don't know that will help.I do know that Melville likes to talk about all stories of whales, studies of whales, experiences with whales -- on the way to making a whale a kind of mega-symbol -- even if he's not sure of what.
The scene in the chapel is a wonderful bit of theater, a tour de force, both moving and ironic, which is not always easy to pull off.
But I'm not sure what else to say about it.
One of the things I've always wondered about... In the biblical story of Jonah, they talk of a great fish and it's been translated as whale. (In the King James version at least) While whales were well known in England would the desert peoples around the Holy Land have ever seen or heard of a whale?It may be a foolish question, but then I've been told the only truly foolish question is the one you should have asked but didn't.
I have been thinking about the first line of the book. It is powerful. We have bandied about many theories, so here is mine. Writer's are like Gods . They are the creator of their novels. In the main religious books God calls forth the prophets by name. So; Melville is the creator and he is calling forth his prophet Ismael to tell the story of the White Whale and Ismael is answering , I am in command , I Am Ismael at your service.
And to talk about something which serious is not at all; not only Jonah was swallowed by a whale but also ... Pinocchio!!!!Actually our special italian liar hero was eaten by a shark - have you ever seen a whale in the mediterranean sea? - but Walt Disney decided that "measure for measure" a whale was much more confortable!!!!
Are you suggesting that Italians lionize liars? And as to Disney's cetacean prevarication... I guess what I was trying to ask was whether or not Whales were heard of anywhere in the mediterranean.
In Moby-Dick the possibility of a whale in the Mediterranean is discussed. I just can't remember where.The problem with the prophet Ishmael, Kitty, is that Ishmael wasn't a prophet in Judaism or Christianity. And Ishmael in Moby-Dick doesn't act like a prophet or make a prophecy.
Going in a different direction my votes for the most famous opening lines of literature are as follows:
What's missing?
Anna Karenina
L'Etranger
David Copperfield (my personal favorite opening line)
A Tale of Two Cities
Pride and Prejudice
The Catcher in the Rye
Metamorphosis
Twelfth Night
Richard III
Notes from the Underground
Possible others
The Great Gatsby
Swann's Way
And although this isn't so well know and it's adventure literture
Scaramouche (He was born with the gift of laughter and the sense the world was mad; that was his entire patrimony.)
Of course, the most famous opening line comes from the Book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
I've recently wondered about ... Harper Lee's "When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got his arm badly broken at the elbow." I always interpreted that as a spoiler for everything that comes after but others have told me that it refers to an unrelated event. Course maybe we should have an off-topic thread under General Discussions as this is bound to be kinda off-topic.
Two households, both alike in dignity, in fair Verona, where we lay our scene, from ancient grudge break to new mutiny, where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. R&J
"It was a pleasure to burn." Farenheit 451
"All this happened, more or less." Slaughterhouse-Five" (briefly considers the whole unreliable narrator thing again...)
"Where shall we three meet again in thunder, lightning, of in rain?" Macbeth
O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention, a kingdom for a stage, princes to act nd monarchs to behold the swelling scene! Henry V
You're right Stephen this is definitely off topic famous first and maybe famous last lines from literature.NE, Sarah -- can you build us another discussion group -- or do you think this is too far afield even for that.
Yes, Donald, Lolita , absolutely. Shame on me.
Yes, Stephen, Macbeth, Hank Cinq and Romeo and Juliet -- although I don't know they're quite as famous as Twelfth Night or RIII as opening lines.
As for the others, "To Kill a Mockingbird" is one of the most read books in America, but I don't know how striking the line is.
"It was a pleasure to burn" is a great first line, but I don't know how many people have read Farenheit 451 . It's my problem with Scaramouche and Slaughterhouse-Five too.
Actually, the line I like from Kurt Vonnegut with regard to reliability is the publisher's disclaimer from God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater.
"All persons living and dead, are purely coincidental, and should not be construed."
I think it's relevant, as Chapter One (and therefore famous opening lines) is part of the discussion. Or close enough, anyway!
Wanted to mention before we ventured further... The name Coffin was probably chosen for more than just the foreboding aspect it contains. From what I understand Owen Coffin at 17 years old was the youngest crew member (except for a cabin boy) aboard the Essex, the real-life whaling ship lost in 1819 that inspired the Moby Dick story.
Here are some of mine:First Lieutenant Jimmy Cross carried letters from a girl named Martha, a junior at Mount Sebastian College in New Jersey. (The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien)
When the phone rang I was in the kitchen, boiling a potful of spaghetti and whistling along to an FM broadcast of the overture of Rossini’s The Thieving Magpie, which has to be the perfect music for cooking pasta. (The Wind-up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami)
In the town there are two mutes and they are always together. (The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers)
Every summer Lin Kong returned to Goose Village to divorce his wife, Shuyu. (Waiting by Ha Jin)
A green hunting cap squeezed the top of the fleshy balloon of a head. (A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy O’Toole)
So many little gems like that Stephen. Thanks for the info. By the time we finish we can play trivial pursuit with Moby Dick.
Coffin seems to be a quite common New England name (area not leader of this group:))
Kitty wrote: "So many little gems like that Stephen. Thanks for the info." It's sort of how I process reading a book. It's usually that I first enjoy the images and humor and basic story line. Then I link up the facts and what trivia into what might be called knowledge. Only later as I mull over the events and experiences, if I'm lucky I come to gain something akin to wisdom.
BTW... Many critics point to Moby Dick as the downward turning point in Melville's career, it sold poorly, was criticized harshly, failed to arouse any great public interest because the American public's fascination was turning to the western expansion. Melville pretty much gave up writing and went to work in the Customs house in NY. He became so obscure that when he did die, people commented on his obituary, "He was still alive?, I thought he died years ago!"
Sue, you live in MA -- have you come across "Coffin" as name in New England? It's a very common Nantucket name -- I've both eaten once stayed at the Jared Coffin House. But I don't know I've come across it anyplace else. I've read it was supposed to be common on the Cape also, but I've never run across it on the Cape.
Of course, my experience isn't all that extensive either.
Stephen,
You bet. I don't know how much it's about a taste for westward expansion or whether people just didn't know what to make of Moby-Dick .
Everybody check your phone books under "Coffin" and get back to us.If you have a phone book, that is. Uh, and a land line.
I had a friend in University with the last name of "Coffin". He was from Vermont. I also have a phone book and a land line! :D
Moby-Dick
Books mentioned in this topic
Little Women (other topics)Pride and Prejudice (other topics)
most certainly the correct meaning.