It was quite an interesting experience, watching a visual representation of what we’ve been reading about for the past 4 months. While, with many of the characters, it was really cool to see in the flesh, many of them, I felt, weren’t good characterizations. Gregory Peck was a great Ahab, giving some eerie rationality to the crazy captain. Stubb, however, was not at all how I pictured him. He seemed more like a college jock than a jovial shipmate. I pictured him as much older, shorter and chubbier. Additionally, the Ishmael of Melville was betrayed in this movie adaptation. The movie Ishmael seemed much more of a simpleton; much too jolly and naïve.
In watching the movie, I noticed how much Melville’s writing style contributes to the novel. When you remove all the non-plot elements, as Bradbury and Huston did for the film, the movie is under 1 hour and 45 minutes, without cutting out much. It even has time for some wacky musical numbers, and extended whale hunting scenes (which, by the way, were very cool to see. The real whales made it very exciting.) However, all this being stripped away, the story becomes more of a simple swashbuckling sea tale (which I think we can all agree the novel is not). I also thought it was interesting that they changed the situations surrounding Queequeg’s coffin: that he made a prophecy of his own death instead of just becoming ill. Also the cutting of Queequeg I believe was omitted from the novel. They cut out much of the thematic material, focusing mainly on Ahab’s obsession with the Great White Whale. All in all, I think Bradbury and Huston did a good job of editing such a hard source material, and I’m even more interested to hear of everyone else’s story.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Response Journal Week 12 - Kalil
Watching the movie adaptation was strange, but very impressive. I had expected a 3 hour epic, though the movie was actually just under 2 hours. This was achieved by removing several scenes, and all of the documentary chapters. I personally thought that it lost a lot of meaning because of this, but it was still interesting.
My main criticism of the movie was that it was so unmistakably from the fifties. The music was overly dramatic to the point of absurdity, and made serious scenes almost comical. The adaptation of The Candles lost meaning because of the cheesy special effects (it looked like the ship was radioactive, while they could have just used white light or fire). Finally, the comedic interludes from the book were a product of humorous exchanges, but these were often garbled in the movie (Queequeg selling his head). Instead, they are replaced with jerky, fast-moving, physical comedies, such as when Queequeg gets into bed with Ishmael, or when the sailors grab at the grog after being excited by Ahab.
On the other hand, Gregory Peck’s Ahab was extremely compelling. He was dark and mad, yet clearly charismatic. Unfortunately, it was sometimes hard to take him seriously, because he was far too young. Personally, my favorite scene was the sermon, partly because of the set (boat-church), and partly because of the powerful delivery. Aside from that, the whale chases did a good job of capturing the thrilling nature of whaling, as did the final confrontation with Moby Dick, although it was clear that the Pequod sinking was just a model. Finally, the first scene was very strong, and they did a great job of incorporating the non-dialogue passages without overusing voiceover.
My main criticism of the movie was that it was so unmistakably from the fifties. The music was overly dramatic to the point of absurdity, and made serious scenes almost comical. The adaptation of The Candles lost meaning because of the cheesy special effects (it looked like the ship was radioactive, while they could have just used white light or fire). Finally, the comedic interludes from the book were a product of humorous exchanges, but these were often garbled in the movie (Queequeg selling his head). Instead, they are replaced with jerky, fast-moving, physical comedies, such as when Queequeg gets into bed with Ishmael, or when the sailors grab at the grog after being excited by Ahab.
On the other hand, Gregory Peck’s Ahab was extremely compelling. He was dark and mad, yet clearly charismatic. Unfortunately, it was sometimes hard to take him seriously, because he was far too young. Personally, my favorite scene was the sermon, partly because of the set (boat-church), and partly because of the powerful delivery. Aside from that, the whale chases did a good job of capturing the thrilling nature of whaling, as did the final confrontation with Moby Dick, although it was clear that the Pequod sinking was just a model. Finally, the first scene was very strong, and they did a great job of incorporating the non-dialogue passages without overusing voiceover.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Movie Response Journal
Moby Dick Movie Response Journal
Gabriel Wirz
Mr. Peterson
I think that John Huston and Ray Bradbury did a really good job of adapting Moby Dick into a movie. It was entertaining, it stuck to the storyline, and it did a decent job of capturing the feeling of the book. This is saying a lot because Moby Dick is all over the place, and it contains lots of elements that would be hard to recreate in a movie. In John Huston’s adaptation of Moby Dick he took out a lot of the philosophical chapters and he took out the chapters regarding the science of whaling such as Cetology. I was very impressed with the special effects of the movie due to the fact that it was made in 1956. The whaling scenes were very intense, and they seemed to be pretty accurate. Huston could have done a better job on the special effects in the scene in which the masts are struck by lightning because they literally made the masts neon green. I found it to be pretty pathetic but I’ll cut Huston some slack because it was 1956.
It was nice to see the movie because it cleared up some misconceptions I had about some specific things. Before watching the movie I thought that the Pequod was a lot bigger than it actually was. I also didn’t realize that Manxmen were from Scotland, or that harpooners broke out in song whenever they were at pubs or inns.
I thought that the casting director did a pretty good job, however, I had a few issues with the portrayal of some of the characters. I really liked Ahab because Gregory Peck did a good job of appearing rational and captivating yet crazy at the same time. However, he looked a little bit too much like Abe Lincoln for my liking. I thought they did a good job with the adaptation of Flask because he had a scrunched up, angry face and he always had a cigar in his mouth. I also liked Starbuck because he seemed like a good, moral, yet serious guy. I also thought that they did a good job adapting Tashtego nd Daggoo onto the screen, however Daggoo didn’t have huge hair like I expected. Queequeg was good but for some reason I imagined him being darker. I didn’t like Elijah because he looked too normal, and I didn’t like Stubb because he looked exactly like Popeye the sailor. I imagined him being older in the novel. I also really didn’t like Ishmael because he seemed too happy. In the novel he came across as being a bit depressed, and he didn’t seem to care too much about anything yet in the movie he was full of life, soaking up every minute of it. Overall, I enjoyed watching the movie, and I think Huston and Bradbury did a good job.
Gabriel Wirz
Mr. Peterson
I think that John Huston and Ray Bradbury did a really good job of adapting Moby Dick into a movie. It was entertaining, it stuck to the storyline, and it did a decent job of capturing the feeling of the book. This is saying a lot because Moby Dick is all over the place, and it contains lots of elements that would be hard to recreate in a movie. In John Huston’s adaptation of Moby Dick he took out a lot of the philosophical chapters and he took out the chapters regarding the science of whaling such as Cetology. I was very impressed with the special effects of the movie due to the fact that it was made in 1956. The whaling scenes were very intense, and they seemed to be pretty accurate. Huston could have done a better job on the special effects in the scene in which the masts are struck by lightning because they literally made the masts neon green. I found it to be pretty pathetic but I’ll cut Huston some slack because it was 1956.
It was nice to see the movie because it cleared up some misconceptions I had about some specific things. Before watching the movie I thought that the Pequod was a lot bigger than it actually was. I also didn’t realize that Manxmen were from Scotland, or that harpooners broke out in song whenever they were at pubs or inns.
I thought that the casting director did a pretty good job, however, I had a few issues with the portrayal of some of the characters. I really liked Ahab because Gregory Peck did a good job of appearing rational and captivating yet crazy at the same time. However, he looked a little bit too much like Abe Lincoln for my liking. I thought they did a good job with the adaptation of Flask because he had a scrunched up, angry face and he always had a cigar in his mouth. I also liked Starbuck because he seemed like a good, moral, yet serious guy. I also thought that they did a good job adapting Tashtego nd Daggoo onto the screen, however Daggoo didn’t have huge hair like I expected. Queequeg was good but for some reason I imagined him being darker. I didn’t like Elijah because he looked too normal, and I didn’t like Stubb because he looked exactly like Popeye the sailor. I imagined him being older in the novel. I also really didn’t like Ishmael because he seemed too happy. In the novel he came across as being a bit depressed, and he didn’t seem to care too much about anything yet in the movie he was full of life, soaking up every minute of it. Overall, I enjoyed watching the movie, and I think Huston and Bradbury did a good job.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Hakugei: Legend of the Moby Dick
A courageous young man tries to find the only person who can save his planet from the most terrifying beast in the universe -- the great white whale Moby Dick -- in this futuristic anime adventure set in 4699. But locating the outlaw Captain Ahab and his elusory crew of whale hunters and persuading them to put an end to the leviathan's long reign of terror won't be easy. Will Ahab take up the challenge one more time?
Hakugei: Legend of the Moby Dick
Hakugei: Legend of the Moby Dick
Response Journal 11 - Mayumi
One of the major themes in the last section of the book (that has also been present throughout the course of the novel) is the capacity or limitations of human ability. Ahab and contemplates how much of his own actions and fate is determined by divinity rather than his own mortal thoughts and actions. Ahab especially wonders how much of his identity is his own. Melville writes: “Is Ahab, Ahab? Is it I, God, or who, that lifts this arm? But if the great sun move not of himself…how then can this one heart beat; this one small brain think thoughts; unless God does that beating, does that thinking, does that living, and not I” (406-407). For Ahab, this quote reflects his critical observations on his two states of being, his monomania state and his rational state, as he tries to uncover why it is he acts the way he does. Ahab’s sense of self is put to the test by Moby Dick, the source of his monomania, who is representative of Ahab’s divine fears.
This quote takes place in “The Symphony,” the last chapter before the violent, man-driven three part chase, in a natural setting which is serene and beautiful. Ahab anticipates this change from serenity to violence and this quote is also his reflection on why he must go against nature and pursue his deadly fate. This is also the one chapter where we see Ahab show regret, in the form of these thoughts about the limitations of humans and the one tear drop that falls into the ocean.
Ahab’s second major quote about human capability is at the beginning of Chapter 35. Ahab says: “…but Ahab never thinks; he only feels, feels, feels; that’s tingling enough for mortal man! To think’s audacity. God only has that right and privelege” (419). Again, Ahab feels subject to the plans and thoughts of God and assumes that he has no control over his fate or emotional state of being. It’s interesting that Ahab said God was the only one capable of thought, since the whale who represents divine power, is clever, but does not possess the power of thought. In addition, the narrator of the book, Ishmael, is overflowing with thoughts (the book is proof enough of this). Ishmael is also the only person who miraculously escapes from the fate of the rest of the Pequod’s crew. Does this mean that Ishmael is God? Maybe it is more that he is god-like, in that his survival is similar to immortality and his other qualities as a narrator are godlike. Ishmael takes the position of authority on all issues concerning boats and whales (Cetology) shows, and his position as the omniscient narrator removes himself as a character from most of the book and allows him to tell the every thought and action of all the others aboard the Pequod.
*This idea of Ishmael as God (or god-like) is interesting to think about in contrast to Hayford’s essay “Loomings” in which he explains Ishmael’s love of roles of inferiority (or avoidance of authoritative roles).
This quote takes place in “The Symphony,” the last chapter before the violent, man-driven three part chase, in a natural setting which is serene and beautiful. Ahab anticipates this change from serenity to violence and this quote is also his reflection on why he must go against nature and pursue his deadly fate. This is also the one chapter where we see Ahab show regret, in the form of these thoughts about the limitations of humans and the one tear drop that falls into the ocean.
Ahab’s second major quote about human capability is at the beginning of Chapter 35. Ahab says: “…but Ahab never thinks; he only feels, feels, feels; that’s tingling enough for mortal man! To think’s audacity. God only has that right and privelege” (419). Again, Ahab feels subject to the plans and thoughts of God and assumes that he has no control over his fate or emotional state of being. It’s interesting that Ahab said God was the only one capable of thought, since the whale who represents divine power, is clever, but does not possess the power of thought. In addition, the narrator of the book, Ishmael, is overflowing with thoughts (the book is proof enough of this). Ishmael is also the only person who miraculously escapes from the fate of the rest of the Pequod’s crew. Does this mean that Ishmael is God? Maybe it is more that he is god-like, in that his survival is similar to immortality and his other qualities as a narrator are godlike. Ishmael takes the position of authority on all issues concerning boats and whales (Cetology) shows, and his position as the omniscient narrator removes himself as a character from most of the book and allows him to tell the every thought and action of all the others aboard the Pequod.
*This idea of Ishmael as God (or god-like) is interesting to think about in contrast to Hayford’s essay “Loomings” in which he explains Ishmael’s love of roles of inferiority (or avoidance of authoritative roles).
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Response Journal Week 11 - Kalil
Although finishing was gratifying in some sense (I truly feel accomplished for having read this entire book), I do not agree with Caleb and Gabriel. While some books are deeply satisfying to finish, many others have the opposite effect. In the case of Moby-Dick, although the conclusion was not at all unexpected, the epilogue was bizarrely short, in a way that left me wanting more. Since the very beginning of the novel, there is one question that we have all been asking: who is Ishmael? Despite him being our narrator, he is practically absent from the book, playing the role only of an observer. While it was obvious to me that Ishmael would survive, despite being aware that the Pequod would sink, I had expected some kind of expository epilogue that would give at least a modicum of information about Ishmael. Instead we are given a single paragraph in which he claims that Fate has allowed him to survive, and that the Rachel has found him, an orphan. To be fair, his characterization of himself as an orphan is rather poignant, but not for the reason it appears in the epilogue. Ishmael uses the term to describe the loss of his boat, and thereby his home and family. Yet he was never truly a part of the action, or one of the main players on the boat. He was always detached; Ishmael was already an orphan on the boat. Thus, when the boat sank, he didn’t have to go down with it, for it was not a part of him, nor the reverse. Ishmael was an orphan from the start, at least figuratively, in the sense that he was a loner, and sometimes a fly on the wall. As Caleb noted, these chapters play strongly on the unity of the ship, and show the way the crew of the Pequod acts as one, which only serves to reinforce Ishmael’s aloof nature. He is not truly a part of the ship, and merely by the fact that he is remarking on it, he cannot be taking part in it.
As one would expect, these last chapters show Ahab in the height of his madness, although he has rare moments of lucidity. When Starbuck, on the second day of the chase, urges him to reconsider, he admits that he wants to, but claims that he can’t. Although he does realize the foolhardy nature of his quest, he is still too caught up in his own monomania to turn back. He again professes his fatalism, but also his belief that people do not change. “Ahab is for ever Ahab, man. This whole act’s immutably decreed. ‘Twas rehearsed by thee and me a billion years before this ocean rolled. Fool! I am the Fates’ lieutenant; I act under orders. Look thou, underling! that thou obeyest mine” (418). On the final day of the chase, the hunted becomes the hunter, though it seems to me that this has always been the case. The Pequod has always been in the dark, bumbling about until they stumbled upon Moby-Dick. It is clear that the whale has always been in control, so this is not a role reversal so much as it is a role realization. Finally, I’d just like to point out that Melville did an excellent job of capturing the horror of the Pequod sinking, “Soon they through dim, bewildering mediums saw her sidelong fading phantom, as in the gaseous Fata Morgana; only the uppermost masts out of water; while fixed by infatuation, or fidelity, or fate, to their once lofty perches, the pagan harpooneers still maintained their sinking lookouts on the sea. And now, concentric circles seized the lone boat itself, and all its crew, and each floating oar, and every lance-pole, and spinning, animate and inanimate, all round and round in one vortex, carried the smallest chip of the Pequod out of sight” (426).
As for the movie, I asked my dad about any professors he knows that have read Moby-Dick. First he told me that one of his post-docs had just read it, although he’s an oceanographer, he is a very interesting person, and I’m sure he would be happy to talk to us. He also told me that my next door neighbor is a Beowulf scholar, so I asked her, and she told me she’d ask around for an english professor who would be willing (she hasn’t read it). Additionally, I know a linguist, and she might be willing to talk to us about the language in the novel. Finally, I emailed Matt Kish again, and hopefully he’ll get back to me. Structurally, I think we only really need to ask one question, which we will not get a definitive answer to (like Ishmael). We could still combine it with Caleb’s idea of giving some historical background/taking a trip up to whatever town he was talking about last week, but we need to get started now if we do that. In class we ought to come up with a schedule, as well as some kind of division of labor, just so that we can have some kind of organized plan. Also, did anyone email Morgan Freeman yet?
As one would expect, these last chapters show Ahab in the height of his madness, although he has rare moments of lucidity. When Starbuck, on the second day of the chase, urges him to reconsider, he admits that he wants to, but claims that he can’t. Although he does realize the foolhardy nature of his quest, he is still too caught up in his own monomania to turn back. He again professes his fatalism, but also his belief that people do not change. “Ahab is for ever Ahab, man. This whole act’s immutably decreed. ‘Twas rehearsed by thee and me a billion years before this ocean rolled. Fool! I am the Fates’ lieutenant; I act under orders. Look thou, underling! that thou obeyest mine” (418). On the final day of the chase, the hunted becomes the hunter, though it seems to me that this has always been the case. The Pequod has always been in the dark, bumbling about until they stumbled upon Moby-Dick. It is clear that the whale has always been in control, so this is not a role reversal so much as it is a role realization. Finally, I’d just like to point out that Melville did an excellent job of capturing the horror of the Pequod sinking, “Soon they through dim, bewildering mediums saw her sidelong fading phantom, as in the gaseous Fata Morgana; only the uppermost masts out of water; while fixed by infatuation, or fidelity, or fate, to their once lofty perches, the pagan harpooneers still maintained their sinking lookouts on the sea. And now, concentric circles seized the lone boat itself, and all its crew, and each floating oar, and every lance-pole, and spinning, animate and inanimate, all round and round in one vortex, carried the smallest chip of the Pequod out of sight” (426).
As for the movie, I asked my dad about any professors he knows that have read Moby-Dick. First he told me that one of his post-docs had just read it, although he’s an oceanographer, he is a very interesting person, and I’m sure he would be happy to talk to us. He also told me that my next door neighbor is a Beowulf scholar, so I asked her, and she told me she’d ask around for an english professor who would be willing (she hasn’t read it). Additionally, I know a linguist, and she might be willing to talk to us about the language in the novel. Finally, I emailed Matt Kish again, and hopefully he’ll get back to me. Structurally, I think we only really need to ask one question, which we will not get a definitive answer to (like Ishmael). We could still combine it with Caleb’s idea of giving some historical background/taking a trip up to whatever town he was talking about last week, but we need to get started now if we do that. In class we ought to come up with a schedule, as well as some kind of division of labor, just so that we can have some kind of organized plan. Also, did anyone email Morgan Freeman yet?
Response Journal Week 11 - Caleb
Response Journal Week 11:
We did it! “Moby-Dick”! As Gabriel said, there’s an immense feeling of gratification which I imagine Ahab might have felt had he lived and killed the Great White Whale himself. I wonder if the length of the novel was a sort of meta tie-in with the novel itself: those infamous slackers who start but never finish are the Ahabs, destined to be taken down by the Great White Novel. Probably not.
In these last chapters, Ahab becomes increasingly more self-aware as to what is driving his monomania. He opines, “What is it, what nameless, inscrutable, unearthly thing is it; what cozening, hidden lord and master, and cruel, remorseless emperor commands me; that against all natural lovings and longings, I so keep pushing, and crowding, and jamming myself on all the time…” (406) That whole passage is quite beautiful, with Ahab questioning the nature of an omnipotent God, and reiterating his fatalist mentality. He also advocates Descartian philosophy, asserting, “Oh! How immaterial are all materials! What things real are there, but imponderable thoughts?” (396). And, finally, a more secular humanist ethos: “Stand close to me, Starbuck; let me look into a human eye; it is better than to gaze into sea or sky; better than to gaze upon God.” (406)
Another aspect of these chapters that I found interesting was the unity of the Pequod. The whole ship, including its crew, become one in several images:
“Ye two are the opposite poles of one thing; Starbuck is Stubb reversed, and Stubb is Starbuck; and ye two are all mankind…” (413)
“They were one man, not thirty. For as the one ship that held them all; though it was put together of all contrasting things - oak, and maple, and pine wood; iron, and pitch, and hemp - yet all these ran into each other in the one concrete hull, which shot on its way, both balanced and directed by the long central keel; even so, all the individualities of the crew, this man's valor, that man's fear; guilt and guiltiness, all varieties were welded into oneness, and were all directed to that fatal goal which Ahab their one lord and keel did point to.” (415) This enforces the metaphor of the Pequod as a single human, rebelling in vain against a supernatural, all-powerful force of nature.
Lastly, I was wondering whether Starbuck’s exclamation was a Whitman reference: “’Oh, my captain, my captain!’” (421)
As for the movie project, I’ve sent out several emails, and gotten only one response from Julian Rad, writer of the off-Broadway play “Moby-Dick”, which was nominated for several Drama Desk Awards. He said he’d be happy to do it. I also sent out emails to performance artist Laurie Anderson, the composer of “Moby-Dick: the Musical”, and graphic novelist Bill Sienkiewicz.
We did it! “Moby-Dick”! As Gabriel said, there’s an immense feeling of gratification which I imagine Ahab might have felt had he lived and killed the Great White Whale himself. I wonder if the length of the novel was a sort of meta tie-in with the novel itself: those infamous slackers who start but never finish are the Ahabs, destined to be taken down by the Great White Novel. Probably not.
In these last chapters, Ahab becomes increasingly more self-aware as to what is driving his monomania. He opines, “What is it, what nameless, inscrutable, unearthly thing is it; what cozening, hidden lord and master, and cruel, remorseless emperor commands me; that against all natural lovings and longings, I so keep pushing, and crowding, and jamming myself on all the time…” (406) That whole passage is quite beautiful, with Ahab questioning the nature of an omnipotent God, and reiterating his fatalist mentality. He also advocates Descartian philosophy, asserting, “Oh! How immaterial are all materials! What things real are there, but imponderable thoughts?” (396). And, finally, a more secular humanist ethos: “Stand close to me, Starbuck; let me look into a human eye; it is better than to gaze into sea or sky; better than to gaze upon God.” (406)
Another aspect of these chapters that I found interesting was the unity of the Pequod. The whole ship, including its crew, become one in several images:
“Ye two are the opposite poles of one thing; Starbuck is Stubb reversed, and Stubb is Starbuck; and ye two are all mankind…” (413)
“They were one man, not thirty. For as the one ship that held them all; though it was put together of all contrasting things - oak, and maple, and pine wood; iron, and pitch, and hemp - yet all these ran into each other in the one concrete hull, which shot on its way, both balanced and directed by the long central keel; even so, all the individualities of the crew, this man's valor, that man's fear; guilt and guiltiness, all varieties were welded into oneness, and were all directed to that fatal goal which Ahab their one lord and keel did point to.” (415) This enforces the metaphor of the Pequod as a single human, rebelling in vain against a supernatural, all-powerful force of nature.
Lastly, I was wondering whether Starbuck’s exclamation was a Whitman reference: “’Oh, my captain, my captain!’” (421)
As for the movie project, I’ve sent out several emails, and gotten only one response from Julian Rad, writer of the off-Broadway play “Moby-Dick”, which was nominated for several Drama Desk Awards. He said he’d be happy to do it. I also sent out emails to performance artist Laurie Anderson, the composer of “Moby-Dick: the Musical”, and graphic novelist Bill Sienkiewicz.
Response Journal Week 11 - Gabriel
I feel quite accomplished after finishing Moby Dick. It’s nice to be able to tell people that you’ve read Moby Dick, the Great American Novel. I was a bit disappointed, however, because I remember hearing that Ahab kills Moby Dick so as I started sympathizing with Ahab I got excited thinking he was going to fulfill his goal. I really did like the end though. For a while I didn’t sympathize with Ahab because I viewed him as a selfish, monomaniac who was leading a crew of innocent men to their death. In the last few chapters I really started to like Ahab for a variety of reasons. For one thing, I respect him because he let’s nothing deter him from his goal and he shows no fear when chasing Moby Dick even though he is the obvious underdog in that battle. The reader also gets to see Ahab’s normal side on 405 when he and Starbuck have a heart to heart conversation. They both talk about their families and how they miss Nantucket. They both show their sensitive sides, and I was very moved. It’s also interesting how Ahab and Starbuck who both in fact debated killing the other with a musket became so close in the end. They are complete opposites yet in the face of danger they bond.
In Moby Dick there are many instances in which a supernatural event is described, and then later a rational description of the event is given asserting that the event was never supernatural to begin with. The character of Fedallah is never explained and his prophecies turn out to be true, giving the novel a very supernatural aspect. I’m very interested in finding out what Fedallah’s deal is, however, it might just be best left alone. I also wanted to point out how it’s interesting that I found myself rooting for Ahab to kill Moby Dick and how I sympathized with the whalers when Moby Dick should’ve in fact been the protagonist. He does nothing wrong besides fend off the men who are trying to kill him for no reason.
In regard to the project, I am trying to get in touch with Susan Greenfield, my mom’s friend, who is an English Professor at Fordham University. I can also probably set up an interview with my next-door neighbor Fritz Weaver who played Ahab in the BBC’s radio production of Moby Dick. I also want to stop by the Museum of Natural History to see if I can get in touch with any biologists who have read Moby Dick so that we can interview him/her about the Cetology chapter. I also think we should interview Mr. Peterson, of course we’d need to send him an email first and see if he’d be willing to be a part of our documentary.
In Moby Dick there are many instances in which a supernatural event is described, and then later a rational description of the event is given asserting that the event was never supernatural to begin with. The character of Fedallah is never explained and his prophecies turn out to be true, giving the novel a very supernatural aspect. I’m very interested in finding out what Fedallah’s deal is, however, it might just be best left alone. I also wanted to point out how it’s interesting that I found myself rooting for Ahab to kill Moby Dick and how I sympathized with the whalers when Moby Dick should’ve in fact been the protagonist. He does nothing wrong besides fend off the men who are trying to kill him for no reason.
In regard to the project, I am trying to get in touch with Susan Greenfield, my mom’s friend, who is an English Professor at Fordham University. I can also probably set up an interview with my next-door neighbor Fritz Weaver who played Ahab in the BBC’s radio production of Moby Dick. I also want to stop by the Museum of Natural History to see if I can get in touch with any biologists who have read Moby Dick so that we can interview him/her about the Cetology chapter. I also think we should interview Mr. Peterson, of course we’d need to send him an email first and see if he’d be willing to be a part of our documentary.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Response Journal Week 10 - Caleb
As Gabriel noticed in his response journal, Ahab’s madness seems to be piquing in these chapters, which contain the most action and dialogue we’ve seen in perhaps the entire book. We learn a lot about each character, more than we’ve ever learned before. Starbuck, for example, shows the most resistance to Ahab. He seems to be the only one who is questioning Ahab’s iron rule. He even ponders shooting Ahab for the good of the ship which, to me, was a really powerful and interesting scene. Starbuck wonders “Is heaven a murderer when its lightning strikes a would-be murderer in his bed, tindering sheets and skin together?” (387) Another interesting point about character development: where has Ishmael gone? In this reading, the narrator seems to be omniscient, yet part of the crew. It’s amazing how Melville balances those two aspects out, making it seems all-knowing and yet familiar at the same time.
Another thing I noticed about these chapters is that Ahab’s monomania is slowly devolving (or evolving) into a sort of megalomania. His quest for the Great White Whale has gotten him a sort of god complex. Saying things like “There is one God that is Lord over the earth, and one Captain that is lord over the Pequod!” (362), and claiming mastery over the poles, Ahab seems to have promoted his quest from whale domination to world domination.
Melville also reintroduces his theme of the outwardly pleasant, yet inwardly dangerous in these chapters. He writes that “…when beholding the tranquil beauty and brilliancy of the ocean’s skin, one forgets the tiger heart that pants beneath it; and would not willingly remember, that this velvet paw but conceals a remorseless fang.” (372) He uses the metaphor of the tiger again later in the reading to the same effect, when he states that “Warmest climes but nurse the cruelest fangs: the tiger of Bengal crouches in spiced groves of ceaseless verdure.” (379) All of this adds to the extremely ominous tone that Melville sets in these chapters, starting with the Pequod’s encounter with the fortuitous “Bachelor”. Of this encounter, Melville writes, “…while the one ship went cheerily before the breeze, the other stubbornly fought against it.” (375). This once again implies that, in chasing Moby-Dick, Ahab is somehow going against the natural order of things.
Finally, two passages in this reading caught my eye as extremely poignant and well-written:
“…but Death is only a launching into the region of the strange Untried; it is but the first salutation to the possibilities of the immense Remore, the Wild, the Watery, the Unshored…” (369)
“Our souls are like those orphans whose unwedded mothers die in bearing them: the secret of our paternity lies in their grave, and we must there to learn it” (373)
Another thing I noticed about these chapters is that Ahab’s monomania is slowly devolving (or evolving) into a sort of megalomania. His quest for the Great White Whale has gotten him a sort of god complex. Saying things like “There is one God that is Lord over the earth, and one Captain that is lord over the Pequod!” (362), and claiming mastery over the poles, Ahab seems to have promoted his quest from whale domination to world domination.
Melville also reintroduces his theme of the outwardly pleasant, yet inwardly dangerous in these chapters. He writes that “…when beholding the tranquil beauty and brilliancy of the ocean’s skin, one forgets the tiger heart that pants beneath it; and would not willingly remember, that this velvet paw but conceals a remorseless fang.” (372) He uses the metaphor of the tiger again later in the reading to the same effect, when he states that “Warmest climes but nurse the cruelest fangs: the tiger of Bengal crouches in spiced groves of ceaseless verdure.” (379) All of this adds to the extremely ominous tone that Melville sets in these chapters, starting with the Pequod’s encounter with the fortuitous “Bachelor”. Of this encounter, Melville writes, “…while the one ship went cheerily before the breeze, the other stubbornly fought against it.” (375). This once again implies that, in chasing Moby-Dick, Ahab is somehow going against the natural order of things.
Finally, two passages in this reading caught my eye as extremely poignant and well-written:
“…but Death is only a launching into the region of the strange Untried; it is but the first salutation to the possibilities of the immense Remore, the Wild, the Watery, the Unshored…” (369)
“Our souls are like those orphans whose unwedded mothers die in bearing them: the secret of our paternity lies in their grave, and we must there to learn it” (373)
Response Journal Week 10 - Gabriel
In this segment of reading (Pg. 361-395) there were a lot of dramatic interactions between the characters that are probably leading up to the final, climactic event. When Starbuck tells Ahab to lower the anchor in order to stop the oil from leaking, Ahab pulls out a gun and points it at Starbuck, telling him to leave his cabin. Ahab has been insane throughout the whole novel, however, his insanity is starting to reach new heights, which probably has to do with his getting closer to Moby Dick. What makes Ahab all the more insane is the fact that he ends up listening to Starbuck even though he held a musket to his head. Ahab’s actions are becoming very irrational, yet he is becoming more and more prideful. We see how conceded and self-centered Ahab is in the dubloon chapter when he only sees himself in the dubloon. Then in The Needle, Ahab claims to be the lord of the level loadstone and Melville writes, “you then saw Ahab in all his fatal pride,” (390). Ishmael did intend for Ahab to be modeled after a tragic Greek hero, and sure enough, Ahab is starting to show the tragic flaw of the Greek hero, which is hubris. He thinks that he’s greater than the Gods and that he can stand up to Moby Dick, who has been alluded to as an instrument of God, and this will probably be his downfall.
There were three conversations that I found very interesting in this segment of reading. The first is between Ahab and the Blacksmith on page 370, in which Ahab says something that really struck me. He says, “How can’st though endure without being mad?’ He sees the world differently than a normal human does, and he finds it weird how someone can endure the hardships of the world without going insane. Insanity is a coping mechanism for Ahab and he looks at it as a blessing because he later goes on to ask why the Gods hate the blacksmith for not letting him become mad. The second conversation I’m talking about, which was between Ahab and Fedellah on page 377 was very weird and prophetic. They talk about how Ahab must see two hearses before he dies and how only hemp can kill him. This conversation made me wonder whether Fedallah is a supernatural instrument of God, or just a crazy person. If these prophecies come true I will be pretty sure that Fedallah is some sort of supernatural being. The third conversation I’m talking about is the one between Pip and Ahab, during which they become good friends. They have one of the craziest conversations I’ve ever read. On the post it note I have on page 392 I wrote, Pip + Ahab = Crazy Friends.
I also thought that the chapter about Queequeg in his coffin is hilarious. However, I wasn’t sure if he was just faking being sick or if he actually got better because he chose to get better.
There were three conversations that I found very interesting in this segment of reading. The first is between Ahab and the Blacksmith on page 370, in which Ahab says something that really struck me. He says, “How can’st though endure without being mad?’ He sees the world differently than a normal human does, and he finds it weird how someone can endure the hardships of the world without going insane. Insanity is a coping mechanism for Ahab and he looks at it as a blessing because he later goes on to ask why the Gods hate the blacksmith for not letting him become mad. The second conversation I’m talking about, which was between Ahab and Fedellah on page 377 was very weird and prophetic. They talk about how Ahab must see two hearses before he dies and how only hemp can kill him. This conversation made me wonder whether Fedallah is a supernatural instrument of God, or just a crazy person. If these prophecies come true I will be pretty sure that Fedallah is some sort of supernatural being. The third conversation I’m talking about is the one between Pip and Ahab, during which they become good friends. They have one of the craziest conversations I’ve ever read. On the post it note I have on page 392 I wrote, Pip + Ahab = Crazy Friends.
I also thought that the chapter about Queequeg in his coffin is hilarious. However, I wasn’t sure if he was just faking being sick or if he actually got better because he chose to get better.
Response Journal Week 10-Amani
I enjoyed reading the chapters for this week because they were about Ahab (finally!). Ahab was a prominent character in these chapters. The depth of his insanity, his monomania is revealed. Ahab's obsession with the whale has led to the deterioration of the Pequod and has escalated the crew's frustration with him. Although Ahab has been warned about the consequences of chasing the White Whale, he ignores his fate and assumes it will be postponed. It's interesting that he accepts that he will die soon, but he believes that he will die after his battle with Moby-Dick.
One of the warnings Ahab receives is the storm. Ahab isn’t frightened by it. He says in “The Candles,” “blow out your last fear.” He says that the storm brings them together. Seeing Ahab’s harpoon flickering with fire, Starbuck concluded that God opposes Ahab. Starbuck as well as others on the crew are losing patience with Ahab. Starbuck even debates with himself about whether he should kill Ahab. He is angry about how selfish Ahab is being and with all the reckless decisions he’s made at the expense of the crew.
In “The Log and Line,” Ahab fails. He realizes that he doesn’t have any of his navigational devices. Ahab seeks Pip for help. However, Pip responds with nonsense. Ahab states that Pip can have his cabin because the Pip touches his “inmost center.” Ahab can relate to Pip because they are both crazy. Their insanity is a result of their past struggle’s with the sea and the whale’s that are within it.
One of the warnings Ahab receives is the storm. Ahab isn’t frightened by it. He says in “The Candles,” “blow out your last fear.” He says that the storm brings them together. Seeing Ahab’s harpoon flickering with fire, Starbuck concluded that God opposes Ahab. Starbuck as well as others on the crew are losing patience with Ahab. Starbuck even debates with himself about whether he should kill Ahab. He is angry about how selfish Ahab is being and with all the reckless decisions he’s made at the expense of the crew.
In “The Log and Line,” Ahab fails. He realizes that he doesn’t have any of his navigational devices. Ahab seeks Pip for help. However, Pip responds with nonsense. Ahab states that Pip can have his cabin because the Pip touches his “inmost center.” Ahab can relate to Pip because they are both crazy. Their insanity is a result of their past struggle’s with the sea and the whale’s that are within it.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Response Journal Week 9-Amani
Just from reading the description of the daunting task Matt Kish is in the process of doing, I’m impressed. The text of Moby-Dick is hard enough to read, never mind illustrating each page into a creative piece of art. I wasn't able to attend Matt Kish’s presentation on Monday so I will respond to the few chapters we read this week.
Ishmael's description of the whale in these chapters just reiterates the immensity of whales in Moby-Dick. In "Fossil Whale," Ishmael discusses the the huge mass that a whale possesses. He concludes that the mass of the whale cannot be measured solely with the bones found in the whale's skeleton. The bones of the whale don't account for the flesh and meat that are held on the whale when it is it alive. Therefore, the mass of a whale is unknown to humans. The whale's mass represents it's magnitude and power. Because it's mass can never be discovered by humans, it's power is beyond human comprehension.
In “Does the Whale's Magnitude Diminish?-Will He Perish?,” Ishmael talks about the possibility of the whale becoming extinct. Because it is has been growing larger and larger and is more and more frequently hunted, there are speculations that the whale may die out. Ishmael disagrees. He explains that the population of the whale hasn't decreased. His explanation for this is that they have such a large place to live and move around: the sea. The explanation that Ishmael provides allows for the characterization of the whale as indestructible.
The following chapter “Ahab's Leg” is about Ahab needing a new leg. This could be a seen as a an milestone in Ahab's life. It may be Ahab's point of realization that is necessary in Aristotle's definition of a tragedy. Ahab says that his old leg is worn out and needs to be replaced. Maybe this is the point where Ahab realizes that he is worn out, but he perseveres. Ahab is experiencing hamartia, which means to miss the mark. He has now become out of balance. However, Ahab always seemed to be out of balance. Maybe his point of realization occurred before Ishmael's first encounter with him.
Ishmael's description of the whale in these chapters just reiterates the immensity of whales in Moby-Dick. In "Fossil Whale," Ishmael discusses the the huge mass that a whale possesses. He concludes that the mass of the whale cannot be measured solely with the bones found in the whale's skeleton. The bones of the whale don't account for the flesh and meat that are held on the whale when it is it alive. Therefore, the mass of a whale is unknown to humans. The whale's mass represents it's magnitude and power. Because it's mass can never be discovered by humans, it's power is beyond human comprehension.
In “Does the Whale's Magnitude Diminish?-Will He Perish?,” Ishmael talks about the possibility of the whale becoming extinct. Because it is has been growing larger and larger and is more and more frequently hunted, there are speculations that the whale may die out. Ishmael disagrees. He explains that the population of the whale hasn't decreased. His explanation for this is that they have such a large place to live and move around: the sea. The explanation that Ishmael provides allows for the characterization of the whale as indestructible.
The following chapter “Ahab's Leg” is about Ahab needing a new leg. This could be a seen as a an milestone in Ahab's life. It may be Ahab's point of realization that is necessary in Aristotle's definition of a tragedy. Ahab says that his old leg is worn out and needs to be replaced. Maybe this is the point where Ahab realizes that he is worn out, but he perseveres. Ahab is experiencing hamartia, which means to miss the mark. He has now become out of balance. However, Ahab always seemed to be out of balance. Maybe his point of realization occurred before Ishmael's first encounter with him.
Response Journal Week 9 - Kalil
Kalil Smith-Nuevelle
In this section, Ishmael once again returns to the idea that you cannot accurately portray a whale. The whale, elevated as it is to such a high status in Moby-Dick, cannot be fully represented by mortals. This returns us to the idea of whales as godlike, and Melville does suggest that the whale is “immortal in his species, however perishable in his individuality” (354). To draw a whale, or define a whale would be to make it mortal. However, Matt Kish had no such qualms. His representation of the whale, as well as of every other part of Moby-Dick was far from limiting. Instead, looking at his visual representations, my own understanding was changed to some extent. I was especially drawn to his representation of the various sailors. Each one of them actually looked like a ship (a good deal more modern than the Pequod, but ships nonetheless), which reminded me of our consideration of microcosms within the novel. I also enjoyed his whales, although this was mostly just aesthetic (I loved the way that they looked almost industrial, or manufactured).
This short section returns once again to Ishmael’s vast arrogance, often to the point of stupidity. He claims that he has “undertaken to manhandle this Leviathan,” and strangely refers to his methods as “antedeluvian” which appears rather accurate (349). Instead of calling upon modern science, or even truly accepting his sources (from which some of these chapters are nearly plagiarized), he is weirdly contradictory. He is keenly aware of the challenges presented by attempting to understand the whale through science, when undertaken by other men, writing, “How vain and foolish, then, thought I, for timid untravelled man to try to comprehend aright this wondrous whale, by merely poring over his dead attenuated skeleton, stretched in this peaceful wood” (348). Yet this is the very process he himself undertakes, in his measurement of the whale (apparently his units for mass are “villages of one thousand one hundred inhabitants”) (347). For all of Ishmael’s previous awe of the whale, he has become like Ahab, disregarding its true power. Instead of recognizing it’s gargantuan awesomeness, he notes “that the spine of even the hugest of living things tapers off at last into simple child’s play”. This opinion is also characterized in his disregard for the priests who warn him against measuring the whale. He takes the abstract concept of the whale, and objectifies it through his measurements, though they are bound to be both inaccurate and profane.
In this section, Ishmael once again returns to the idea that you cannot accurately portray a whale. The whale, elevated as it is to such a high status in Moby-Dick, cannot be fully represented by mortals. This returns us to the idea of whales as godlike, and Melville does suggest that the whale is “immortal in his species, however perishable in his individuality” (354). To draw a whale, or define a whale would be to make it mortal. However, Matt Kish had no such qualms. His representation of the whale, as well as of every other part of Moby-Dick was far from limiting. Instead, looking at his visual representations, my own understanding was changed to some extent. I was especially drawn to his representation of the various sailors. Each one of them actually looked like a ship (a good deal more modern than the Pequod, but ships nonetheless), which reminded me of our consideration of microcosms within the novel. I also enjoyed his whales, although this was mostly just aesthetic (I loved the way that they looked almost industrial, or manufactured).
This short section returns once again to Ishmael’s vast arrogance, often to the point of stupidity. He claims that he has “undertaken to manhandle this Leviathan,” and strangely refers to his methods as “antedeluvian” which appears rather accurate (349). Instead of calling upon modern science, or even truly accepting his sources (from which some of these chapters are nearly plagiarized), he is weirdly contradictory. He is keenly aware of the challenges presented by attempting to understand the whale through science, when undertaken by other men, writing, “How vain and foolish, then, thought I, for timid untravelled man to try to comprehend aright this wondrous whale, by merely poring over his dead attenuated skeleton, stretched in this peaceful wood” (348). Yet this is the very process he himself undertakes, in his measurement of the whale (apparently his units for mass are “villages of one thousand one hundred inhabitants”) (347). For all of Ishmael’s previous awe of the whale, he has become like Ahab, disregarding its true power. Instead of recognizing it’s gargantuan awesomeness, he notes “that the spine of even the hugest of living things tapers off at last into simple child’s play”. This opinion is also characterized in his disregard for the priests who warn him against measuring the whale. He takes the abstract concept of the whale, and objectifies it through his measurements, though they are bound to be both inaccurate and profane.
Friday, April 16, 2010
C. L. R. James book
http://www.amazon.com/Mariners-Renegades-Castaways-Reencounters-Colonialism-New/dp/158465094X
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Response Journal Week 8-Amani
I also enjoyed “The Castaway.” Ishmael’s analysis of the character Pip is really interesting. It reiterated the themes of fate and divinity that were discussed by Ishmael in previous chapters. After falling into the sea for the second time, Pip is left there for a long time. When he finally comes out, he appears to be crazy. Pip’s insanity is due to his time in the ocean. The power of the ocean transforms Pip; it overcomes him. Though many of the crew believed Pip was crazy, Ishmael says that he thought he was wise. Pip has fought with the ocean, and survived. Pip’s insanity reminds me of Ahab’s. They both battled with the ocean and the whale (Pip gets tangled in the line used to catch the whale).
“The Doubloon” was also a significant chapter. The chapter includes the characters aboard The Pequod's reactions to a golden coin found on the ship. Many of them find symbolic meaning for the coin. The Manxman predicts that they will see the White Whale in a month and a day. It will be interesting to see if that happens. Pip states that the coin is the ship's "navel"-a navel being what holds the ship together. Could this mean something for the future of The Pequod? This doubloon according to Pip is very significant to the fate of the crew. Maybe it's significance comes from what it symbolizes or what can be depicted from it, for example Manxman's prediction. Stubb interprets the zodiac on the coin as an allegory for life.
"Leg and Arm: The Pequod, of Nantucket, Meets the Samuel Enderby, of London" This chapter showed the encounter between Captain Ahab and Captain Boomer, the captain of Samuel Enderby (which we find out later is the first whaling ship to leave England). Both captains discuss the loss of their limbs at the hand of Moby-Dick. Although Boomer is greatful to have survived and never wants to see the White Whale again, Ahab seeks to know which way the whale went. Captain Boomer leads a much older ship, he knows what he's talking about. Ahab should follow his advice. Ahab's refusal to accept the fate that awaits him when he finds Moby-Dick foreshadows his destruction. The whale/ocean/god whatever that is driving fate, has warned him.
“The Doubloon” was also a significant chapter. The chapter includes the characters aboard The Pequod's reactions to a golden coin found on the ship. Many of them find symbolic meaning for the coin. The Manxman predicts that they will see the White Whale in a month and a day. It will be interesting to see if that happens. Pip states that the coin is the ship's "navel"-a navel being what holds the ship together. Could this mean something for the future of The Pequod? This doubloon according to Pip is very significant to the fate of the crew. Maybe it's significance comes from what it symbolizes or what can be depicted from it, for example Manxman's prediction. Stubb interprets the zodiac on the coin as an allegory for life.
"Leg and Arm: The Pequod, of Nantucket, Meets the Samuel Enderby, of London" This chapter showed the encounter between Captain Ahab and Captain Boomer, the captain of Samuel Enderby (which we find out later is the first whaling ship to leave England). Both captains discuss the loss of their limbs at the hand of Moby-Dick. Although Boomer is greatful to have survived and never wants to see the White Whale again, Ahab seeks to know which way the whale went. Captain Boomer leads a much older ship, he knows what he's talking about. Ahab should follow his advice. Ahab's refusal to accept the fate that awaits him when he finds Moby-Dick foreshadows his destruction. The whale/ocean/god whatever that is driving fate, has warned him.
Response Journal Week 8 - Kalil
At the very start, in chapter 93, we see a tense scene, in which the crew must make a choice between saving Pip, and capturing the whale. After a time, they cut him loose, but grudgingly so. When he returns to the boat, he is greeted with stern words,
“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” (321). This serves as a reminder that the ultimate purpose of the whaling voyage is profit, though Ishmael makes Stubb’s statement even grander, claiming that “man is a money-making animal, which propensity too often interferes with his benevolence” (321). In addition to being a reminder of the capitalist nature of the voyage (rather than a voyage in order to kill Moby Dick), it also brings up Pip’s race, and reminds us of the time (as we are apt to forget that slavery was still widely practiced).
Chapter 97, The Lamp, describes the fact that whaling ships are always well lit, for they have an abundance of oil. I assumed that this was a reference to the commonly used metaphor of light for knowledge (illumination), and a suggestion that the whaler lives the enlightened life. However, this chapter also serves to reinforce the romantic side of the coin that we addressed last week. At the very end, Melville writes, “He goes and hunts for his oil, so as to be sure of its freshness and genuineness, even as the traveller on the prairie hunts up his own supper of game” (329) This shows the whaler as in touch with nature, and pure, much in the way that the romantics idealized.
Another extremely interesting scene was the point where each character looks at the doubloon. Every character has an extremely different interpretation of the coin, which shows how important perspective and point of view are. Especially interesting was Flask’s interpretation, in which the coin was just a coin. This goes back to the suggestion that men are ultimately motivated by wealth.
Chapter 97, The Lamp, describes the fact that whaling ships are always well lit, for they have an abundance of oil. I assumed that this was a reference to the commonly used metaphor of light for knowledge (illumination), and a suggestion that the whaler lives the enlightened life. However, this chapter also serves to reinforce the romantic side of the coin that we addressed last week. At the very end, Melville writes, “He goes and hunts for his oil, so as to be sure of its freshness and genuineness, even as the traveller on the prairie hunts up his own supper of game” (329) This shows the whaler as in touch with nature, and pure, much in the way that the romantics idealized.
Another extremely interesting scene was the point where each character looks at the doubloon. Every character has an extremely different interpretation of the coin, which shows how important perspective and point of view are. Especially interesting was Flask’s interpretation, in which the coin was just a coin. This goes back to the suggestion that men are ultimately motivated by wealth.
Response Journal Week 8 - Mayumi
This week’s Melville reading began with a chapter rich in themes, especially in those identified by Mathiesson. Melville begins by claiming that Pip, the black ship-keeper, is the physical counterpart to the white Dough-Boy. This, in it of itself, is very socially progressive: Melville is comparing, even equating, a white man to a black man. Then Melville shows further examples of his forward thinking when he writes that Pip had a much greater intellect than the Dough-Boy, who by nature was very “dull and torpid” (319). However, despite Pip’s superior intellect, he is still a savage as he is part of a tribe and loves life so much that his passion overpowers his brilliancy and ultimately is the cause of his downfall. As Mathiesson points out, Melville treats many savage characters in this way: he brings to light a human aspect of theirs, but ultimately this human aspect is overpowered by their defining savage characteristic. Emerson as quoted by Mathiesson describes this situation of simultaneous savagery and humanity very well: “In history the great moment is when the savage is just ceasing to be savage…that moment of transition, - the foam hangs but a moment on the wave…” (373).
Pip continues to lose his humanity in the rest of the chapter, showing childlike qualities in his nervous decisions of jumping off the boat twice. The chapter is also written around the character Pip. What I mean by this is, for the descriptive writer we are well aware that Melville is, he hardly spends a word elaborating on Pip’s thoughts or reasons for his actions. Pip does not even speak a word of dialogue; Stubb has the only dialogue in the entire chapter. Pip becomes one dimensional and is used as the vehicle for Melville’s philosophical and theological reflections. Pip’s life at the end of the chapter is not even worth much. Melville even gives Stubb a disclaimer and augments the situation in his favor: “do not blame Stubb too hardly. The thing is common in that fishery; and in the sequel of the narrative, it will then be seen what like abandonment befell myself.” (322). Melville even puts a nice spin on Pip’s death, describing it as the infinite drowning of his soul instead of his finite body (321). Pip, in his infinite drowning, is allowed to see the fantastic, Godly shapes and images at the bottom of the sea.
Then I began to wonder if the freedom of Pip’s soul was worth the sacrifice of his life. Pip, once in a role of servitude, now has access to the amazing natural wonders of God. In this later life he transcends social hierarchy and does not have to answer to anyone but himself, a man filled with intellect, as Melville first claimed. What remains problematic, though, is that Pip was left in the ocean once he jumped from fear. Pip, as far as I know, never chose to drown in the open sea. Despite Melville’s slightly blasé last comment towards the end, I think that Stubb is most certainly at fault here, even if he did think that another boat might save Pip.
Pip continues to lose his humanity in the rest of the chapter, showing childlike qualities in his nervous decisions of jumping off the boat twice. The chapter is also written around the character Pip. What I mean by this is, for the descriptive writer we are well aware that Melville is, he hardly spends a word elaborating on Pip’s thoughts or reasons for his actions. Pip does not even speak a word of dialogue; Stubb has the only dialogue in the entire chapter. Pip becomes one dimensional and is used as the vehicle for Melville’s philosophical and theological reflections. Pip’s life at the end of the chapter is not even worth much. Melville even gives Stubb a disclaimer and augments the situation in his favor: “do not blame Stubb too hardly. The thing is common in that fishery; and in the sequel of the narrative, it will then be seen what like abandonment befell myself.” (322). Melville even puts a nice spin on Pip’s death, describing it as the infinite drowning of his soul instead of his finite body (321). Pip, in his infinite drowning, is allowed to see the fantastic, Godly shapes and images at the bottom of the sea.
Then I began to wonder if the freedom of Pip’s soul was worth the sacrifice of his life. Pip, once in a role of servitude, now has access to the amazing natural wonders of God. In this later life he transcends social hierarchy and does not have to answer to anyone but himself, a man filled with intellect, as Melville first claimed. What remains problematic, though, is that Pip was left in the ocean once he jumped from fear. Pip, as far as I know, never chose to drown in the open sea. Despite Melville’s slightly blasé last comment towards the end, I think that Stubb is most certainly at fault here, even if he did think that another boat might save Pip.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Response Journal Week 8- Caleb
Though this might seem trivial, I’ve noticed that Melville has started using the work predestinated an awful lot. This adds to Melville’s idea of fate, which he is constantly returning to throughout the novel. Another short point: after reading Stubb’s advice to Pip to “Stick to the boat” (320), I couldn’t help but remember the similar advice given in “Apocalypse Now”. Here’s a link to that scene.
The “stay on the boat” mentality is especially resonant for the novel. Taken metaphorically, it can be seen as monomaniac’s mantra. If, as Melville often does, we see the boat as a metaphor for a human life, Stubb’s advice is particularly useful for keeping sane in the face of insanity (something which the crew of the Pequod deals with a lot).
Again, we see another Transcendental allusion, which metaphorically links the ocean to God, when Pip is left behind in the water. “The sea had jeeringly kept his finite body up, but drowned the infinite of his soul,” (321) Melville writes of post-abandonment Pip, who catatonically paces the deck. Melville explains that “Pip saw the multitudinous, God-omnipresent, coral insects that out of the firmament of waters heaved the colossal orbs.” (321). This passage returns to Melville’s differentiation between the body and the soul, a theme which he stresses throughout the novel. It also makes the transcendentalist connection between nature and man, allowing the ocean to function once again as a metaphor for life, death, and the infinite. One thing Matthiesson points out, however, is Melville’s divergence from Emersonian and Thoreauean (that’s a lot of vowels) Transcendentalism. “He agreed that spirit is substance, but when he contemplated the mystery of the unseen, he began to diverge from the transcendental conclusion that its effect on man was necessarily beneficient” (405). Matthiesson argues that this is what sets Melville’s philosophy apart from other philosophers from the era. Melville recognizes “the demonic element in the unseen” (406)--- that “beautiful fins were part of cruel form”, not just believing in the inspirational value of nature.
“The Doubloon” chapter was also extremely interesting. Each character, when observing Ahab’s reward doubloon, interprets it differently. Pip, although he’s become insane, recognizes this, and states, “I look, you look, he looks; we look, ye look, they look.” (335), which Stubb takes as nonsense. Stubb makes a similar comment when referring to his book: “Book! You lie there; the face is, you books must know your places. You’ll do to give us the bare words and facts, but we come in to supply the thoughts” (333). Here, Melville is expressing the nature of art; that the words on the page of a book have different meanings from person to person. Additionally, Melville writes about the inverse—the art of nature--- in the same way. In Matthiesson, Melville writes, “Saw what some poets will, Nature is not so much her own ever-sweet interpreter, as the mere supplier of that cunning alphabet, whereby selective and combining as he pleases, each man reads his own peculiar lesson…” (406)
The “stay on the boat” mentality is especially resonant for the novel. Taken metaphorically, it can be seen as monomaniac’s mantra. If, as Melville often does, we see the boat as a metaphor for a human life, Stubb’s advice is particularly useful for keeping sane in the face of insanity (something which the crew of the Pequod deals with a lot).
Again, we see another Transcendental allusion, which metaphorically links the ocean to God, when Pip is left behind in the water. “The sea had jeeringly kept his finite body up, but drowned the infinite of his soul,” (321) Melville writes of post-abandonment Pip, who catatonically paces the deck. Melville explains that “Pip saw the multitudinous, God-omnipresent, coral insects that out of the firmament of waters heaved the colossal orbs.” (321). This passage returns to Melville’s differentiation between the body and the soul, a theme which he stresses throughout the novel. It also makes the transcendentalist connection between nature and man, allowing the ocean to function once again as a metaphor for life, death, and the infinite. One thing Matthiesson points out, however, is Melville’s divergence from Emersonian and Thoreauean (that’s a lot of vowels) Transcendentalism. “He agreed that spirit is substance, but when he contemplated the mystery of the unseen, he began to diverge from the transcendental conclusion that its effect on man was necessarily beneficient” (405). Matthiesson argues that this is what sets Melville’s philosophy apart from other philosophers from the era. Melville recognizes “the demonic element in the unseen” (406)--- that “beautiful fins were part of cruel form”, not just believing in the inspirational value of nature.
“The Doubloon” chapter was also extremely interesting. Each character, when observing Ahab’s reward doubloon, interprets it differently. Pip, although he’s become insane, recognizes this, and states, “I look, you look, he looks; we look, ye look, they look.” (335), which Stubb takes as nonsense. Stubb makes a similar comment when referring to his book: “Book! You lie there; the face is, you books must know your places. You’ll do to give us the bare words and facts, but we come in to supply the thoughts” (333). Here, Melville is expressing the nature of art; that the words on the page of a book have different meanings from person to person. Additionally, Melville writes about the inverse—the art of nature--- in the same way. In Matthiesson, Melville writes, “Saw what some poets will, Nature is not so much her own ever-sweet interpreter, as the mere supplier of that cunning alphabet, whereby selective and combining as he pleases, each man reads his own peculiar lesson…” (406)
Response Journal Week 8- Gabriel
I just read up to page 347 and I read Structure and The Levels Beyond from The Mathiesen handout. I would like to start out by writing about the chapter from Moby Dick titled Castaway. In this chapter Pip becomes a replacement oarsmen for one of the harpooning vessel, and he falls out of the boat and Stubb leaves him stranded. The Pequod luckily picks him up after a great amount of time elapses. This chapter really shows the grim side of whaling and Melville gives a really grim, tragic view of human nature. Throughout Moby Dick, it seems as if there is a certain camaraderie between crewmembers, and we even get to see a close brotherly bond formed between Queequeg and Ishmael. For the most part, I got the feeling that Melville viewed humans rather positively, however, in Castaway we see Stubb acting unforgivably. It is true that Pip was warned that he wouldn’t be saved if he jumped out of the ship, but, regardless of this, Stubb shows a dark side. Melville writes “Stubb indirectly hinted, that though man loves his fellow, yet man is a money-making animal, which propensity too often interferes with his benevolence” (321). Stubb decided to go after a whale and make money rather than save a fellow human being. He assumed that another boat would eventually pick Pip up, but that was not a safe assumption to make. After this incident Pip becomes scarred, and it becomes evident that Stubb has affected his mental health. The worst part is that Stubb doesn’t seem to feel any remorse. I’m not sure if this is because Pip is a lowly black crewmember or if Stubb is actually a sociopath.
I also just wanted to point out the line on 327 having to do with the fire of the try-works because it’s a great line. Melville writes, “Then the rushing Pequod, freighted with savages, and laden with fire, and burning a corpse, and plunging into that blackness of darkness, seemed the material counterpart of her monomaniac commander’s soul’ (327). I just loved the description of the boat, and the descriptions really help create a sense of the atmosphere on the ship. I thought the description gave off a very intense yet hypnotic vibe. This description reminds of the description of the ship when Ahab first reveals his intentions of killing Moby Dick to the crewmembers, because there was a similar hypnotic atmosphere.
I really enjoyed reading The Level Beyond because it talks about some of Melville’s methods of portraying things. Mathiesen first talks about how Melville always compares Moby Dick and Ahab to something greater than themselves. He compares them to grand things, making them seem very magnified. In this chapter Mathiesen also talks about how Melville saw a connection between beauty and strength and how Melville mastered how to make beauty out of natural strength. I didn’t quite understand what this meant however. Mathiesen also talks about how Melville is very Shakespearean, Homeric, and biblical, but that he is in fact more Homeric and biblical than he is Shakespearean. I had noticed connections between Shakespeare, Homer, and Melville, and I think it’s especially cool because I have read both Shakespeare and Homer this year in school.
I also just wanted to point out the line on 327 having to do with the fire of the try-works because it’s a great line. Melville writes, “Then the rushing Pequod, freighted with savages, and laden with fire, and burning a corpse, and plunging into that blackness of darkness, seemed the material counterpart of her monomaniac commander’s soul’ (327). I just loved the description of the boat, and the descriptions really help create a sense of the atmosphere on the ship. I thought the description gave off a very intense yet hypnotic vibe. This description reminds of the description of the ship when Ahab first reveals his intentions of killing Moby Dick to the crewmembers, because there was a similar hypnotic atmosphere.
I really enjoyed reading The Level Beyond because it talks about some of Melville’s methods of portraying things. Mathiesen first talks about how Melville always compares Moby Dick and Ahab to something greater than themselves. He compares them to grand things, making them seem very magnified. In this chapter Mathiesen also talks about how Melville saw a connection between beauty and strength and how Melville mastered how to make beauty out of natural strength. I didn’t quite understand what this meant however. Mathiesen also talks about how Melville is very Shakespearean, Homeric, and biblical, but that he is in fact more Homeric and biblical than he is Shakespearean. I had noticed connections between Shakespeare, Homer, and Melville, and I think it’s especially cool because I have read both Shakespeare and Homer this year in school.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The Not-So Glorious Side of Whaling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/08/whalings-gruesome-catch-p_n_523757.html
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Response Journal Week 7- Gabriel
>
I have now read through page 319 in Moby Dick and I have read parts of the Mathiesen handout. I want to start out by talking about the first chapter in the Mathiesen handout, ‘out of unhandselled savage nature’. I really liked reading this chapter because it gave me a lot of insight about Herman Melville’s background as well as background information about other writers of Melville’s time. Mathiesen starts out by writing about how the American became a writer by accident. He then specifically writes about how Melville’s background wasn’t in writing and that he in fact started his writing career when he started recording experiences in his life. This struck me because I’ve read some of the early literary criticisms in the back of Moby Dick, and most of the criticisms basically say that the book has no structure and that Melville’s writing style doesn’t follow the rules that writers are supposed to stick by. I always assumed that Melville was just a free spirit, who purposely broke the rules of writing because he felt like it, and this could very well be true; however, after reading about Melville’s lack of a literary background, I started to wonder if Melville’s writing style was so untraditional because he didn’t know how to write traditionally.
I also found the last paragraph on page 375, which continues onto page 376 to be interesting because Mathiesen writes about Melville’s scrutiny of the difference between savages and civilized people. This theme constantly comes up in Moby Dick, and Melville seems to be as much of a champion of savagery as anyone in the 1860’s was, because he finds fault in western civilization and religion, and he seems to be tolerant and accepting of “savages” such as Queequeg and Daggoo.
I also wanted to talk about the laws concerning fast-fish and loose-fish because I wasn’t aware that whalemen had concrete laws that they abided by at sea. I also wasn’t aware that whalemen went to court over disputes at sea. I really enjoyed reading the court room scene and I thought Melville’s comparison of disputes over fast-fish and loose-fish to lots of other disputes found throughout the world to be interesting.
Response Journal Week 6- Mayumi
Response Journal 6
At the very beginning of Chapter 61, Melville dives into an existentialist reflection on the masthead (of course). Melville writes: “No resolution could withstand it; in that dreamy mood losing all consciousness, at last my soul went out of my body; though my body still continued to sway as a pendulum will, long after the power which first moved it is withdrawn” (230). This is not the first time Melville has slipped into a spiritual state of mind, however it is the first time he explicitly states the occurrence of something out of the ordinary: his soul leaving his body. This doesn’t faze him; rather, it seems to be a natural process and commonplace with the presence of the sea. His soul is almost in tune with the waves, swaying like a pendulum, and he can even sense the presence of a Sperm Whale when he feels bubbles under his eyelids. Is this yet another of the sea’s powers – to separate a soul from its body without harm? And where did his soul go? Did it become part of the sea?
Also in Chapter 61 were the battle cries that accompany the tumultuous whale hunt. Each major character involved in the hunt, the three mates and three harpooners, each has a distinct battle cry or approach to inspiring the rest of the boat to row faster and with more zeal. What I noticed though was how each harpooner had short, two-syllable war cries, which were incomprehensible and not very intimidating (“kee-hee!”), while the mates inspired the crew with longer shouts of instruction or lamentation. This is a good example of what Mathiesson wrote on page 374 concerning Melville’s belief of his innate connection to savagery, yet in many ways he is clearly not. Each ‘savage’ character is developed enough to his own version of a nonsensical war cry, yet all the war cries are simple variations of one another and are all in the same format.
At the end of Chapter 65, we again encounter Melville’s conflict of savagery, this time showing the savagery revealed in the so-called civilized man, Stubb. Melville asks a series of rhetorical answers leading up to the conclusion that we are all hypocrites when it comes to civilized society and that we are truly savage when our habits are examined closely. Melville points out that Stubb is actually eating a whale steak with a utensil made of oxbone and picking his teeth with a feather from the same fowl he was eating.
Chapter 72 “The Monkey-rope,” also fits in with the theme of savagery. In this chapter, Ishmael is tied to Queequeg by a canvas rope, virtually marrying them together. Each person’s fate relies on the position of the other- if one falls, so does the other. Although Ishmael believes that he and Queequeg are equals at this point because their fates rely on each other’s, their physical positions indicate otherwise. Ishmael is standing high and dry on deck while Queequeg is standing on a dead whale trying to cut its blubber off with sharks at his feet. Ishmael even thinks that it’s funny to jerk Queequeg around so that he would fall close to the bloodthirsty sharks. Not to mention that Queequeg is also in danger of having his leg cut off since Tashtego and Daggoo have very poor aim. All of this (differences in positions) seems to indicate that Queequeg’s life actually lies in Ishmael’s hands; Ishmael holds the power.
After reading so much about the technical differences between whales, the functional uses of whale parts, and such, I began to wonder why Melville deemed such dry technical prose necessary to the novel. I then realized that Melville is fascinated by the technical and mechanical details because he is trying to reconcile every technical aspect with its philosophical meaning. The novel is a philosophical exploration of every technical detail. This can get tiresome at times, but I must remind myself to continue searching for the philosophical counterpart to every technical description. To Be Continued…
At the very beginning of Chapter 61, Melville dives into an existentialist reflection on the masthead (of course). Melville writes: “No resolution could withstand it; in that dreamy mood losing all consciousness, at last my soul went out of my body; though my body still continued to sway as a pendulum will, long after the power which first moved it is withdrawn” (230). This is not the first time Melville has slipped into a spiritual state of mind, however it is the first time he explicitly states the occurrence of something out of the ordinary: his soul leaving his body. This doesn’t faze him; rather, it seems to be a natural process and commonplace with the presence of the sea. His soul is almost in tune with the waves, swaying like a pendulum, and he can even sense the presence of a Sperm Whale when he feels bubbles under his eyelids. Is this yet another of the sea’s powers – to separate a soul from its body without harm? And where did his soul go? Did it become part of the sea?
Also in Chapter 61 were the battle cries that accompany the tumultuous whale hunt. Each major character involved in the hunt, the three mates and three harpooners, each has a distinct battle cry or approach to inspiring the rest of the boat to row faster and with more zeal. What I noticed though was how each harpooner had short, two-syllable war cries, which were incomprehensible and not very intimidating (“kee-hee!”), while the mates inspired the crew with longer shouts of instruction or lamentation. This is a good example of what Mathiesson wrote on page 374 concerning Melville’s belief of his innate connection to savagery, yet in many ways he is clearly not. Each ‘savage’ character is developed enough to his own version of a nonsensical war cry, yet all the war cries are simple variations of one another and are all in the same format.
At the end of Chapter 65, we again encounter Melville’s conflict of savagery, this time showing the savagery revealed in the so-called civilized man, Stubb. Melville asks a series of rhetorical answers leading up to the conclusion that we are all hypocrites when it comes to civilized society and that we are truly savage when our habits are examined closely. Melville points out that Stubb is actually eating a whale steak with a utensil made of oxbone and picking his teeth with a feather from the same fowl he was eating.
Chapter 72 “The Monkey-rope,” also fits in with the theme of savagery. In this chapter, Ishmael is tied to Queequeg by a canvas rope, virtually marrying them together. Each person’s fate relies on the position of the other- if one falls, so does the other. Although Ishmael believes that he and Queequeg are equals at this point because their fates rely on each other’s, their physical positions indicate otherwise. Ishmael is standing high and dry on deck while Queequeg is standing on a dead whale trying to cut its blubber off with sharks at his feet. Ishmael even thinks that it’s funny to jerk Queequeg around so that he would fall close to the bloodthirsty sharks. Not to mention that Queequeg is also in danger of having his leg cut off since Tashtego and Daggoo have very poor aim. All of this (differences in positions) seems to indicate that Queequeg’s life actually lies in Ishmael’s hands; Ishmael holds the power.
After reading so much about the technical differences between whales, the functional uses of whale parts, and such, I began to wonder why Melville deemed such dry technical prose necessary to the novel. I then realized that Melville is fascinated by the technical and mechanical details because he is trying to reconcile every technical aspect with its philosophical meaning. The novel is a philosophical exploration of every technical detail. This can get tiresome at times, but I must remind myself to continue searching for the philosophical counterpart to every technical description. To Be Continued…
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Response Journal Week 6/7 - Gabi
I want to break this response into two distinct sections, each one relating to a theme I found relevant in F. O. Matthiessen’s work.
1) Melville incorporates nature into Moby Dick in a very consistent way. His manner of doing so however is varied. Sometimes he seems to work with the traditional manner of evoking feelings of the sublime (pgs 19, 133, the whole of Chapter 17, “The Tail” etc.). He also, using his scientific knowledge, attempts to impart awe in the reader. He goes on and on about the magnificence of the whale, its spout, its tail, and about the glory of the ocean among other things. Matthiessen maintains that while Melville does to some extent praise the wonders of nature he “was never stirred by the advantages of living with animals.” (Matthiessen, 407). Taken literally this doesn’t make much sense. In Romantic Movement (which sort of overlaps with the period during which Melville was most active), the idea existed that going back to nature was ideal for man. This idea intersected with primitivism but in a gentler way. Within this context, it becomes relevant to compare Melville’s writing about nature and the idea of the sublime to a Romantic ideal of “living with animals” and the like. Matthiessen doesn’t connect Melville’s rejection of this ideal to the Romanticism or even the Romantic ideal as directly as I do, but I think a connection is definitely apparent. He argues that Melville sees this slight tendency towards primitivism as “a denial of the mind, and consequently... a regression to an immature state.” (Matthiessen, 407). In order to counter balance this tendency, Melville brings the reader back to 'intellectual civilization' with the bits of science that he intersperses throughout the novel. Not only does he use science, but he also uses very careful, observations about the physical appearances of things to the same effect. These more technical and/or physical observations are a one of the multiple mediums (along with, for example, more obvious philosophical rants) that Melville uses in order to arrive at the larger questions that interest him. At one point in the supplementary reading, Matthiessen addresses the issue of theater and how the medium itself was unappealing to Melville, who apparently greatly preferred the novel form. The novel form, combined with his scientific interjections (regardless of their periodic inaccuracy), along with the philosophical ramblings that the characters sometimes engage in, along with the plot line itself, all come together as a function of Melville’s search for certain truths about mankind. The idea of nature as sublime comes through in all of these particles. His bits of science and technical explanation (like for example Chapter 86, “The Tail” in particular) are intended to encourage his reader to be awed by the complexity of the whale, the ocean, and other natural components of his book. The philosophical ramblings are often in some way or another linked to nature or how a character’s immediate environment makes them feel. Lastly, the impressiveness of nature as handled in the plot should be pretty obvious.
2) Matthiessen compares Melville’s work, specifically Moby Dick to Shakespeare’s work. He does this in a few different capacities. Specifically, at one point he focuses on Shakespeare’s use of theater as an artistic medium. The theater necessitated a distinct treatment of the audience (this was in fact one of the reasons that Melville supposedly disdained of the theater form) which shaped the way Shakespeare’s works were written. Most people who have passed through even the most basic class on Shakespeare’s work are familiar with distinction between the portions of the play that were intended for the groundlings and those that were intended for the ‘more cultured’ upper class. Some jokes could be shared by all members of the audience, but some deeper commentaries were exclusively directed to an ‘elite.’ Matthiessen introduces the idea that Melville was so deeply influenced by Shakespeare’s form (a product of W.S.’s time and his medium) that he subconsciously imitated it to a degree. His more basic plot was intended for the ‘groundlings’ in his literary audience, and the deeper philosophical messages were intended to reach the more intellectually articulate members of the audience(Matthiessen, 415-416).While Matthiessen’s contention is interesting and even makes logical sense, it seems to contradict the actual work. To Matthiessen’s credit, the form of Melville’s novel makes any logical analysis of the work extremely challenging to formulate. However, the book is so epic in proportion that it is hard to imagine that any part of it would be formulated (whether consciously or not) to cater to a specific audience. The purely fictional element of the novel is so fundamentally integrated with it’s philosophical and ideological premise that the two are impossible to break apart—even with regards to accessibility. For example, Chapter 85 “The Fountain” is a combination of facts about the whale’s spout as well as a sort of poetic elegy to the whale. This chapter comes quite a bit after Chapter 62 “Stubb Kills a Whale,” but they are definitively interlinked. Towards the end of the earlier chapter, Melville describes the gory mess that Stubb makes in his hunt, “At last, gush after gush of clotted red gore, as if it had been the purple lees of red wine, shot into the frighted air...” (Melville, 233). At the beginning of the chapter Melville (or Ishmael) carefully described the puffs that came out of the whale’s spout. The hunting scene much earlier sets the stage for “The Fountain.” The chapters in which Melville becomes more ‘scientific’ work collaboratively with the rest of the narrative. If one attempts to break the novel into distinct pieces, one intended for a certain crowd and another intended for someone else, the book immediately falls apart. This is particularly interesting considering how jagged the narrative sometimes seems to be. Melville inserts often seemingly random chapters into an otherwise ‘smooth’ story-line. His style (at least in Moby Dick) is one of the things that makes his writing most unique. The chapters and different portions subsequently fall into place, like pieces in a puzzle (or at least this seemed to be Melville’s intention). Matthiessen mentions the idea of levels, specifically the levels into which Shakespeare’s theatrical works were divided (reflecting a split in the audience), but Moby Dick seems to be devoid of any distinct levels. There is no single part of the novel that is simply narrative or simply humor or simply philosophy or science. The components all bleed into each other.
1) Melville incorporates nature into Moby Dick in a very consistent way. His manner of doing so however is varied. Sometimes he seems to work with the traditional manner of evoking feelings of the sublime (pgs 19, 133, the whole of Chapter 17, “The Tail” etc.). He also, using his scientific knowledge, attempts to impart awe in the reader. He goes on and on about the magnificence of the whale, its spout, its tail, and about the glory of the ocean among other things. Matthiessen maintains that while Melville does to some extent praise the wonders of nature he “was never stirred by the advantages of living with animals.” (Matthiessen, 407). Taken literally this doesn’t make much sense. In Romantic Movement (which sort of overlaps with the period during which Melville was most active), the idea existed that going back to nature was ideal for man. This idea intersected with primitivism but in a gentler way. Within this context, it becomes relevant to compare Melville’s writing about nature and the idea of the sublime to a Romantic ideal of “living with animals” and the like. Matthiessen doesn’t connect Melville’s rejection of this ideal to the Romanticism or even the Romantic ideal as directly as I do, but I think a connection is definitely apparent. He argues that Melville sees this slight tendency towards primitivism as “a denial of the mind, and consequently... a regression to an immature state.” (Matthiessen, 407). In order to counter balance this tendency, Melville brings the reader back to 'intellectual civilization' with the bits of science that he intersperses throughout the novel. Not only does he use science, but he also uses very careful, observations about the physical appearances of things to the same effect. These more technical and/or physical observations are a one of the multiple mediums (along with, for example, more obvious philosophical rants) that Melville uses in order to arrive at the larger questions that interest him. At one point in the supplementary reading, Matthiessen addresses the issue of theater and how the medium itself was unappealing to Melville, who apparently greatly preferred the novel form. The novel form, combined with his scientific interjections (regardless of their periodic inaccuracy), along with the philosophical ramblings that the characters sometimes engage in, along with the plot line itself, all come together as a function of Melville’s search for certain truths about mankind. The idea of nature as sublime comes through in all of these particles. His bits of science and technical explanation (like for example Chapter 86, “The Tail” in particular) are intended to encourage his reader to be awed by the complexity of the whale, the ocean, and other natural components of his book. The philosophical ramblings are often in some way or another linked to nature or how a character’s immediate environment makes them feel. Lastly, the impressiveness of nature as handled in the plot should be pretty obvious.
2) Matthiessen compares Melville’s work, specifically Moby Dick to Shakespeare’s work. He does this in a few different capacities. Specifically, at one point he focuses on Shakespeare’s use of theater as an artistic medium. The theater necessitated a distinct treatment of the audience (this was in fact one of the reasons that Melville supposedly disdained of the theater form) which shaped the way Shakespeare’s works were written. Most people who have passed through even the most basic class on Shakespeare’s work are familiar with distinction between the portions of the play that were intended for the groundlings and those that were intended for the ‘more cultured’ upper class. Some jokes could be shared by all members of the audience, but some deeper commentaries were exclusively directed to an ‘elite.’ Matthiessen introduces the idea that Melville was so deeply influenced by Shakespeare’s form (a product of W.S.’s time and his medium) that he subconsciously imitated it to a degree. His more basic plot was intended for the ‘groundlings’ in his literary audience, and the deeper philosophical messages were intended to reach the more intellectually articulate members of the audience(Matthiessen, 415-416).While Matthiessen’s contention is interesting and even makes logical sense, it seems to contradict the actual work. To Matthiessen’s credit, the form of Melville’s novel makes any logical analysis of the work extremely challenging to formulate. However, the book is so epic in proportion that it is hard to imagine that any part of it would be formulated (whether consciously or not) to cater to a specific audience. The purely fictional element of the novel is so fundamentally integrated with it’s philosophical and ideological premise that the two are impossible to break apart—even with regards to accessibility. For example, Chapter 85 “The Fountain” is a combination of facts about the whale’s spout as well as a sort of poetic elegy to the whale. This chapter comes quite a bit after Chapter 62 “Stubb Kills a Whale,” but they are definitively interlinked. Towards the end of the earlier chapter, Melville describes the gory mess that Stubb makes in his hunt, “At last, gush after gush of clotted red gore, as if it had been the purple lees of red wine, shot into the frighted air...” (Melville, 233). At the beginning of the chapter Melville (or Ishmael) carefully described the puffs that came out of the whale’s spout. The hunting scene much earlier sets the stage for “The Fountain.” The chapters in which Melville becomes more ‘scientific’ work collaboratively with the rest of the narrative. If one attempts to break the novel into distinct pieces, one intended for a certain crowd and another intended for someone else, the book immediately falls apart. This is particularly interesting considering how jagged the narrative sometimes seems to be. Melville inserts often seemingly random chapters into an otherwise ‘smooth’ story-line. His style (at least in Moby Dick) is one of the things that makes his writing most unique. The chapters and different portions subsequently fall into place, like pieces in a puzzle (or at least this seemed to be Melville’s intention). Matthiessen mentions the idea of levels, specifically the levels into which Shakespeare’s theatrical works were divided (reflecting a split in the audience), but Moby Dick seems to be devoid of any distinct levels. There is no single part of the novel that is simply narrative or simply humor or simply philosophy or science. The components all bleed into each other.
Response Journal Week 6/7-Amani
In the many chapters that we read over the last few weeks, I noticed that Ishmael focuses on his philosophical thoughts in the midst of the action that is occurring in the book. At many instances, Ishmael interludes a scene of action, despite the rarity of one, to reflect his abstract theories of the action taking place. Perhaps this is because Ishmael is not a skillful whaler but an intellectual seeking to share his thoughts. Or maybe it’s because Melville is using Ishmael to display his understanding of whaling that wouldn’t necessarily be considered by an actual whaler.
One of Ishmael’s ideas that seems to be reoccurring is his immense respect for the whale. With all the processes the crew goes through of catching the whale, cutting the whale etc., Ishmael finds an underlying symbolic meaning. Ishmael dedicates entire chapters to this creature that demonstrate the extraordinary power the whale holds. In Chapter 69 “The Funeral,” Ishmael describes the whale’s “funeral” as “mocking” and a dishonor to the whale. He describes the whale’s dominance after death. “Thus while in life the great whale’s body may have been a real terror to his foes, in his death his ghost becomes powerless panic to the world” (248). This idea ties in with the theological aspect of Moby-Dick. Ishmael continuously references religion and philosophies in the text. He mentions Judaism in both Chapter 67 and Chapter 70 by referring to their Saturday night as “Sabbath” and discussing the Jewish heroine, Judith. Ishmael believes the whale has godly powers and that it should be feared as any deity would. The whale is driven by fate and carries out what is predestined. In “The Prairie,” Ishmael uses physiognomy (the art of judging human character from facial features) and phrenology (the study of the shape of the skull, based on the belief that it reveals character and mental capacity) to study the whale. He comments that the brow of the whale indicates it godly characteristics. Ishmael believes that the measure of intelligence should not be measured by a creature’s brain size but it’s spinal cord size. He points in “The Nute” that although the whale’s brain is very small, it’s spinal cord is very long therefore demonstrating it’s power.
In “The Fate of the Ungodly God-Like Man,” Ahab is analyzed. Matthiessen claims that Ahab is the central character in the book. He asserts that Ahab is a tragic hero and compares him to a character that many consider to be a tragic hero, who is also vengeful: Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Melville admired Shakespeare for making Hamlet the pivotal role in his story, as Melville does with Ahab. Melville states, “‘for much the same reason that there is but one planet to one orbit, so can there be but one such original character to work one invention.’” (447). Ahab is both separated from his surroundings while still maintaining control over everyone’s actions. Matthiessen’s comparison between Ahab and Hamlet makes me wonder whether Ahab’s madness is an act as well; an act to get his crew to corporate so that he can achieve his vengeance of the White Whale. However, like all tragic heros, Ahab’s defiance of fate leads to his doom.
Despite Ahab’s isolation, I noticed that dependency is necessary aboard the Pequod. In “Stubb’s Supper,” Ishmael depicts the teamwork that is exhibited on the ship: “And now, as we eighteen men with our thirty-six arms, and one hundred and eighty thumbs and fingers, slowly toiled hour after hour upon that inert, sluggish corpses in the sea;...” (235). This may be why we found the whalers were very open-minded and lacked the racist and discriminating qualities we assumed, living then, they would have had. When Stubb argues with the old, black cook, initially, I thought he was being racist. However, considering Stubb’s respect for Queequeg (who is a whaler of color), I concluded that he was being rude to the cook because of his rank on the ship. The men on the ship are judged by their skill and ability, not by their race or their social class off of the ship. This attitude displayed by Melville is significant because it presents a message of tolerance. A message that needed to be understood by both the people living during Melville’s time and people today.
Moby Dick Music - Gabi
http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/yradish/43192/songs-inspired-by-herman-melvilles-moby-dick/
listen to the songs when you scroll down
listen to the songs when you scroll down
Response Journal Week 6-7
Though Mathiesson’s examination of Moby Dick breaks from the traditions of the new critics, his use of biographical information is very helpful for understanding some phenomena that we have noticed in Moby Dick. For example, Mathiesson points out that everything that Melville wrote previously had simply been “narratives of travel” (Mathiesson 371). When written, Moby Dick was the farthest Melville had ever strayed from the personal, for he followed the old adage, “write what you know.” This preference for autobiographical non-fiction shows through constantly. Often he bases his characters’ experiences and histories upon his own life (schoolteacher, cannibals etc.), yet at the same time, Melville never went whaling, and thus the entire premise of the novel is outside of his realm of experience. His preference for reality also shows through in his frequent digressions into extremely (pseudo)scientific examinations of the whale, and whaling itself.
Mathiesson makes note of the fact that Melville’s primary goal is to write a tragedy, and thus compares him to Shakespeare. He claims that, “Shakespeare’s phrasing had so hynotized [sic] him that often he seems to have reproduced it involuntarily, even when there was no point to the allusion” (Mathiesson 424). However, his plagiarism, whether deliberate or not, does help him break free from the world of travel logs. The allusion to Shakespeare alone serves to suggest that it is a tragedy, but Mathiesson also suggests that, “The most important effect of Shakespeare’s use of language was to give Melville a range of vocabulary for expressing passion far beyond any that he had previously possessed” (425). However, in all seriousness, this makes me question Melville as an author. Mathiesson opens by stating that Melville was barely educated, and had barely any writing background. If anything, he attributes his success to luck. How, then, can we praise Melville, if he was incapable of expressing the emotions that are crucial to a tragedy without taking the language of Shakespeare? This question extends even farther, for many sections of the book have notes which list where Melville took a character or a scene from. Large parts of it were hardly written by him; they were simply lifted from other authors. However, these notes do not accuse him of plagiarism, they merely give his “source” as though it was a piece of non-fiction. Perhaps we ought to praise Melville for his choice of “sources”, or for the way he incorporated them into one novel, but it seems almost wrong to love him for his writing.
A common theme that has run through the novel is that of escaping one’s fate, and relatedly, elevating oneself above god. As Mathiesson points out, Ahab is the ultimate embodiment of this. However, Ahab is also the ultimate contradiction; he is “a grand, ungodly, god-like man.” Though he is god-like, he is also ungodly in his humanity and imperfection. Though Ahab admits that he is a slave to his destiny, he does not allow this to prevent him from attempting to shape what little he can. According to Mathiesson, this echoed a common sentiment and transformation at the time. He writes, “Anyone concerned with orthodoxy holds that the spiritual decadence of the nineteenth century can be measured according to the alteration in the object of its belief from God-Man to Man-God, and to the corresponding shift in emphasis from Incarnation to Deification.” Rather than imagining that all good must come from a higher being, or that humans are naturally worthless, people were instead worshipped as they could become god. This is an almost Nietzschean perspective, in that humans are placed at the forefront, and capable of determining their own morality.
Mathiesson makes note of the fact that Melville’s primary goal is to write a tragedy, and thus compares him to Shakespeare. He claims that, “Shakespeare’s phrasing had so hynotized [sic] him that often he seems to have reproduced it involuntarily, even when there was no point to the allusion” (Mathiesson 424). However, his plagiarism, whether deliberate or not, does help him break free from the world of travel logs. The allusion to Shakespeare alone serves to suggest that it is a tragedy, but Mathiesson also suggests that, “The most important effect of Shakespeare’s use of language was to give Melville a range of vocabulary for expressing passion far beyond any that he had previously possessed” (425). However, in all seriousness, this makes me question Melville as an author. Mathiesson opens by stating that Melville was barely educated, and had barely any writing background. If anything, he attributes his success to luck. How, then, can we praise Melville, if he was incapable of expressing the emotions that are crucial to a tragedy without taking the language of Shakespeare? This question extends even farther, for many sections of the book have notes which list where Melville took a character or a scene from. Large parts of it were hardly written by him; they were simply lifted from other authors. However, these notes do not accuse him of plagiarism, they merely give his “source” as though it was a piece of non-fiction. Perhaps we ought to praise Melville for his choice of “sources”, or for the way he incorporated them into one novel, but it seems almost wrong to love him for his writing.
A common theme that has run through the novel is that of escaping one’s fate, and relatedly, elevating oneself above god. As Mathiesson points out, Ahab is the ultimate embodiment of this. However, Ahab is also the ultimate contradiction; he is “a grand, ungodly, god-like man.” Though he is god-like, he is also ungodly in his humanity and imperfection. Though Ahab admits that he is a slave to his destiny, he does not allow this to prevent him from attempting to shape what little he can. According to Mathiesson, this echoed a common sentiment and transformation at the time. He writes, “Anyone concerned with orthodoxy holds that the spiritual decadence of the nineteenth century can be measured according to the alteration in the object of its belief from God-Man to Man-God, and to the corresponding shift in emphasis from Incarnation to Deification.” Rather than imagining that all good must come from a higher being, or that humans are naturally worthless, people were instead worshipped as they could become god. This is an almost Nietzschean perspective, in that humans are placed at the forefront, and capable of determining their own morality.
Response Journal Week 6 and 7 - Caleb
In this rather large reading, from chapter 61-89, I noticed that, despite its bulk, not much action takes place in this reading. Of these 29 chapters, 23 are what I call ‘documentary chapters’, which have little significance to the actual storyline, instead explaining a certain aspect of whaling or describing a concept or object (viz. ‘Cutting In’, ‘Fast Fish and Loose Fish’, ‘The Right Whale’s Head’). Though this can be extremely frustrating, I kept noticing the same confrontation-exploration-frustration form that Hayford illustrated in his essay on “Loomings”, especially the final stage of frustration. Though he starts them by asserting his factual and practical intention (“Now comes the Baling of the Case” (268), “Let us, then, look at this matter, along with some interesting items contingent” (290), etc,) Melville often ends these documentary chapters with open-ended question (Chs. 65, 69, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82, 86, 89, 92), which have no empirical answer. The chapter “The Tail” illustrates this ending best. It starts out with the intention to explain the titular tail of the whale. However, typically of Melville, it ends with frustration. “The more I consider this mighty tail,” writes Melville, “the more do I deplore deeply my inability to express it… dissect him how I may, then, I but go skin deep; I know him not, and never will” (296). It is this procession from empirical knowledge to abstract philosophy which gives the book form and purpose, and allows Melville to use these documentary chapters without the reader feeling that his or her time was completely wasted. It is a perfect example of using what you know (whaling) to explore what you don’t.
This process is what F. O. Matthiessen calls “nailing… drama to actuality” (416). Matthiessen asserts that “it prevents the drama from gliding off into a world to which we would feel no normal tie whatever.” (416) Thus, every supernatural or incredible phenomenon in “Moby-Dick” is tied to a physical sensory object, or rational explanation. For example, the phenomenal ubiquity of the Great White Whale is explained by several obscure mythological passageways. Writes Melville, “these fabulous narrations are almost fully equaled by the realities of the whaleman” (155). Even Fedallah’s appearance has both a phenomenal and realistic explanation. Stubb opines, “…I take that Fedallah to be the devil in disguise. Do you believe that cock and bull story about his having been stowed away in board ship?” (259). In this case, the lines between rational and fantastical are blurred: Stubb believes the rational explanation to be fantastical, and the fantastical explanation to be rational. In the same way, Melville gives us many situations (the phantom spout, the circling schools of whales, the fields of brit, etc.) with both a fantastical, or otherworldly explanation, and a rational, scientific explanation.
Another aspect of the novel that supports this tension between the fantastical and the rational is Melville’s constant anthropomorphization of animals, and his constant comparisons of creatures to people. “In man or fish,” writes Melville, “wriggling is a sign of inferiority” (294). He is constantly giving human traits and feelings to whales (such as, on pg. 306, where he writes about the ‘Lothario whale’, or Melville’s “And what are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast Fish, too?” (310)). Fleece says, of Stubb, “I’m bressed if he ain’t more of a shark dan Massa Shark hisself” (240), which is almost the opposite of anthropomorphizing, giving animal characteristics to humans (antianthropomorphization?).
Melville not only compares humans to whales, but encourages us to act more like them (“Oh man! Admire and model thyself after the whale! (247), “Has the Sperm Whale ever written a book, spoken a speech? No, his great genius is declared in his doing nothing particular to prove it” (274)). He not only exhorts man to be more like whale, but chides man in his inability to be as great as the natural world: “…there is no folly of the beasts of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men” (300). Among these is the poetic analogy of the whale’s fountain to the human mind. Melville writes, “For, d’ye see, rainbows do not visit the clear air; they only irradiate vapor. And so, through all the thick mists of the dim doubts in my mind, divine intuitions now and then shoot, enkindling my fog with a heavenly ray” (293).
In addition to comparing and equating humans with beasts, Melville goes even further to connect man with nature, specifically the sea. Writes Melville, “…amid the tornadoed Atlantic of my being, do I myself still for ever centrally disport in mute calm; and while ponderous planets of unwaning woe revolve round me, deep down and deep inland there I still bathe me in eternal mildness of joy” (303). Ishmael often becomes one with nature while on board the Pequod. Earlier in the novel, Ishmael says that he is “…lulled into such an opium-like listlessness of vacant, unconscious reverie is this absent-minded youth by the blending cadence of waves with thoughts, that at last he loses his identity; takes the mystic ocean at his feet for the visible imagine of that deep, blue, bottomless soul, pervading mankind and nature; and every… dimly-discovered, uprising fin of some indiscernible form, seems to him the embodiment of those elusive thoughts…” (136) Ishmael also describes a similar period at sea more spiritually, declaring that “…at last my soul went out of my body; though my body continued to sway as a pendulum will, long after the power which first moved it is withdrawn” (230). Ahab too picks up on this transcendentalist connection. In chapter 71, he opines, “O Nature, and O soul of man! How far beyond all utterance are your linked analogies! Not the smallest atom stirs or lives in matter, but has its cunning duplicate in mind.” This “duplicate” could account for the dual-explanations prevalent throughout the book, the fantastical and the rational.
Also having to do with this connection between whale and man, and the impossibility of knowing them both, is the facial “hieroglyphics” we see throughout the novel. In addition to Queequeg’s mysterious facial tattoos, the whale itself has a hieroglyphic face (246), and Fedallah’s tusk is “’sort of carved into a snake’s head’” (259).
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Response Journal Week 6 - Gabriel
So far I have read up to page 286 in Moby Dick and I haven’t read any of the Mathiesen handout yet. I wanted to start out by writing about the encounter between Fleece and Stubb on page 237. It was almost painful to read because Stubb treated the old, tired cook so poorly. First Stubb gets mad at the cook for not cooking the whale steak right, and he therefore wakes him up and makes him preach to the sharks. This encounter stood out to me because it was really the first time in this novel where one character is being truly mean to the other character. Stubb doesn’t strike me as a mean person. In fact, he’s the jolly nihilist who thinks the world is one big joke. Therefore, I think that this is just Stubb’s way of amusing himself. At one point Fleece calls Stubb “Massa Stubb” on page 238. I’m not sure if it’s common for the mates to be referred to as Master, but to me it seemed liked the Fleece’s reference to Stubb as master was racially motivated. I say this because at one point earlier in the novel, Ishmael talks about how he wouldn’t want to hold a high office on a boat such as a mate or a cook because he doesn’t like the power. Ishmael makes it clear that cooks are officers on whaling ships, which is why it would make no sense for one officer to call another officer master. The fact that Fleece calls Stubb “Massa Stubb” is interesting because for the past 240 pages it seems as if port-towns, such as Nantucket, and whaling ships were much progressive in the way that foreigners, white Americans, and people of color interacted, however, in the encounter between Stubb and Fleece, the reader sees a hint of the racism, evident on the mainland. However, on page 252, the racial tolerance of whale ships is again evident. Ishmael talks about his brotherhood with Queequeg because a monkey rope attached him and Queequeg as Queequeg stood on top of the whale. On most ships the person on the whale isn’t attached by a rope to a person on the ship, however, on the Pequod, Stubb was the one who forced Ishmael to be attached to Queequeg so that Ishmael’s life depended on Queequeg. This shows how Stubb values the life of black crewmembers as much as those of white crewmembers. Also, on page 257, Stubb gets furious with the steward when he gives Queequeg ginger instead of an alcoholic beverage because he thinks Queequeg is deserving of a true reward. In performing these two acts Stubb shows that he is not racist, and that he cares for all of his crewmates, regardless of their race. This makes me think that the mean behavior he displayed towards Fleece wasn’t as racially motivated as I originally thought. This also makes me question whether Fleece was required to call Stubb “Massa Stubb” or whether he just does that because he’s used to referring to all white people in that manner.
There was an interesting passage on page 242, where Melville talks about cannibals and how it’s more tolerable for famished people from Fejee to eat missionaries than for westerners to eat Foie gras. Melville shows again how different he is from most people of his time period, in defending cannibalism to a certain degree. It’s also interesting that Melville is defending cannibalism after he was captured by a group of cannibals. It would be really interesting to learn what went on during Melville’s detainment because we could then see what shaped his views on cannibalism.
I also just wanted to point out a great line on page 282. Melville writes, “For all his [the whale] old age, and his one arm, and his blind eyes, he must die the death and be murdered, in order to light the gay bridals and other merry-makings of men, and also to illuminate the solemn churches that preach unconditional inoffensiveness to all”. I loved this line because it sums up the bigger picture of whaling. It’s weird how Melville describes whaling in such a bad light because he is a staunch advocate of whaling, and he continually sticks up for it throughout the book. This line really contradicts much of what Melville has previously said about whaling.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Response Journal Week 5 - Mayumi
The main secondary source we read, “Loomings,” contained interesting and relevant arguments that served as a lens for my reading of the actual Moby Dick text for this week. Chapter 54 “The Town-Ho’s Story” was a prime example of Ishmael’s dislike of superiority and unresolved conflict. The story was about a mutiny – the inferior sailors posed a problem in which they made a statement about their mistreatment. The sailors are detained, and after a period of time, are about to be hanged when Steelkilt hisses some unknown threats to the captain and are released. Thus the conflict between the superior and inferior goes unresolved. Even after the whole ordeal, Ishmael states that any one of the men onboard would gladly sacrifice whatever they deemed necessary for the needs of the boat. The sailors, even after the mutiny, agree to submit themselves (as inferiors) to the needs of the boat. The rest of the story remains unresolved, ending with Radney’s death (a sailor on whom Steelkilt never got to exact his revenge) and the Steelkilt’s enlistment onboard a French boat.
On page 224 is another example of Ishmael’s appeal to inferiority where the sea is the omnipotent master. Melville writes:
Like a savage tigress that tossing in the jungle overlays her own cubs, so the sea dashes even the mightiest whales against the rocks, and leaves them there side by side with the split wrecks of ships. No mercy, no power but its own controls it. Panting and snorting like a mad battle steed that has lost its rider, the masterless ocean overruns the globe.
Even whales are subject to the sea, which in terms of power, remains second to none. Ishmael almost enjoys the leveling of creatures through the subordination of a master. Everyone suffers in some way or another under a master. Although Ishmael doesn’t respect whales to the degree that he does humans, he does show some amount of pity towards them in identifying their same predicament (subject to the whims of the ocean) in this quote.
On a different note, the mystery of the whale appears once again in Chapter 55. After describing the many failed attempts across the globe to draw whales, Ishmael concludes that a whale can never be properly drawn. Even with the guide of a whale skeleton, humans can never put on paper the true form of a whale. They can get close, but they will never succeed. This idea of an essence that can’t be recorded relates back to the Platonic ideas of forms and sense objects. Form is the eternal and unchanging blueprint for the universe. Because humans cannot come into contact with this eternal thus they experience the ideas of form through sense objects – a watered down version of form. If the whale is an eternal form, then his earthly manifestation cannot be mimicked or recorded in any fashion. And if the Moby Dick is the manifestation of eternal (either God or Satan’s will) then this chapter fits perfectly into this intricate puzzle of the book.
On page 224 is another example of Ishmael’s appeal to inferiority where the sea is the omnipotent master. Melville writes:
Like a savage tigress that tossing in the jungle overlays her own cubs, so the sea dashes even the mightiest whales against the rocks, and leaves them there side by side with the split wrecks of ships. No mercy, no power but its own controls it. Panting and snorting like a mad battle steed that has lost its rider, the masterless ocean overruns the globe.
Even whales are subject to the sea, which in terms of power, remains second to none. Ishmael almost enjoys the leveling of creatures through the subordination of a master. Everyone suffers in some way or another under a master. Although Ishmael doesn’t respect whales to the degree that he does humans, he does show some amount of pity towards them in identifying their same predicament (subject to the whims of the ocean) in this quote.
On a different note, the mystery of the whale appears once again in Chapter 55. After describing the many failed attempts across the globe to draw whales, Ishmael concludes that a whale can never be properly drawn. Even with the guide of a whale skeleton, humans can never put on paper the true form of a whale. They can get close, but they will never succeed. This idea of an essence that can’t be recorded relates back to the Platonic ideas of forms and sense objects. Form is the eternal and unchanging blueprint for the universe. Because humans cannot come into contact with this eternal thus they experience the ideas of form through sense objects – a watered down version of form. If the whale is an eternal form, then his earthly manifestation cannot be mimicked or recorded in any fashion. And if the Moby Dick is the manifestation of eternal (either God or Satan’s will) then this chapter fits perfectly into this intricate puzzle of the book.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Response Journal 5-Amani
One thread I noticed in the reading for this week was Ishmael’s depiction of the inaccessibility of the White Whale. In Chapter 55, Ishmael claims that in order actually know what a creature looks like, you must encounter it. However, he points out that most of whale’s body is under water, and if someone were to go under water to where the whale is, they would probably die. In Chapters 56 and 57, Ishmael attempts to find acceptable depictions of whales. He thinks of two found in France. He contemplates why France has the best depictions of whales, though they aren’t a whaling nation. So is there depiction really accurate? It seems difficult to understand the White Whale, or more specifically Moby-Dick. This adds to the theme of seeking the unknown.
In Harrison Hayford’s “ ‘Loomings’: Yarns and Figures in the Fabric,” he discusses this theme. He analyzes Moby-Dick with a focus on the first chapter “Loomings” which he says, “carry a few strands of thought (themes)” that reoccur throughout the book. Hayford discusses the confusion the reader faces in distinguishing the narrator: Ishmael or Melville himself. He says that it's important to look at the book as though Ishmael is narrating all throughout. “In this perspective, the action of the work takes place in the observing and participating mind of Ishmael” (657). He points out that the book begins with the statement, “Call me Ishmael,” so we should. It was interesting to look at Loomings after reading more the of the book. It seemed like a much more significant chapter. This chapter definitely contains significant themes that help us to understand Ishmael, as a character. Ishmael is an observer that allows us to see whats going on. He allows us to see Ahab; Melville is unable to do so. Hayford draws upon the similarties and differences between Ishmael and Ahab. He explains that “both of them turn every object, situation, and person they confront into a problem, one which cannot be solved, a mystery whose lurking meaning cannot be followed to its ultimated elucidation.” (659) The distinction between the two men is what they do with the problem they created. Ishmael goes on this trip, seeking the unknown, to get away from violence and destruction. Ahab's reason for going on this voyage is to destroy; to kill both Moby-Dick. Hayford also discusses fate and Ahab's predestined self-destruction.
Two other criticisms I read were “The Strangest, Wildest, and Saddest Story” by Louis Beck and “I Wish I Had Written That” by William Faukner. Both admired Melville's work. Beck said that Moby-Dick served as a way for him and his crew to bond. If real seaman praise Melville for his work, then maybe Melville's voyaging descriptions aren't as inaccurate as we may think. Faulkner described the book as “Greek-like,” depicting Ahab as a tragic hero. Faulkner says that the White Whale is a “symbol of their doom.” (640) The point of his text is exactly the title: he wish he could have written Moby-Dick.
In Harrison Hayford’s “ ‘Loomings’: Yarns and Figures in the Fabric,” he discusses this theme. He analyzes Moby-Dick with a focus on the first chapter “Loomings” which he says, “carry a few strands of thought (themes)” that reoccur throughout the book. Hayford discusses the confusion the reader faces in distinguishing the narrator: Ishmael or Melville himself. He says that it's important to look at the book as though Ishmael is narrating all throughout. “In this perspective, the action of the work takes place in the observing and participating mind of Ishmael” (657). He points out that the book begins with the statement, “Call me Ishmael,” so we should. It was interesting to look at Loomings after reading more the of the book. It seemed like a much more significant chapter. This chapter definitely contains significant themes that help us to understand Ishmael, as a character. Ishmael is an observer that allows us to see whats going on. He allows us to see Ahab; Melville is unable to do so. Hayford draws upon the similarties and differences between Ishmael and Ahab. He explains that “both of them turn every object, situation, and person they confront into a problem, one which cannot be solved, a mystery whose lurking meaning cannot be followed to its ultimated elucidation.” (659) The distinction between the two men is what they do with the problem they created. Ishmael goes on this trip, seeking the unknown, to get away from violence and destruction. Ahab's reason for going on this voyage is to destroy; to kill both Moby-Dick. Hayford also discusses fate and Ahab's predestined self-destruction.
Two other criticisms I read were “The Strangest, Wildest, and Saddest Story” by Louis Beck and “I Wish I Had Written That” by William Faukner. Both admired Melville's work. Beck said that Moby-Dick served as a way for him and his crew to bond. If real seaman praise Melville for his work, then maybe Melville's voyaging descriptions aren't as inaccurate as we may think. Faulkner described the book as “Greek-like,” depicting Ahab as a tragic hero. Faulkner says that the White Whale is a “symbol of their doom.” (640) The point of his text is exactly the title: he wish he could have written Moby-Dick.
Response Journal Week 5 - Kalil
The Town-Ho’s Story introduces an interesting narrative strategy in Moby Dick. Rather than events unfolding in chronological order, Ishmael jumps ahead, to his later telling of this story on shore. This reintroduces the question of Ishmael as a character, which we have begun to largely ignore, in favor of analyzing Ahab, about whom we are given far more information. Harrison Hayford examines this to some extent in his essay “Loomings”. Though I found the vast majority of his ideas fairly problematic, he did give a very interesting account of Ishmael’s importance. His characterization of Ishmael as a “symphetic but perplexed observer”, fits in very nicely with my view of him as not quite corporeal in the way that Melville’s other characters are (658).
However, Hayford’s far reaching assertions about the novel are far more questionable. He suggests that Ishmael’s stated dislike of being a cook can be extrapolated to mean that Ishmael has a fundamental problem with subjecting others to his power. The continuation that this is also related to bodily injuries is simply implausible to me. Perhaps I’m not a good judge, not having finished the book, but this, as well as his analysis of the diction that Melville uses, do not appear to be well supported ideas (662-663). This is not always true, though. Hayford proposes the idea that Ishmael and Ahab treat every person as an unsolvable problem. When combined with his suggestion that the ocean is similarly an insoluble problem, this leads us back to our examination of the ocean as representing the infinite, and then to the concept of microcosms; each person has some part of the universe (or the ocean) within them. All of this is extremely Platonic, which has proven to be a major theme throughout our reading.
I also read several reviews of Moby Dick, including “A Primitive Formation of Profanity and Indecency”, and “Not Worth the Money Asked for It”. The former makes a point of praising what they refer to as “Moly-Dick” for its gripping narrative, claiming that “…the writer is half the time on his head, and the other half dancing a pirouette on one toe.” Of course, after Moly-Dick is introduced, the book becomes inane, vulgar and poorly written. Their primary point is that Melville’s writing is offensive, and thus he will go to hell, both for wasting his life, and for blasphemy (as will his publishers). The second review claims that Melville writes as though he is insane, and thus the novel is over priced. How did something so clearly hated become the Great American Novel?
Finally, I also read the review Gabriel read. I was somewhat concerned that someone who wrote, “The strongest point of the book is its ‘characters’”, is in any way qualified to criticize literature.
However, Hayford’s far reaching assertions about the novel are far more questionable. He suggests that Ishmael’s stated dislike of being a cook can be extrapolated to mean that Ishmael has a fundamental problem with subjecting others to his power. The continuation that this is also related to bodily injuries is simply implausible to me. Perhaps I’m not a good judge, not having finished the book, but this, as well as his analysis of the diction that Melville uses, do not appear to be well supported ideas (662-663). This is not always true, though. Hayford proposes the idea that Ishmael and Ahab treat every person as an unsolvable problem. When combined with his suggestion that the ocean is similarly an insoluble problem, this leads us back to our examination of the ocean as representing the infinite, and then to the concept of microcosms; each person has some part of the universe (or the ocean) within them. All of this is extremely Platonic, which has proven to be a major theme throughout our reading.
I also read several reviews of Moby Dick, including “A Primitive Formation of Profanity and Indecency”, and “Not Worth the Money Asked for It”. The former makes a point of praising what they refer to as “Moly-Dick” for its gripping narrative, claiming that “…the writer is half the time on his head, and the other half dancing a pirouette on one toe.” Of course, after Moly-Dick is introduced, the book becomes inane, vulgar and poorly written. Their primary point is that Melville’s writing is offensive, and thus he will go to hell, both for wasting his life, and for blasphemy (as will his publishers). The second review claims that Melville writes as though he is insane, and thus the novel is over priced. How did something so clearly hated become the Great American Novel?
Finally, I also read the review Gabriel read. I was somewhat concerned that someone who wrote, “The strongest point of the book is its ‘characters’”, is in any way qualified to criticize literature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)