Moby Dick

Moby Dick, at least through the first 21 chapters, is primarily concerned with masculinity. To demonstrate, leafing through a Google image search of “Moby Dick,” one will find completely unrelated images of cars and narcotics before coming across an image invoking any feeling of femininity, let alone one of a female character. Significant characters in these chapters are almost entirely male, themes addressed are traditionally masculine ones, and allusions are to still more male characters for masculine works. Melville was also influenced, first and foremost, by male authors; stylistically by Sir Thomas Browne, the 17th century prose writer, by Shakespeare, especially for his characters, and of course, by his contemporary, Nathaniel Hawthorne, to whom the novel is dedicated.

In the opening paragraph, Ishmael tells us that, “If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.” Though Melville does not mean men in the sense of humanity, he means only men, and excluding women. Ishmael holds that men go to sea and does not leave any interpretation that women too may be drawn to the sea and take up the lives of whalewomen alongside their husbands. He is a sexist and selfish narrator for our story, and when he goes on in chapter 1 to discuss his interest in going to sea as a sailor, rather than a passenger, he seems to imply that real men live as active, paid sailors, and women and the rest, go as the paying passengers.

Under the masculine perspective of our narrator, there lie some homosocial, if not homosexual themes in these opening chapters. The character interactions are primarily homosocial and may touch on a possible homosexual undertone when Ishmael must go to bed with Queequeg, though Melville heteronormatively points out that, “No man prefers to sleep two in a bed.”

However masculine, no story can be completely devoid of feminine influences. As Ishmael duly points out when describing the warmth of his and Queequeg’s bed, “…there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself.” Among these touches of the other gender, we see work here fulfilled in very traditional male-female roles: The sailors are all men, while the women remain at shore to tend the the sailors, their families, and their (husbands’) businesses, as this was a sexist society. And then of course, the good old Pequot is portrayed as a female vessel, referred to as “she” as most all ships are.

Melville may have been concerned with issues of race and equality when writing his great work, but through the reading of these introductory chapters, one may doubt that he held any similar views of gender equality or the importance of the feminine perspective.

There are three chapters in a row – “The Chapel,” “The Pulpit,” and “The Sermon” – all dedicated to religion and Ishmael’s interaction with faith and church.  We may learn more about Ishmael’s beliefs, however, from his reaction to Queequeg’s religious rituals.  Queequeg is certainly what the white Christian American of the 1850’s would call a savage – his most frequent religious act is to worship a wooden Congo Idol baby.  Ishmael tempers his unexpected affinity for Queequeg by persistently referencing his otherness – he is a “comely looking cannibal” (43), “just enough civilized to show off his outlandishness in the strangest possible manner” (47), and so on.

But instead of using religion as a trope to highlight a savage vs. civilized, pagan vs. Christian paradox that relegates “others” to sub-human status, Ishmael uses his religion to do the opposite.  “I say, we good Presbyterian Christians should be charitable in these things, and not fancy ourselves so vastly superior to other mortals, pagans and what not, because of their half-crazy conceits on these subjects” (102).  Not only does he equalize the “savage” Queequeg as a fellow-mortal, he says this is the good Presbyterian thing to do.  This short passage was likely unsettling to readers who considered themselves good Christians and who looked down upon “savages” like Queequeg for their strange, exotic, violent, uncivilized behavior, along with their pagan rituals.  Based on his relationship with a savage that started as his bed-mate, Ishmael rejects any hierarchical view of religion: “Heaven have mercy on us all – Presbyterians and Pagans alike – for we are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly need mending” (102).

Even before his story has moved to the ship, Melville is making the argument that men of different backgrounds and religions can live as equals, and that “savages” are often not very different at all.

Melville’s narration in Moby Dick can be described as moody. Ishmael is presented as such a believable character because he exhibits the unpredictable highs and lows of the author. While Ishmael is a believable character, the question of his reliability as a narrator is another issue. Starting with the line “Call me Ishmael”, the reader can’t help but wonder who the person that we are commanded to refer to as Ishmael actually is. The narrator called Ishmael takes many shapes, which I will now explore.

I believe that Ishmael’s narration takes the shape of and is characterized by those he comes in contact with. This is exemplified by the simple narration that Queequeg always seems to inspire. Needless to say, Queequeg’s speech is extremely basic, but what is interesting is how Ishmael answers his child-like presence with a simplicity of his own:

But Queequeg, do you see, was a creature in the transition state-neither caterpillar nor butterfly. He was just enough civilized to show off his outlandishness in the strangest possible manner. His education was not yet completed. He was an undergraduate.(27)

Notice how Ishmael addresses the reader, adopting a colloquial tone that distinguishes itself from much of the rest of the narration. This tone is furthered by the short, elementary sentences that follow. This tone is juxtaposed by another one of Ishmael’s forms, which is that of Melville himself. Quite often Melville blatantly takes over the narration in the form of deep philosophical musings. The following is one of my favorite examples of this so far:

But what then? Methinks we have hugely mistaken this matter of Life and Death. Methinks that what they call my shadow here on earth is my true substance. Methinks that in looking at things spiritual, we are too much like oysters observing the sun through the water, and thinking that thick water the thinnest of air. Methinks my body is but the lees of my better being. In fact take my body who will, take it I say, it is not me . (35-36)

What caught my eye about this passage first was the skill and beauty of the language itself. What indicates that we are no longer understanding the world through the eyes of Ishmael but through the eyes of Melville is the use and repetition of the word “Methinks” which is uncommon in the novel, and is used tactfully by Melville to emphasize the passage to the reader as one of personal worth.

The narrator is at the helm of Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick. While Captain Ahab may be in charge of the ship, Ishmael is our crazed captain, sailing us through the story. It seems that Melville wrote in 20th century parlance what would have been termed “a romance” through the style of a travel narrative, which was the form that was most familiar to him. Melville has created such a chaotic world, both on land and on “the watery part,” that a narrator just as complex is needed to steer the ship. Melville is not giving us a docked story, but a ship, which must be steered to reach its destination.

Ishmael is the frothy film between the murky depths and us.  We are not given the undiluted ocean, the whole truth, the whole, watery body of knowledge.  We are told everything through Ishmael’s perspective.  There is an arduous attempt to recreate reality through great observational detail, but all we are left with are the lines left in the sand after the waves have receded back into the ocean.  Ishmael, as a prophet, is left with a great burden.  He must convince us of the reality of the story, despite the fact that the water tastes less salty when it has not touched our lips.

In many ways, we have to take Ishmael on faith.  We can call him Ishmael, and we can believe his story—or we can choose not to.  In Chapter 18, Captain Peleg of the Pequod tells Ishmael, “Young man, you’d better ship for a missionary, instead of a fore-mast hand; I never heard a better sermon… why Father Mapple himself couldn’t beat it, and he’s reckoned something” (86, Signet ed.).

What is Ishmael’s purpose as a narrator? Is it actually to tell us a story or to tell us a sermon?  It is pretty evident from the beginning that he is back-narrating the story, so he could not have remembered much detail, yet he retells such colorful conversations and striking sermons word-for-word.  Though I don’t see an omniscient form of narrative emerging yet, I do see a narrator with a God-like memory, or imagination.

In fact, if Ishmael is better at telling sermons than Father Mapple, how do we know that he did not author the sermon in Chapter 9 himself?  I think it is likely.  It is so rife with whaling references that it would make the sub-sub-librarian blush.  I think it also has too many parallels to the unfolding plot of the story, and that Melville, the writer, would not miss a chance like this to make some of the themes of the book explicit.

For instance, when Jonah boards the ship, the priest comments:

“In their gamesome but still serious way one [sailor] whispers to the other—‘Jack, he’s robbed  a widow;’ or, ‘Joe, do you mark him; he’s a bigamist;’ or, “Harry lad, I guess he’s the adulterer that broke jail in old Gomorrah, or belike, one of the missing murderers from Sodom” (41).

When Ishmael boards the Pequod, Captain Peleg asks him:

“What makes thee want to go a-whaling, eh?—it looks a little suspicious, don’t it, eh?—Hast not been a pirate, hast thou?—Didst not rob thy last Captain, didst thou?—Dost not think of murdering the officers when thou gettest to sea” (68)?

God (Yahweh in Hebrew) chooses Jonah; “The lot is [his]” (44). Queequeg’s idol, Yojo, selects Ishmael (65).

And another:

“The hard hand of God is upon [Jonah]” (44). Ishmael remembers finding a “supernatural hand” placed in his as a child after waking from a nightmare (25-26).

In class, we heard Melville’s style compared to jazz music, but I’d like to compare it to the music of someone one wouldn’t typically associate it with. Charlie Chaplin once recalled having this discussion with the great Romantic composer Rachmaninoff:

I remember [Vladimir] Horowitz, the pianist… Just before the war [World War II] I dined at his house with his wife, the daughter of Toscanini. Rachmaninoff and Barbirolli were there… It was an intimate dinner, just five of us.

It seems that each time art is discussed I have a different explanation of it. Why not? That evening I said that art was an additional emotion applied to skillful technique. Someone brought the topic round to religion and I confessed I was not a believer. Rachmaninoff quickly interposed: “But how can you have art without religion?”

I was stumped for a moment. “I don’t think we are talking about the same thing,” I said. “My concept of religion is a belief in a dogma–that art is a feeling more than a belief.”

“So is religion,” he answered. After that I shut up.

Rachmaninoff meant religion as a feeling, as an obsession which pervades one’s work.  Could religion or obsession also be guiding this narrative?  Could Melville be trying to show that aspect of religion, i.e., its very essence?  Ishmael is obsessed with the waves, the sea, and ocean life.  Are “his ears, like two sea-shells, still multitudinously murmuring of the ocean”(46)?

Throughout the story, it may be Ishmael’s invisible hand that is guiding us.

“Call me Ishmael” (1).

From the very moment the reader is introduced to Ishmael, the narrator of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, it is evident that he is no ordinary man-turned-sailor. His request that the reader address him as “Ishmael”  forces the reader to consider why he asks to be called this unique name of biblical fame. Perhaps within the world of Moby Dick it is a name and nothing more, but the recurring references to religion and the Bible within the text suggest that many of the character names — Ishmael, Ahab, and Elijah, to name a few — are chosen with a purpose. By investigating the origin and background of these names and their original owners, one can attempt to understand why Melville specifically chose these names as a connection to the references of the Bible and religion (in general) throughout the novel.

The choice of the name”Ishmael” for the narrator of the story is of particular interest when one considers the biblical character. According to the Old Testament, Ishmael was the son of Abraham, who is considered the father of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths, and Hagar, his servant. Ishmael was conceived because Abraham’s wife Sarah was deemed too old to have a child. Alas, she did become pregnant with Isaac and, out of jealousy, she banished Hagar and Ishmael. As they departed an angel of God comforted them with the news that Ishmael would lead a great nation. Before he was born, however, it was revealed to Hagar that Ishmael would be a “wild donkey of a man” who would constantly be struggling with others. Thus far in the novel, Ishmael remains somewhat of an enigma but does not appear to be in any struggle with human beings. On the contrary, any struggle seems to lie within himself; for example, he notes that he goes to sea whenever he is close to committing suicide. It is hard to say whether or not the character Ishmael will completely adopt the characteristics of his Bible counterpart. What is clear, however, is Ishmael’s different religious attitudes and thoughts on worship; this will be discussed in another blog post, as I believe it is very important in the novel thus far.

Though the reader has not been introduced to Captain Ahab at this point in the novel, perhaps his biblical name will offer some insight as to what he will be like as a character. In the Bible, Ahab ruled the nation of Israel and was regarded as the most evil and wicked of its kings. King Ahab worshipped the “pagan” gods of his wife, Jezebel, which was viewed as completely wrong in the eyes of the Israelites. Perhaps King Ahab was arrogant and believed he could defy the God of Israel by worshipping other false gods. It will be interesting to see if the character Ahab will also possess this same hubris; time (and extensive reading) will tell.

Chapter 19 of Moby Dick, ironically titled “The Prophet,” concerns an encounter Ishmael and fellow sailor Queequeg have with a mysterious stranger who calls himself Elijah. Elijah warns them about Captain Ahab, hinting that their journey will not end well. In the Bible, Elijah was a prophet of God whose second coming was to be a harbinger of God’s wrath. Melville’s use of the name “Elijah” is very fitting for the character as he does warn Ishmael and Queequeg against sailing with Ahab. Whether his hints of doom for the whaling ship Pequod are true or not is yet to be determined.

Thus far in the novel, it is more than clear that Melville is using biblical names with a purpose in mind. So far, Elijah seems to match the role of “prophet.” Ishmael seems to have some characteristics of his Bible counterpart but thus far he doesn’t seem to completely match up with the Bible’s Ishmael. As for Captain Ahab, little can be determined at this point as he hasn’t been “technically” introduced yet. This connection between the Bible and characters’ names is only a small part of the overall importance of religion within the novel. In my next blog post I will explore Ishmael’s relationship and struggle with religion.

This post uses YouTube as an example, but other object plugins from other sites can be inserted into WordPress posts, I encourage you to explore & experiment. If you discover a great trick, just post it and add it to course support (category).

Copy the “embed code”. Click on the “HTML” view. Paste in the Embed Code.

“Add Media” by URL doesn’t seem to be working at present

WordPress authors can insert images into wordpress either as links or by uploading the image directly into the WordPress engine. Linking to images is semi-risky as resources might shift about and not be displayed, unless you control them. If you are uploading images, be sure to upload optimized or web-friendly images (in other words, don’t upload raw images of a whaling expedition you went on last summer).

Advanced image searches in Google will allow you much finer turned searching for image file types and sizes. It also enables you to limit your searches to items in the public domain, which will help prevent copyright infringement. An equivalent search engine exists on Flickr.

Click on the “Add an image button” from near the text “add media”. Upload your file or insert the image based on the url.

Moby Dick Graphic

There is a blockquote button in WordPress.

Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people’s hats off–then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.

Highlight the text to quote, and then press the blockquote button.

Professor Friedman commented in class that Melville was not thought of as a political or cultural writer. Ishmael’s numerous comments, however, about his impressions of Queequeg, a cannibal and a “savage,” indicate otherwise. Indeed, writing a book that seems willing to take on most issues about the human condition, Melville does not exclude the particularly touchy subject of race on the eve of the civil war. Melville encapsulates the problem when Ishmael writes “But savages are strange beings; at times you do not know exactly how to take them” (48-49). Let me not try to get in over my head, but the issue of how much latitude to give people different from oneself, or “savages,” endures. With imperialism, or any means of subjugation, Americans saw the imminently-conquered practicing totally foreign habits. The few more tolerant granted them their difference, making limited worth judgements on them as people, while most used the easy definition of “different” as inferior, rationalization to subjugate them. And I would contend further that this issue continues today. Liberal sociologists maintain that inner-city high school students don’t succeed in school solely because of their environment, while more conservative thinkers are comfortable to make some judgement about their nature dooming them. I digress: Ishmael experiences his problem firsthand with Queequeg. Irrespective of his introduction to Queequeg, outfitted with his tomahawk in addition to his imposing stature, compounded on the news that he actually goes around selling heads (did I read that right?), Ishmael has presuppositions and biases against the character of people like Queequeg. Melville certainly doesn’t make it easy for us to be completely pro-Queequeg when he is a cannibal, but while the descriptor “cannibal” may in fact just be an accurate term for Queequeg, when conflated with “savage” it takes on its negative connotations. Despite his view, allowing the reader to experience and even share a bit of racism, Ishmael includes many of the virtues of Queequeg. They abound our reading for Wednesday, but a couple of my favorites were from The Counterpane. Ishmael writes, after Queequeg gives him the privacy to dress, “this is a very civilized overture; but, the truth is, these savages have an innate sense of delicacy, say what you will; it is marvellous how essentially polite they are” (27). While Ishmael missed the mark with the word “civilized,” he nailed it with “delica[te],” or, considerate. Goodness does not stem from “civilization,” (just think of stingy, “pious” Bildad) and Ishmael shows signs of acknowledging that. And even if he doesn’t acknowledge it quite yet, he allows us to.  Similarly, on the next page, Ishmael includes an instance of Queequeg’s good sense. Unlike how a Christian man applies his ablutions, Queequeg uses his harpoon to shave. Though Ishmael regarded it negatively at the time, later he admires Queequeg’s resoucefulness and handy use of very sharp steel, giving him a very close shave. Again, we are invited to as well. At the very least, if Melville doesn’t have some political agenda, I don’t know who does.

For these posts, consider the representation of race, racism, race relations, and racial identity in various passages of the novel. How does Melville use Ishmael, a white man, to project or explore certain ideas about race or racism or relation among races? How does Ishmael discover his own ideas about race? How do these ideas converge with or offer a critique of certain received ideas about race? What do certain passages seem to suggest about the nature of racial identity, or about race relations?