Moby Dick

For this post, I would like to discuss the relative importance of being politically correct (talking in an unbigoted manner) compared to *acting* in an unbigoted manner. Ishmael provides a fascinating look into this question, for he makes blatantly racist remarks about so-called savages, but at the same time exhibits a remarkable respect and admiration for his friend, Queequeg. For example, Ishmael reveals his disgust for savage culture as early as Chapter 3, in which he stumbles upon “…a heathenish array of monstrous clubs and spears,” causing him to wonder “what monstrous cannibal and savage could ever have gone a death-harvesting with such a hacking , horrifying implement.” And yet just a few pages later he states that “a man can be honest in any sort of skin” and “For all [Queequeg’s] tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal.” Astoundingly, Ishmael even compares Queequeg to George Washington!

Therein lies the problem: How are we to reconcile the fact that this white man damns his cannibal compatriot out of one side of his mouth, and then compares him to George Washington and Socrates out of the other?

I would argue that, when denoting someone as racist or not, the superficial judgements and ignorant labels (“savage”) one uses hold far less import than one’s actual behavior toward others. That is, I would never call Ishmael a racist *person* simply because he was brought up in an environment in which he was taught that certain bigoted terms are acceptable. Even today friends will make jokes about everything from each other’s physical stature to their place of birth to their ethnicity without a second thought. I would be far more offended by a friend’s subtle remark about how my Jewishness must mean I’m stingy than if a different friend jokingly calling me something as ostensibly anti-Semitic as “damn Jew”. Political correctness be damned! It’s the sentiment that counts!

So, one may count up the scores of times Ishmael uses the term cannibal to refer to island peoples, but these add up to naught next to the number of times he praises Queequeg, Tashtego, and Daggoo for their strength of character and unfailing performances in the face of danger. After all, when the “bumpkin” in Chapter 13 falls overboard, it is the recently-derided Queequeg who dives in after him to save his life. As a result, “all hands voted Queequeg a noble trump” and Ishmael immediately makes a silent vow to stick to Queequeg “like a barnacle”. Whatever unfortunate attitudes Ishmael was raised with, he clearly cares more about the content of an individual’s character than the color of their skin.

Moby Dick, by Herman Melville, copyright fictionwise ebooks.  (hence no page numbers)

How far can you stretch American exceptionalism?  Take it too far, and America has regressed to the colonial era.  In class we discussed the hierarchy of the ship and how the Pequod represents a floating ship that Melville wants readers to compare with America.  Yet whaling is an industry of categorization and hierarchy.  Americans relied heavily upon the revenue and resources it brought in and used American success to raise the country’s status among other nations; Americans wanted to rule the seas.  But the organization of a whale-ship and of whaling as an industry mirrors the structure of the governments that America claimed to have separated itself from.  Americans their superiority stemmed from a democracy and the country flourished through the rule of the people.  Yet whaling was an industry that supported an “irresistible dictatorship,” as Ishmael describes Ahab’s captaincy (Melville, 129).

Whaling is entrenched in categorization and in the rankings of those categories.  The novel opens with pages of quotations assembled to describe every possible mention of  a whale in literature.  More categorization follows in  chapter 32 as a detailed account of cetology.  Later, Ishmael vividly describes the hierarchy of the crew.

In classifying whales in the chapter “Cetology,” Ishmael foreshadows the description of the organization of the crew in later chapters.  Throughout chapter 32, Ishmael makes it clear that some whales are useful for whalers and some whales have no value at all.  In the cases where he does not know much about a species, he simply cuts his description off abruptly.

From the first pages of quotations to the extensive chapter on cetology to the descriptions of the crew, Ishmael seems fixated on categorization and organization.  Perhaps Melville is trying to point out the extremity to which Americans try to fit people into categories, often at the exclusion or belittling of others.  When describing whales, Melville says that

“they form such irregular combinations; or, in the case of any one of them detached, such an irregular isolation; as utterly to defy all general methodization formed upon such a basis…nothing but to take hold of the whales bodily, in their entire liberal volume, and boldly sort them that way” (122)

People, like whales, are too diverse and complicated to fit in defined categories.  But then the narrator says that whales should be divided by only their outward characteristics; he has divided whales by these just as white Americans have divided people by their races.

Ishmael, however, does take the time to explain the other whales, not just the favored sperm whale.  This passage mirrors the scenes when Ishmael questions the racist views of white society; he yet again sways between complete categorization, trying to make sense of the world, and accepting differences.

But in his description of people, Ishmael says that the hierarchy is absolute.  He states that

“never mind how much like an old Mesopotamian family these whalemen may, in some primitive instances, live together; for all that, the punctilious externals, at least, of the quarter-deck are seldom materially relaxed, and in no instance done away.” (129)

For whaling, the hierarchy is so important and the captain is so revered that even abuse is valued by the crew.  In chapter 31, “Queen Mab,” a merman says “No, you were kicked by a great man, and with a beautiful ivory leg, Stubb.  It’s an honor.” (115)  This seems to me on par with groveling at a king’s feet and thanking him for a whipping.  If the Pequod is supposed to represent America, then Melville is pointing out how backward America is compared to how she views herself; she has returned to the era of “knights and squires,” not the modern age of democracy.  How could Americans so embrace whaling when it perpetuated all of the qualities that Americans believed themselves to be rid of.  Or even beyond embracing, why did they glorify it?  Maybe in the race to get ahead they unwittingly took a few steps backwards.

But Ishmael (and Melville), even with all of the categories and hierarchies, have left open the possibility of free thinking.  Ishmael says in chapter 32, right after all of the divisions that he just made, “God keep me from ever completing anything.  This whole book is but a draught — nay, but the draught of a draught.” (128)  Melville is open to change, and perhaps his categories have slightly blurred boundaries.

Melville, Herman. Moby Dick. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1988. Reissued 2008. Print.

In the first chapter of Moby Dick (“Loomings”), Ishmael discusses his decision to go to sea. He claims that he has a desire to sail around the world whenever he feels depressed or gloomy, because sailing helps him feel happier and more content (1). However, Ishmael does not think that this desire rests solely with him, but rather “almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings toward the ocean” (1). Ishmael describes thousands of men who stand by the ocean in a dreamlike state (1). Water appears to have a profound effect on them (and people in general). The ocean is like a great frontier and there seems to be something magical about its properties:

Say, you are in the country; in some high land of lakes. Take almost any path you please, and ten to one it carries you down in a dale, and leaves you there by a pool in the stream. There is magic in it. Let the most absent-minded of men be plunged in his deepest reveries–stand that man on his legs, set his feet a-going, and he will infallibly lead you to water, if water there be in all that region. Should you ever be athirst in the great American desert, try this experiment, if your caravan happen to be supplied with a metaphysical professor. Yes, as everyone knows, meditation and water are wedded for ever (2).

Throughout the previous description it is difficult to discern if it is Melville or Ishmael speaking. I would argue that it is likely both, since I imagine that Melville’s and Ishmael’s views align here. The ocean is set up as a wide open expanse on which to wonder and marvel at the earth. It is also an occasion to ponder and question one’s fate or destiny (and whether one has one, and, if so, what it might be). It seems that Melville is describing the ocean much like America was often viewed: an open frontier filled with nature and a place still largely untouched by man and his industrializing influences. It seems likely that later in the novel, the ocean (much like the wild west) will itself be wild and dangerous. However, Melville and Ishmael clearly believe that there is something that guides a person toward it (whether in spite of or because of its danger).

Melville seems to suggest that there is an innate or natural desire to be near water, something that draws people close to it. The ocean (and water generally) does seem to inspire reflection and meditation. From the sounds of waves crashing on the beach, to the trickle of a stream, and even the fact that our own reflections can be seen in water (leading to an interesting double meaning), water has a naturally comforting nature, which in turn makes it more likely to find oneself thinking about life. The fact that Melville links philosophy with water (in the quoted passage above) seems quite profound. Should the reader begin wondering about larger significances of what the ocean stands for or what it means? It seems likely that, just like Ishmael and the crew of the Pequod, we too should be on the lookout for signs, things that would indicate something larger than just a simple concept or thing. But in this case, what should we think? Is the water indeed like a great frontier? Is it representative of nature itself? Does sailing on a voyage become a metaphor for living life? Perhaps we should continue to look for more signs to attempt to find out.

Today it is increasingly difficult to find a book where romance does not play some role in the plot – in the worst cases it seems nothing more than an attempt to make a book sexy and appealing to readers.   Perhaps the lack of any hint of romantic interest within (at least the first twenty chapters of) the novel is one of the reasons modern readers find it hard to relate to Moby Dick and often label it “boring.”  Of the few female characters we have met even briefly (Mrs. Hussey, Aunt Charity), none are described in any way other than domestic providers, for better or for worse. While in many adventure novels (and, indeed, in other works by Melville) the exotic and seductive female “savage” is a commonly found character, it is interesting that the role of savage is here embodied by a man, Queequeg.

“Man and wife, they say, there open the very bottom of their souls to each other; and some old couples often lie and chat over old times till nearly morning.  Thus, then, in our hearts’ honeymoon, lay I and Queequeg – a cosy, loving pair.” (47)

Ishmael and Queequeg’s relationship is significant on many levels, not least of all because of the fact that they are two men who share close physical and emotional bonds.  The above excerpt is particularly descriptive of this aspect of their friendship, to the point it is described more than once as a “marriage” between the two of them.  Ishmael proves to be surprisingly receptive to not only sharing a bed with this savage stranger, but also sharing with him ideas and cultural practices.  Surprising also is the unexpected physicality between the pair; one passage describing how while sleeping together in bed they “rolled over from each other, this way and that, and very soon were sleeping” seems almost sexually suggestive (51).  While I do not necessarily think this was Melville’s intention, it nevertheless prompts readers to reflect on these roles normally shared between man and wife.  Of course, it is important to remember that the companionship Ishmael feels with Queequeg is paired with his persistent stereotyping of his friend’s cannibalism and paganism.  If we are to think of their relationship as a type of marriage, despite his obvious physical strength Queequeg’s apparent ignorance and role as a certain kind of outcast in a man’s world would perhaps make him what an ostensibly sexist writer like Melville would perceive as the “wife.”

Among the many themes of Moby Dick, gender is not one I would have thought featured prominently.  However, as I read the novel it becomes more and more clear that the bonds of masculinity Ishmael perceives between the crew members of Pequod will be an important theme throughout.  The general lack of female characters forces readers to think more deeply about the homosocial relationships found in Moby Dick, and in these first twenty chapters the bond Ishmael shares with Queequeg seems like it will be one of the most important.

It was the whiteness of the whale that above all things appalled me. (181)

What struck me about this quote was that it was not the size or ferociousness of the whale, Moby Dick, that terrified Ishmael but the whale’s “whiteness”. It was as if this was the first time in his life that whiteness was not purely innocent.  Instead the idea of whiteness held a foreboding and almost evil connotation.  Ishmael continues by stating, “Though in many natural objects, whiteness refiningly enhances beauty; as if imparting some special virtue of its own.” (181) Thus if whiteness is all that “enhances beauty”, what is darkness? Furthermore, if whiteness is associated with all that is noble and innocent, is it not a rationalization and justification of the enslavement of men who are not white but instead another color?  Personally, I do not believe that that was what Melville was attempting to convey. Rather, Ishmael’s realization that whiteness could possibly be corrupted is frightening awakening.  He writes,

But not yet have we solved the incantation of this whiteness, and learned why it appeals with such power to the soul; and more strange and far more portentous – why, as we have seen, it is at once the most meaning symbol of spiritual things, nay the very veil of the Christian’s Deity; and yet should be as it is, the intensifying agent in things the most appalling to mankind. (188)

Especially, Ishmael’s recognition, that “whiteness” could be an “agent in things the most appalling to mankind”. (188) Clearly, that is a direct reference to slavery.  Whiteness and white men had committed one of the most horrific crimes of mankind by enslaving fellow men merely based on the color of their skin.  Thus whiteness was not an “emblem of many touching, noble things” but that of immoral customs and practices.  (181)  Is the great white whale a symbol of America’s strength and perverted morality?  Are we supposed to see through the majestic “whiteness” of the whale and realize all the horrors it has committed, as seen with Ahab’s missing leg?

Perhaps what is most terrifying to Ishmael is the realization that he has sworn an oath to his captain that he at all costs will hunt and execute the white whale.  He writes,

I, Ishmael, was one of that crew; my shouts had gone up with the rest; my oath had been welded with theirs; and stronger I shouted, and more did I hammer and clinch my oath, because of the dread in my soul…With greedy ears I learned the history of that murderous monster against whom I and all the others had taken our oaths of violence and revenge. (171)

Thus it is the realization that all he has believed to be pure and innocent, due to its “whiteness”, perhaps is evil and must be slain.  In the same light, did Melville not have the same realization about his own whiteness in relation to the horrors of slavery? Was he not appalled that his fellow man could not see through the immoral business of human trafficking? Finally, is the white whale a symbol of American greed?

Why does Ishmael seem invisible?  He is always narrating, and yet he never seems to arrive in front of us.  We learn of his personal history only through vague allusions, such as Cornelia’s example below.  He can be equated with Melville, and the openness of his character equates him with the reader as well.  He uses “I”, “one”, and “you” equivalently, actively switching between them.  Chapter 3 begins: “Entering that gable-ended Spouter-Inn, you found yourself in a wide, low, straggling entry with old-fashioned wainscots, reminding one of the bulwarks of some condemned old craft” (9).  It is the reader who enters the room, the “everyman” (“one”) who is reminded of a ship, but it is Ishmael’s own memory which resonates.  He is a non-entity, an empty-filled tour guide of the country of the whale.

Yet for all his invisibility of self, Ishmael is omnipresent in the novel.  His voice is highly idiosyncratic, and it controls all observations and digressions.  He steers the ship; he points the spotlight.  How can we explain this?  How can Ishmael be invisible and also everywhere?  I found interesting answers in Harold Bloom and Gnosticism.  From www.gnosis.org:

a second characteristic of Gnosticism…says Bloom, “is a knowing, by and of an uncreated self, or self-within-the self, and [this] knowledge leads to freedom….” Primary among all the revelatory perceptions a Gnostic might reach was the profound awakening that came with knowledge that something within him was uncreated. The Gnostics called this “uncreated self” the divine seed, the pearl, the spark of knowing: consciousness, intelligence, light. And this seed of intellect was the self-same substance of God…There was always a paradoxical cognizance of duality in experiencing this “self-within-a-self”. How could it not be paradoxical: By all rational perception, man clearly was not God, and yet in essential truth, was Godly.

From this we can define Melville/Ishmael’s journey as one of Gnostic self-knowledge, or gnosis.  Having witnessed traces of the uncreated self, he abandoned his life of affluence and comfort for a quest into the watery wastes, in search of a deeper knowing, of a more sensible emptiness.

Harold Bloom considers Gnosticism the religion of literature.  Here’s more illumination from the previous source:

Gnostic experience was mythopoetic: in story and metaphor, and perhaps also in ritual enactments, Gnosticism sought expression of subtle, visionary insights inexpressible by rational proposition or dogmatic affirmation. For the Gnostics, revelation was the nature of Gnosis.

Use this now to  read the apocryphal story of Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas:

Jesus said, `I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out….He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.’

Jesus is Melville/Ishmael. His drink is the mythopoetic revelation called Moby-Dick, and, by engaging in his quest for knowing, hidden things are revealed to us. The character of Ishmael is, then, one that serves in the quest of self-knowledge.  He is a tool of the unification that is central to Gnostic teaching.

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2008)

All other quotes from: the Nag Hammadi Library

Throughout Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, there is a plethora of religious and

Biblical allusions and references that manifest.  Almost all of the names of the characters

in this novel are religious by nature.  The main character of the story, Ishmael, was an

outcast/drifter, who was dismissed in the Bible.  Elijah is the character who warns both

Queequeg and Ishmael that Ahab is a dangerous man and he is not to be perturbed.

Elijah, in the Bible, was the “Prophet of Doom” (Chapter 19).  Ahab, himself, is

described as a “grand, ungodly, God-like man.”  Ahab, in 1 Kings 18: 18-39 in the Bible,

was the one who provoked the Lord of Israel.  In addition, I find it interesting how

Queequeg is regarded as a savage cannibal because he is a pagan and does not fit into

New Bedford, Massachusetts. This very fact symbolizes the fact that

Captain  Ahab wants to provoke the crew to attack and kill the sperm whale.

Furthermore, Moby Dick, the extremely large whale, is referred to as the Leviathan in the Bible.  The Leviathan has had many

attributes according to Job Chapter 41, Psalm 104: 25, 26 and Isaiah 27:1.  For example, in the Bible, the Leviathan is regarded is

such a manner: “No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”  This quote further supports the fact that Moby Dick is greatly

feared by the whole whaling community in New Bedford, Massachussets.  Another great quote that best characterizes Moby Dick is

“Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin.  He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten

wood.  The arrow cannot make him flee; sling stones become like stubble to him.  Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the reat

of javelins” (Psalms 104: 26).  This epic quote shows how Moby Dick is nigh invulnerable to all forms of attacks by harpooners,

sailors and the like.  Furthermore, Moby Dick is regarded as a powerful force to be reckoned with. As you can see, Herman Melville’s

Moby Dick is teeming with religious and biblical implications and allusions that all influence the plot and the deep meaning of the

story.

Sources:

1. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan
3. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/p122.htm
4. Job, Chapter 41.
5. Psalm 104: 25, 26
6. Isaiah 27:1

Upon first opening Melville’s Moby Dick, I was immediately struck by the etymology and quotation pages.  Although seemingly unimportant even after reading, once I began to delve into the pages of the actual novel, the pages began to gain more sense.  I was interested to see that almost all of the excerpts and much of the actual text refer to the whale as “leviathan”, rather than “whale” or any other descriptive word.  Interested, I did more research into the meaning and etymology of the word, and found that “leviathain” has a highly biblical background, stemming from the Hebrew word “levyatan” meaning twisted or coiled (ExperienceFestival.com).  Although it has many common uses, religiously the word has come to equal the ideas of Satan (mankind’s opposition to God) and more importantly, chaos: Psalm 74: 13-14 states

“It was You who drove back the sea with Your might, who smashed the heads of the monsters in the waters; it was You who crushed the heads of Leviathan, who left him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.” (OpenBible.info)

This general idea being that God defeated the Leviathan of the deep in order to create the earth according to his will (ExperienceFestival.com), I began to see references to attempted order in the text of Moby Dick itself; as if to combat the chaos of the whale itself, whalers create order where order does not inherently exist, both on land and by sea.

An interesting example of this forced order on land can be seen in the empty whalers’ graves in the New Bedford church:

 “Oh! ye whose dead lie buried beneath the green grass; who standing among the flowers can say-here, here lies my beloved; ye know not the desolation that broods in bosoms like these…. What deadly voids and unbidden infidelities in the lines that seem to gnaw upon all Faith, and refuse resurrections to the beings who have placelessly perished without a grave.” (Melville 41)

            As these men have been lost ambiguously to the sea, their bodies were never recovered and given a proper Christian burial.  The families of these men attempt at closure and healing with these empty stones to signify the death of their loved ones, although as Ishmael so solemnly observes, “…In [the widows’] unhealing hearts the sight of those bleak tablets sympathetically caused the old wounds to bleed afresh” (Melville 41).  Thus, although there is little to do to prevent or eventually cope with the loss of a loved one at sea, these people try their best to make order.

            Although many small steps are taken to assure the most physical order at sea (exhaustive cataloging, skill ranking above race, the knight/squire relationships, etc.), the First Mate, Starbuck, makes the first announced attempt at mental order.  Se he says, “‘I will have no man in my boat…who is not afraid of a whale’” (Melville 125).  What he is saying, Ishmael observes, is that “the most reliable and useful courage was that which arises from the fair estimation of the encountered peril” (125), while “an utterly fearless man is a far more dangerous comrade than a coward” (125).  No order can be made from thoughtlessly barging into the dangerous situations that the crew is sure to encounter-thus, although the peril is inevitable, Starbuck hopes that his men will take his advice to heart, and approach the whale with reverent and controlled fear rather than an overconfident, passionate war cry.  

One of the ship owners, Captain Peleg, balances Starbuck by saying “No time to think about death [when the ship is sinking].  Life was what Captain Ahab and I was thinking of; and how to save all hands” (99).  So, between Starbuck and Peleg, a mental balance can be forged: calm reverence to avoid needless death, and quick thinking and bravery when death cannot be avoided.

 Works Cited:

Melville, Herman. Moby Dick. Northwestern University Press, 1988. Reissued 2003. Print.

“Leviathan.” Global Oneness. Web. 31 Jan. 2010. <http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Leviathan/id/515120>

“Whales: Related Bible Verses.” OpenBible.Info. Wed. 31 Jan. 2010. <http://www.openbible.info/topics/whales>

Melville courageously and yet tactfully utilizes the adventures of Ishmael to insert his own commentary regarding issues surrounding race in the 19^th century. He highlights common racial divides, scrutinizes widely accepted racial prejudices of the time, and proposes a renewed meaning of racial coexistence. However, Melville’s seemingly modern perception of race doesn’t fully escape the grasp of numerous race related social constructions.

Within the first 21 chapters of Moby Dick, Melville focuses his racial commentary around the budding friendship between Ishmael and his ‘peddler of heads’ bedfellow, Queequeg. A passage on page 48 from the chapter ‘A Bosom Friend’ in which Ishmael consciously commits to befriending Queequeg, highlights Ishmael’s ironic acceptance and to a certain extent curious appraisal of Queequeg as a racially dissimilar friend.

“Savage though he was, and hideously marred about the face—at least to my taste—his countenance yet had a something in it which was by no means disagreeable. You cannot hide the soul. Through all his unearthly tattooings, I thought I saw the traces of a simple honest heart…”

This passage exemplifies the fact that Melville’s notion of racial serenity doesn’t come without burdensome obstacles. In this passage Ishmael recognizes Queequeg as something beyond the color of his skin. He is able to identify ‘traces of a simple honest heart’ among other commendable traits. However, Ishmael persistently uses prejudicial labels such as ‘savage’, ‘unearthly’, and ‘pagan’ that prevent him from leveling with Queequeg as a human being. It is in this way that Melville conveys a conflicted message in terms of promoting racial equality.

The most interesting component of this passage is the surprising comparison Ishmael makes between Queequeg and George Washington.

“…but certain it was his head was phrenologically an excellent one. It may seem ridiculous, but it reminded me of General Washington’s head, as seen in the popular busts of him. It had the same long regularly graded retreating slope from above the brows, which were likewise very projecting, like two long promontories thickly wooded on top. Queequeg was George Washington cannibalistically developed.”

As a reader, the reference to George Washington came as a surprise to me. I didn’t expect Ishmael to be willing to liken a ‘savage’ such as Queequeg to a man of such great historical and symbolic importance. However, this comparison remains confined to a physical similarity and not one that functions to elevate Queequeg to George Washington’s level of fame or respect. Additionally, Melville allows Ishmael to revert to his prejudicial tendencies by using the term ‘cannibalistically developed’, whatever that means, to define Queequeg.

As the book progresses and Ishmael and Queequeg’s friendship blossoms it will be interesting to see if Ishmael will be influenced to shed his seemingly natural racial discriminations and fully embrace Queequeg as a companion at sea.

Works Cited

Melville, Herman. Moby Dick. New York: Signet Classic, 1998.

Upon entering the exposition of Moby Dick with race in mind, the problem immediately presents itself of how to situate myself in relationship with the book. How do I navigate my reading of a novel that presents such a complex depiction of race? Which racist ideas to I attribute to Ishmael, and which to Melville, and how can I delineate between the two? It seems likely that in certain cases Melville gives Ishmael an overly prejudiced mindset in order to illuminate and strengthen the realization and rejection of these prejudices through Ishmael’s burgeoning friendship with Queequeg. Even so, what from my perspective may seem steeped in racism may in Melville’s have been highly progressive. Without endeavoring some kind of historically driven psychological reconstructivism, the best I can do seems to be to examine the novel through the words of Ishmael as Melville chose to tell it, making myself aware of the ideas communicated within their context when possible.

The glaring obstacle to straightforwardly applauding Melville’s forward thinking, is that Ishmael’s treatment of his great friend Queequeg, though certainly well intended and one of admiration, is one of objectification and dominance. Ishmael reconstructs Queequeg’s “broken” and implicitly inadequate telling of his story through his own frame

When a new hatched savage running wild about his native woodlands in a grass clout, followed by the nibbling goats, as if he were a green sapling; even then, in Queequeg’s ambitious soul, lurked a strong desire to see something more of Christendom than a specimen whaler or two” (49)

In reading this we first of all must remember that within the narrative Ishmael heard this story quite some time ago, his relationship with Queequeg has already played out completely and this therefore reflects his feelings towards him not just at the time of its first telling but the sum of their interactions, and also that Ishmael presents it as a somewhat objective retelling. In the opening sentences Ishmael once again refers to Queequeg as a “savage”, repeatedly comparing him to animals, and even a plant. Overall we get the sense that Ishmael controls the power, specifically the power of language as he is retelling what he deemed Queequeg could not, a motif repeated often throughout the novel when Ishmael translates for Queequeg (with good intentions). The noble and redeeming ambition attributed to Queequeg that eventually leads to giving up his previous “cannibalistic” lifestyle is the ambition to see more of “Christendom” which I interpret both strictly as the Christian world, and also more widely as any part of the world worth really learning about, any part of the world with allying Christian morals. This desire shares an intimate connection with whaling, an early harbinger of Queequeg and Ishmael’s coming relationship as ‘partners of fate’ that is developed later in the novel.

I know I’m giving Ishmael a hard time, certainly Melville and his character are products of a different time, and they continually demonstrate an unhappiness with and wish to change the current state of race relations. I thought that Queequeg’s story about the mistaken finger bowl, and his noble act on the passage to Nantucket were two especially powerful sections supporting this by indicating (very loosely)a kind of cultural equality Queequeg’s individual goodness and ability to win over even the close-minded, ultimately giving Ishmael a healing faith in humanity. The mode through which this is communicated, (subjecting Queequeg to humor at his expense, multiple object-referential definitions, broad generalizations of all non-western peoples etc… ) remains problematic, but the tension between the wonderful progressive attitude, and deeply racist mindset of Melville and Ishmael gives us a singular reading from the modern perspective in which we are forced to examine psychological, historical, and linguistic forces, and the perspective through which we read is thrown into sharp relief. We read this novel with a varied awareness of influences on the author, text, and ourselves, are unable to read it otherwise, and the hermeneutics of the reading experience is brought to our attention in the process.