Was Melville alluding to wars with Native Americans in Moby Dick?

[JCamilo]

Well, Ahab is almost an anti-hero, in this way, similar to the romantic vision of Lucifer. Both are have a natural power of rethoric, in many technical aspects they are similar characters. I am not sure if Pequod is the nice circles (one can always play with the crew and see their sins, but Ishmael is not Dante guided by Virgil, he is a sinner that admires a pagan) but there is a descend to hell in this story. Maybe the Pequod is a map or europe, Melville reaction to the Thourean/Emerson romatic view.

In other works, like Benito Cereno, Melville seems to reflect the Civil War concerns. The africans are evil (while freedom is a good cause) , and to me it seems like Melville was pointing the war would be decisive for the matter but it was not a solution. (Ultimatelly Melville was right). His characters have this tragic quality in a way, failure of objective, which may seems Melville didnt feel we could achive anything with heroic acts at all.

Anyways, I think Melville is a master of atmosphere. Read the begining of Benito Cereno, it is all about bad omens, but the wether and sea conditions seems to be telling the whole drama of the book. Much like Poe (or Emily Bronte) when the "supernatural" is natural and psychological.

[Pompey Bum]

If his Whiteness (His pure inviolate flesh) is the key, then when the physical whale appears close up and that whiteness is gnarled, scarred and a bit smelly - is another metaphor.

It is not the flesh that is inviolate--many harpoons have damaged it--but the whiteness itself, which Melville describes as "mystical and well nigh ineffable." He compares it to the ectoplasm of a ghost and the pale horse ridden by Death in Revelation. "It was the whiteness of the whale," he says, "that above all things appalled me. But how can I hope to explain myself here; and yet, in some dim, random way, explain myself I must, else all these chapters might be naught."

In my opinion, that is the key to the novel. The scars, the flesh, the whale form itself (and all the things we try to make of the whale) are a facade. But the ineffable purity--not the whale but the whiteness of the whale--is what Ahab obscenely (and heroically) tries to violate. But Moby-Dick remains awesome and unknowable.

That is my ending. But was it Melville's, and does Melville give us a choice? This gets to a question we haven't asked yet: did Moby-Dick survive the final combat? When I was a little boy, my father used to read me a child's picture-book version of the novel. One of the last images in it was of Ahab harpooning Moby-Dick while the whale spouted blood. I remember asking my dad if Moby-Dick survived. Oddly enough he told me, No, he got killed, but he took Ahab with him. Years later, of course, I discovered that Melville says nothing of the kind.

On the other hand, the whale makes no curtain call. He had already been injured, he was harpooned in the final combat, and he rammed the Pequod hard enough to break it to sink it (which would also have caused terrible injury). So was my father right? Or did Melville leave the answer up to the reader? I'd be interested to hear your view. Mine is that my father was wrong. Moby-Dick triumphed and survived and Melville intended no ambiguity about it. God can destroy man but man cannot destroy God. What do you think?

[Pompey Bum]

Well, Ahab is almost an anti-hero, in this way, similar to the romantic vision of Lucifer. Both are have a natural power of rethoric, in many technical aspects they are similar characters.

This is a good point, JC. In fact, I wouldn't say almost. Ahab is one of the great antiheroes of literature. He is comparable to Milton's Satan and Aeschylus' Prometheus. Only a hero dares to defy a god. That is his tragedy.

His characters have this tragic quality in a way, failure of objective, which may seems Melville didnt feel we could achive anything with heroic acts at all.

Correct. Ahab's tragedy accomplishes nothing. In the end, we are left clinging to a coffin in a vast, unknowable sea. The central paradox of Melville is that life is unimportant without heroism (as emphasized at the book's start), and yet heroic acts fail to redeem anything. It is a profoundly pessimistic view of life.

I am not sure if Pequod is the nice circles (one can always play with the crew and see their sins, but Ishmael is not Dante guided by Virgil, he is a sinner that admires a pagan) but there is a descend to hell in this story.

I found this line from the novel's final pages comparing the Pequod to Satan, "which, like Satan, would not sink to hell till she had dragged a living part of heaven along with her, and helmeted herself with it."

In my version of the story, the Pequod is something like the Church, which guides lost humanity over an obscure surface-world in search of a God it doesn't begin to understand. Was Melville subject to the thriving anti-Catholicism of his day? Is Ahab the Anti-Christ Pope of the mother ship?

And so another harpoon is cast.

[JCamilo]

Maybe not the church, I do not think he goes something as organized, but he seems to reveil in the human and seem to think Leaders are a problem. Ahab (quite genial) dooms all with his obssession. Babo in Benito Cereno overplays his manipulation and dooms the crew that just got his freedom. There is something in Melville that while he sings the body eletric, that is a can of worns. Well, he is pessimist, in a America of Thoureaus and Emersons and coming to the Civil War.

Maybe the pequod is a mirror of society (hence we can see any society there), maybe the american society (all the brotherhood, all the mixed cultures) , yet, one Charismatic Leader. Maybe Melville was quite afraid (or wanted the reader to be afraid) of this leader. D.H.Lawrence essays on american literature are quite good. He seems to notice something on Melville that the earlier writers (alongside Melville, Hawthorne, Poe) didnt saw, this dark side of basic nature. Maybe Melville wanted to say : Our ideals are always ideals, they will not solve all problems. One day you will be voting for Hillary and Trump. Many maybes. Biblical wise, because it is there, I do not exactly think it is good vs.evil, Satan Vs. God. It is the challenge that matters (I guess you agree). This seems similar to other works, Billy Budd does not even need to do anything except being pretty. In Baterbly, the main characters tries to not do anything so he will not call any attention.

[Danik 2016]

The name Pequod seems to be significant too as the name of an Indian tribe that was destroyed by the white men:
http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question139612.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pequot...f_.22Pequot.22

[mona amon]

It is great to see a thread on an actual book once again, with Litnetters at their literary best. Now I want to re-read this magnificent book! The first time I thought it was a book on whaling and specifically about Captain Ahab's obsessive hunt of the great white whale that chomped off his leg, and I doubt if I will see in it anything more than that this time round, but all these interesting interpretations are bound to enhance my reading experience.

[prendrelemick]

It is not the flesh that is inviolate--many harpoons have damaged it--but the whiteness itself, which Melville describes as "mystical and well nigh ineffable." He compares it to the ectoplasm of a ghost and the pale horse ridden by Death in Revelation. "It was the whiteness of the whale," he says, "that above all things appalled me. But how can I hope to explain myself here; and yet, in some dim, random way, explain myself I must, else all these chapters might be naught."

In my opinion, that is the key to the novel. The scars, the flesh, the whale form itself (and all the things we try to make of the whale) are a facade. But the ineffable purity--not the whale but the whiteness of the whale--is what Ahab obscenely (and heroically) tries to violate. But Moby-Dick remains awesome and unknowable.

That is my ending. But was it Melville's, and does Melville give us a choice? This gets to a question we haven't asked yet: did Moby-Dick survive the final combat? When I was a little boy, my father used to read me a child's picture-book version of the novel. One of the last images in it was of Ahab harpooning Moby-Dick while the whale spouted blood. I remember asking my dad if Moby-Dick survived. Oddly enough he told me, No, he got killed, but he took Ahab with him. Years later, of course, I discovered that Melville says nothing of the kind.

On the other hand, the whale makes no curtain call. He had already been injured, he was harpooned in the final combat, and he rammed the Pequod hard enough to break it to sink it (which would also have caused terrible injury). So was my father right? Or did Melville leave the answer up to the reader? I'd be interested to hear your view. Mine is that my father was wrong. Moby-Dick triumphed and survived and Melville intended no ambiguity about it. God can destroy man but man cannot destroy God. What do you think?

Ah yes, I remember now his list of scary white coloured things, - I was unconvinced, but that doesn't matter, the point was stretched and made within the book so let's accept it. But you go an extra step, "The whiteness of the whale will absorb and render meaningless (but also pure) any harpoon we cast at it." ( like a black hole?) What are you saying whiteness is/represents?

I just re-read day three of the chase, and the adjective of, "The stricken whale", did jump out from the page, but reports of his death have been exaggerated I think.

More interesting, as JC said, was:- "(The Pequod) like Satan, would not sink to hell till she had dragged a living part of heaven along with her, and helmeted herself with it." I need to search out that reference.

[Pompey Bum]

Maybe not the church, I do not think he goes something as organized...Maybe the pequod is a mirror of society (hence we can see any society there),

Perhaps we can agree it represents humanity, however one further defines it. But then who are these other ships the Pequod encounters? They seem to be part of a different theme: that of Ahab's (anti-)heroism, since the other captains (as I recall) are running away from Moby-Dick. I need to reread those chapters--it's been a while.

maybe the american society (all the brotherhood, all the mixed cultures)

I had the same thought just before reading your post. But Melville's very deliberate inclusion of the alien/other Queequeg and a multinational crew convinced me otherwise. I think his scope is universal.

yet, one Charismatic Leader. Maybe Melville was quite afraid (or wanted the reader to be afraid) of this leader.

I doubt he was being political. Millard Fillmore was a lousy president, but he was no Ahab. Or did you have someone else in mind?

[Pompey Bum]

The name Pequod seems to be significant too as the name of an Indian tribe that was destroyed by the white men:
http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question139612.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pequot...f_.22Pequot.22

That doesn't make much sense in terms of the original question Kev asked, which was about whether Melville's description of whales defensively surrounding mothers and young could have been an allusion to a tactical defense used by American Indians (and, lest we forget, European Americans used to circle the wagons when the Indians would attack their families). But the Pequod was a whaling ship--its crew were the killers--so what would its name have to do with such a maneuver?

One of the links you left suggests that by giving the ship the name of a doomed people Melville was foreshadowing the doom of the voyage. That's possible. My view is that he took the name of an ancient and aboriginal people to give a primal aspect to the multiracial, multinational crew. The Pequod does not represent 1851 society but humanity writ large. On the other hand, maybe he just wanted a believable sounding name. A great many things here in New England are named for the vanished Indians.

[Pompey Bum]

It is great to see a thread on an actual book once again, with Litnetters at their literary best. Now I want to re-read this magnificent book!

I agree, Mona. And I've been considering a reread, too. It's been 25 years since the last time (and that was a reread). But I'm just finishing a lengthy reread (of Vanity Fair) so the next one should probably be something new. But it is tempting me. So many books, so many books.

[Pompey Bum]

More interesting, as JC said, was:- "(The Pequod) like Satan, would not sink to hell till she had dragged a living part of heaven along with her, and helmeted herself with it." I need to search out that reference.

Ahem, ahem, ahem, ahem...

I found this line from the novel's final pages comparing the Pequod to Satan, "which, like Satan, would not sink to hell till she had dragged a living part of heaven along with her, and helmeted herself with it.

Glad you found it interesting, though.

Ah yes, I remember now his list of scary white coloured things, - I was unconvinced, but that doesn't matter, the point was stretched and made within the book so let's accept it.

Well, he did specify that his words were going to be insufficient to communicate that which is "mystical and well nigh ineffable [unspeakable]." Perhaps that was why you found it unconvincing.

What are you saying whiteness is/represents?

As I said, "the human failure to penetrate the facade of reality in any meaningful way." Or to take it a step further (as I believe Melville did) the unknowability of God. The impenetrability of the sea (that is, to vision) is also a metaphor for the former.

I just re-read day three of the chase, and the adjective of, "The stricken whale", did jump out from the page, but reports of his death have been exaggerated I think.

So do I. For the story to work, Ahab must not only die but fail.

[prendrelemick]

Ahem, ahem, ahem, ahem....

oops!

As I said, "the human failure to penetrate the facade of reality in any meaningful way." Or to take it a step further (as I believe Melville did) the unknowability of God. The impenetrability of the sea (that is, to vision) is also a metaphor for the former.

You know those annoying kids who just keep asking why, over and over and over....

I agree, unknowability and impenetrability is a theme in there. But a metaphor has to have a backstory or a progression of logic. It is supposed to make something hard, clearer through an image, or be allegorical or something. I'm having trouble getting from white to what you said . Why not black for instance?

[Pompey Bum]

I agree, unknowability and impenetrability is a theme in there. But a metaphor has to have a backstory or a progression of logic. It is supposed to make something hard, clearer through an image, or be allegorical or something. I'm having trouble getting from white to what you said . Why not black for instance?

First (and I hope obviously), this is what works for me. I also believe it is what Melville meant, but I am neither a missionary nor a monomaniac and I am not trying to force my reading on you. In fact, I would appreciate hearing other interpretations since they would help me understand more (whether I accept them or not).

The color is white instead of black because white is a void. There IS an image, a whale, but rather than "make something hard clearer" (as you put it), the the void puts meaning out of reach (this is why the whiteness of the whale is described as ineffable). It would be easier for us if the white whale was a conventional symbol: Moby-Dick is the all-loving God--you'll never reach him if your heart is full of vengeance!; or Moby-Dick is almighty Mother Nature--paternalistic, male environmental criminals will get what's coming to them eventually! But Moby-Dick is not easy. The symbol itself is not penetrable, except in its impenetrability (the harpoons in the whale's scarred sides). That is the point of the novel. That is why it is necessary for Ahab not just to die but also to fail.

Is this Melville's critique of concept of revealed knowledge? Maybe. It calls to mind a great line in an otherwise hokey Bob Dylan song: "Nothing is revealed." That would make a good synopsis of Moby-Dick. So is the white whale the empty-set God of atheism (as I have heard suggested)? I don't think so, but a certain kind of agnostic may recognize the big guy; not the sort who can't make up his mind whether God exists, but the one who sees God as inherently unknowable. I once saw a bumper sticker that read: MILITANT AGNOSTIC: I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU. Heh heh. That would be a good summary, too.

[kev67]

That is my ending. But was it Melville's, and does Melville give us a choice? This gets to a question we haven't asked yet: did Moby-Dick survive the final combat? When I was a little boy, my father used to read me a child's picture-book version of the novel. One of the last images in it was of Ahab harpooning Moby-Dick while the whale spouted blood. I remember asking my dad if Moby-Dick survived. Oddly enough he told me, No, he got killed, but he took Ahab with him. Years later, of course, I discovered that Melville says nothing of the kind.

I just finished the book. I was worried Moby Dick might not survive the final confrontation. As far as I can tell he did, although all those ropes, harpoons and corpses might slow him down. How's he going hunt giant squid encumbered by all that?

[JCamilo]

Perhaps we can agree it represents humanity, however one further defines it. But then who are these other ships the Pequod encounters? They seem to be part of a different theme: that of Ahab's (anti-)heroism, since the other captains (as I recall) are running away from Moby-Dick. I need to reread those chapters--it's been a while.

We can guess they are the denial of heroic pursuit. The model of scrivener, hiding from god presence (can you say they are the Limbo? ) Or they are other nations/societies that do not move toward greatness/madness? Because they may represent humanity but not all humanity.

I had the same thought just before reading your post. But Melville's very deliberate inclusion of the alien/other Queequeg and a multinational crew convinced me otherwise. I think his scope is universal.

I think they are not alien (perhaps the persians, but they are too alien) to Melville, a guy who lived a few months with cannibals. Of course, Moby is moving towards the universal, from the perspective of Melville own experience (like his previous works and by some accounts Moby Dick also started as a sea adventure) and developed in a World's Stage. He is very allegorical after all.

I doubt he was being political. Millard Fillmore was a lousy president, but he was no Ahab. Or did you have someone else in mind?

No, I am not thinking political as the french novelists would be. But of course, the universality of such leader could be implied to any politic. I think he was moving from sea captains he meet, at that time very powerful, and I suspect, many charming captains with good rethorical power. Just like the scew, the pequod grow in symbolism, so does the captain.

I think of Walt Whitman. Besides Whitman, the Pequod is the perhaps the most meaningful literary map of america, of democracy, of representation, individualy and entreprise. Yet, Melville is dark. What is dark? Perhaps some sensibility towards the upcoming civil war also gives him some fear about the leadership. Like I said, In Benito Cereno Melville seems to be talking about the possible upcoming violence after the end of slavery. It may be that artistic sensibility that give writers the capacity to feel for a time that didnt exist yet.

And the white, it is another thing moving from a particular (the reason essex whale) to an universal meaning. The horror of white was proposed by Poe before, no?