There is a valley in our part of Southern Norrland called Mobydalen (Moby Valley), with its own website with pictures: http://www.gestrike.net/mobydalen/
There is a valley in our part of Southern Norrland called Mobydalen (Moby Valley), with its own website with pictures: http://www.gestrike.net/mobydalen/
Ahoy, ship! Hast seen the wide vale?Originally Posted by Dreamwoven
I am not sure if it is a farce. I think it is a genuine expression of Melville experiences. He probally slept with one or another cannibal. I think his idea maybe something that we today would do. Romantics loved to profess their love for savages, but they would often attempt to turn this savage into a civilizated man, a christian, etc. Maybe the idea is less about their difference, more about the real incapacity to accept this difference.
Yes, I think the In the Navy Part was pretty much something veiled and that found cultural acceptance as long it was something restricted to the "sea" and could be justified as form of companionship or comrades. Certainly, the theme is not homossexuality, but the crew's dynamics and relationship. Which made them a form of society, with their our rules and codes at the time.The initial bedroom story is like a sailor's yarn that get's more and more outrageous. "The innkeeper said you'll have to double up with a harpooner, and I'm like, Woah, I don't know, but then, Okay, what the hell, where is he? And he says, Well he's out selling human heads, and I'm like, What? And he says, Aw, he's okay." The level of discomfort gets ratcheted up progressively (which is part of the farce), but it ends with Ishmael and Queequeg becoming "a cosy, loving pair." I agree that there is a homosexual bond, but the more important issue (for Melville) is the universality of the human condition. And he sees this as something common sailors, who travel the world and know its peoples, are more familiar with than those who sit in ivory towers and think they're better than others. (Okay, okay, there's am "In the Navy" thing going on, too
Ok, but in this case, Melville is deluded like Macbeth, as his ambition (kill moby) is beyond his reach. He obviously believes he can do it. But I do not think this apply to his decisions - His choice to purse moby for revenge is not dellusion as if he was going after her because something tricked him to feel such wrath.Not necessarily. He could be deluded (like Oedipus and Macbeth, for example). It's not a binary distinction.
Yes, that is more or less what I think. Let's imagine Boomer one day would find Moby Dick too. It was unevitable, but he just meet her by chance in the vast sea. Since it is just his job, he harpoon it. Since he is not guided by vengeance, he actually kills her. There is no special satisfaction. It was just his fate and how he avoided it. Maybe that happened in Moby Dick: the next generation.On the surface of it, Ahab and Boomer are both choosing. Boomer is choosing to abide by what he sees as fate or God's will, even though he doesn't want to. He wants to kill Moby-Dick for personal glory and profit. He tells Ahab: "There would be great glory in killing him, I know that; and there is a ship-load of precious sperm in him, but, hark ye, he’s best let alone". But Ahab chooses to do what he wants, even in defiance of fate or divine will. That, I think is his sin (the same Jonah showed in leaving Nineveh in Father Mapple's sermon) rather than obsessiveness. So perhaps, for Melville, Ahab and Boomer (and Jonah and the rest of us) are free to do what we want, but we are not free to choose what it is that we want to do. Thus, for Ahab (and probably for Boomer, too), Moby-Dick is "a great magnet." But they choose different responses to his allure.
I do not think there is any willing sacrifice or a Jesus in this book. Ahab probally is the only one in position to do so, but he is too royal and is a bit more friendly to Yaveh. What I meant is those dialogues when Ahab questions his fate (or his freedom of choice) that you posted, seems to be a dramatic momment, similar to Jesus questioning his fate just before his final words. I am sure we can have other momments like it, Shakespeare has plenty of it... It seems to be those self-questioning are more a way to prepare the readers to the fact it is (and the character is aware of that) in fact unavoidaible and he would do it all again if he had the chance, and not a way to suggest Ahab had not control of his actions.I don't see that analogy. If anything, the whale is Christ (albeit the wrathful version) and Ahab is party to a kind of Crucifixion at the end (is he the soldier who pierce's Christ's side with his lance?). But Ahab only damns himself, while Moby-Dick brings Judgement to the Pequod's world in microcosm. (But that doesn't quite work either, since Ishmael's deliverance is so arbitrary).
Well, I dont think there was a sequel (in the sense of using Moby Dick again). Melville is bleak, he is found of gray areas, Ishmael is certainly not a build up as a character meant to be followed in another book. Melville is not Hawthorne, he is not able to give us a definite moral guidance. Plus, the real Essex meeting, it seems to me Melville was just being realistic about a whale just going away and death being part of the whale hunting trade.My theory is he was keeping him alive for the sequel: Moby-Dick II: Ishmael's Revenge. (This time it's personal). That's a joke, but now that I think of it, perhaps Melville did envision a sequel but never wrote it because of the commercial failure of Moby-Dick. It would explain the lack of catharsis and the weird, radical ending. But I hope I'm wrong. The last scene in Moby Dick is one of my favorites in literature.
Well, sometimes, a white whale is just a white whale.
This was Starbuck's position: it is wrong to treat Moby-Dick as something other than a dumb animal. I don't think it was the author's. Ishmael is not an unreliable narrator, and as you observe, this was not his position either. Any "pathetic fallacy" must be laid at Melville's door, but since he was writing fiction, I'll give him a pass. (The whale that destroyed the Essex was just a whale, but Moby-Dick was anything Melville intended him to be). JC mentioned that Melville was fond of complicated/difficult symbolism and allegory in his other works. How likely is it that he would have abandoned this approach for Moby-Dick?
I sometimes hear readers who become exasperated with Melville's complexities ask why Moby-Dick can't be about a whale hunt. The answer, of course, is that it can be and it is. Symbolism allows meaning on more than one level, and those who want a whale hunt get it. But with Moby-Dick and other novels that use a lot of symbolism, I often hear that sort of comment thrown out as a veiled criticism of those who pursue symbolic meanings. Some feel intimidated by literary complexities, some feel analysis detracts from a story they love, and others have minds that just don't work that way. I'm not saying you are doing this, prendrelemick, just that (given Melville's literary predilections), I'd be careful how much of Moby-Dick we ascribe to "human conceit."
I will take issue with you here, though, not only because I don't think this was Melville's point, but also because it feeds into a modern environmentalist reading that is fundamentally eisegetical (that is, brought to the text rather than derived from it). If Melville had been a transcendentalist like Emerson, the idea of human insignificance before nature would be more convincing. But Melville's ideas Often opposed Emerson's, and not least in his views on nature. As far as getting "a deadly dose of the real world" goes, remarks like the following make it clear that Melville (like most 19th century Americans) did not consider physicality to represent true being:
"...no man can ever feel his own identity aright except his eyes be closed; as if, darkness were indeed the proper element of our essences, though light be more congenial to our clayey part."
"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."
In sum, your idea of "the real world" has been filtered through a 20th/21st century materialist outlook. It may or may not be ontologically valid, but it is not what Melville was talking about in 1851. The past is a foreign country (as has often been observed), they do things differently there.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-28-2016 at 10:24 AM.
HA HA! You beat me to it!
Well, the Queequeg story has some some comic elements, in any case ("We cannibals must help these Christians" is another hilarious line). I would call the story of their first night together farce, it's just that Queequeg is not the butt of the farce--mainstream 1851 American values are. There's a great passage from the chapter in which Ismael and Queequeg cross from New Bedford to Nantucket; some of their fellow passengers are staring at them because of their apparent closeness:
"So full of this reeling scene were we, as we stood by the plunging bowsprit, that for some time we did not notice the jeering glances of the passengers, a lubber-like assembly, who marvelled that two fellow beings should be so companionable; as though a white man were anything more dignified than a whitewashed negro."
That is an observation that would have offended virtually every white, heterosexual American at the time (including most of the abolitionists). Melville was such such an independent voice. No wonder his book didn't sell.
That's true, but as far as the story goes, Ishmael clearly falls in love with Queequeg. And that is really weird for a mid-19th century American novel. There's no real accounting for it. It's just, you know, Melville. He does his own thing, God bless him.
But Boomer does encounter Moby-Dick after losing his arm, twice in fact, and both times he gives him a wide berth. So he is not just doing his job; as he explains to Melville his will was to kill him--he wanted glory and the riches all the spermaceti would bring home. But he chose not to pursue his will, and this contrasts to Melville who gave himself up to his. Boomer is not heroic since he is retreating (if not actually running away); but he is not sinful, either, since he he accepts the loss of his arm as fate or God's will. But Ahab is the (heroic) sinner who puts his own will--by choosing to pursue it--over God's. And this is analogous to Jonah's placing his own will to leave Nineveh over God's will that he remain there as a prophet (which was discussed in Father Mapple's sermon). Both sins bring forth the beast from the sea.
Now, I've said that before, and I don't want to beat a dead horse; I understand your position, and I think you understand mine. But since we have been talking and I have been rereading parts of Moby-Dick, I have had some new ideas (I can hear prendrelemick groaning now
I wonder if the paradox of Moby-Dick (a monster whose distinguishing trait is its ineffable purity) is Melville exploring the idea that Blake described as "the marriage of heaven and hell" (not that he necessarily got the idea from Blake). Jonah and Ahab put their will before God's; both are driven over the sea where they encounter Leviathan. Jonah is swallowed; Ahab was symbolically swallowed when he lost his leg. Jonah repents and aligns his choices to God's will. Ahab remains (heroically) defiant and is dragged down to hell.
Okay, roger that, Houston, so the question is: who is Leviathan (mentioned several times in Moby-Dick's Etymology section)? By Melville's time, he/it would have been identified with the devil. But in strict monotheism, who must devil actually be (or who must be responsible for him on any case)? How many options are there? That was Blake's point--Heaven and hell are just opposite sides of the same thing, and the same God who made the Lamb made the Tyger.
In Melville's version (if I am right about this), God not only sends Leviathan to swallow Jonah and (symbolically) Ahab, God IS Leviathan or rather Leviathan is an aspect of God--the Tyger as opposed to the Lamb). For all its terrors, Leviathan's purpose was to bring Jonah's choice into alignment with God's will for his salvation (though Jonah's actual will was what it was--there was nothing to be done about it).
This, I am beginning to suspect, is the reason for the terrifying whiteness of the whale. Ahab was not the devil, he was just an egomaniacal sinner. But Moby-Dick was the same Leviathan who swallowed Jonah and (perhaps) for Melville an aspect of God Almighty. And since, for Trinitarians, the Father and Son are persons of the same godhead, Ahab's final piercing of Moby-Dick's side may resonate with the Crucifixion after all.
What do you think? I'm not completely convinced. It's certainly not my theology, but it may have been Melville's. Will this be the harpoon that finally makes it through? I don't know.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-28-2016 at 02:50 PM.
Yeah, how much a french decadent poet Melville is. Yet, when we read his talks with Hawthorne about the book, it does not seem he was such rebel. He is sure he was doing something special, but perhaps not shocking. Sometimes I think, what is exotic or unique for us on Melville, was not so much at the time. Or it was so veiled, that even the white heterosexual male helped to veil it. A whome Navy conspiracy to help to cover their flamboyat gayness!
While I am not sure it is true, we could make a case this "love" (which was returned) was what saved them both from Mody Dick. Therefore, Ishmael survival wouldnt be so random. But I think we are reading like XXI century readers about this.That's true, but as far as the story goes, Ishmael clearly falls in love with Queequeg. And that is really weird for a mid-19th century American novel. There's no real accounting for it. It's just, you know, Melville. He does his own thing, God bless him.
I should have been more ambitious with my narrative. Boomer would be in his last travel. Perhaps one day to reach land and retire. Old. Tired. Happy for his survival. And Moby would be shown on his path. Also old. More gray than white. Perhaps he would see Ahab harpoon on her back, or not see. Moby is sluggsh, slow. Her eyes could be blurred. It is an old whale, perhaps even suffering. Some young harpooner would be eager to catch her. Some will remember her. This kind of meeting.But Boomer does encounter Moby-Dick after losing his arm, twice in fact, and both times he gives him a wide berth. So he is not just doing his job; as he explains to Melville his will was to kill him--he wanted glory and the riches all the spermaceti would bring home. But he chose not to pursue his will, and this contrasts to Melville who gave himself up to his. Boomer is not heroic since he is retreating (if not actually running away); but he is not sinful, either, since he he accepts the loss of his arm as fate or God's will. But Ahab is the (heroic) sinner who puts his own will--by choosing to pursue it--over God's. And this is analogous to Jonah's placing his own will to leave Nineveh over God's will that he remain there as a prophet (which was discussed in Father Mapple's sermon). Both sins bring forth the beast from the sea.
There is a temptation (i just did it saying Ahab is more friendly to Yaveh) to see the divine/profane together, the old testament god in action here. He is more primeval, he is more complex. It is not difficulty to find the gnostic approach or Blake. Melville is also playing with a building mythology. But there is something different between Blake and Melville. Blake talks with angels. He knows. Melville does not. He doubts. Melville cannot give us a full answer, because he is not the harpoon. He is something facing the inexplicable, so waves more possibilities than certains.Now, I've said that before, and I don't want to beat a dead horse; I understand your position, and I think you understand mine. But since we have been talking and I have been rereading parts of Moby-Dick, I have had some new ideas (I can hear prendrelemick groaning now
I wonder if the paradox of Moby-Dick (a monster whose distinguishing trait is its ineffable purity) is Melville exploring the idea that Blake described as "the marriage of heaven and hell" (not that he necessarily got the idea from Blake). Jonah and Ahab put their will before God's; both are driven over the sea where they encounter Leviathan. Jonah is swallowed; Ahab was symbolically swallowed when he lost his leg. Jonah repents and aligns his choices to God's will. Ahab remains (heroically) defiant and is dragged down to hell.
Okay, roger that, Houston, so the question is: who is Leviathan (mentioned several times in Moby-Dick's Etymology section)? By Melville's time, he/it would have been identified with the devil. But in strict monotheism, who must devil actually be? How many options are there? That was Blake's point--Heaven and hell are just opposite sides of the same thing, and the same God who made the Lamb made the Tyger.
In Melville's version (if I am right about this), God not only sends Leviathan to swallow Jonah and (symbolically) Ahab, God IS Leviathan or rather Leviathan is an aspect of God--the Tyger as opposed to the Lamb). For all its terrors, Leviathan's purpose was to bring Jonah's choice into alignment with God's will for his salvation (though Jonah's actual will was what it was--there was nothing to be done about it).
This, I am beginning to suspect, is the reason for the terrifying whiteness of the whale. Ahab was not the devil, he was just an egomaniacal sinner. But Moby-Dick was the same Leviathan who swallowed Jonah and (perhaps) for Melville an aspect of God Almighty. And since, for Trinitarians, the Father and Son are persons of the same godhead, Ahab's final piercing of Moby-Dick's side may resonate with the Crucifixion after all.
What do you think? I'm not completely convinced. It's certainly not my theology, but it may have been Melville's. Will this be the harpoon that finally makes it through? I don't know.
I do think Leviathan is part of Moby Dick, but it is not about fiding who is Leviathan, who is god, who is Ahab, a symetry like Blake would do. Moby is part of the profane and the divine, I have no doubt. Melville is quite good to make evil happens for good cause also, he certainly find in every human this same duality. But I think Melville is always expanding the symbolism, building multiple interpretations. He was found of natural sciences (his efforts to ressonate with evolutionary theory at some point are notable), so, we must remember that a symbol does not cease to be the object its represents even when it is something new. (I recall Dante four level of meanings, Literary, Allegorical, Moral and anagogical, all present in Melville, and according to Dante one level can only be true if the other level is also true, so this make Moby Dick just a novel about whaling - hence the whale can be just a whale when needed - and a Novel about everything else).
Also, I feel Melville is very concious about his literary precussors. He never just repeat them, I would suggest, Ishmael is a Johan as good as other (he is the one telling the tale, after all. Prophets are tell-talers). We know Ishmael is not a reliable narrator (and couldnt be the narrator in every chapter), so what Ishmael is. I think he is a point of view. If Melville could talk with Angels, Ahab would give the point of view, Melville needs to use the point of view from his mates (they also go down with ahab and the whale, so it is not exactly a trinity). They are not just the typical victims of God's wrath in the biblical stories, like the Sodom and Gomorra, the flood victims, etc that go down because a king do something to unplease God and Ishmael cannt explain all either.. They are part of the process, active (shakespearean) characters. I do not think Ahab is the devil, Pequod is hell, etc. (When i said about Melville and Lucifer characters, I meant part of their language, not exactly function).
I love all those complexities and allegories and symbolism and they are definitely there in buckets throughout the book. Like the crew of the Pequod we believe in Moby Dick's supernatural myth - because we know him through Ahab. As I say, rereading the final encounters I was surprised by how like a whale he is. I think Melville intended that in the end.
I accept there may be a bit of that modern outlook going on with me, but a whale is all clayey parts,(not having a soul) and his violence trumps everything that has gone before.
ay up
Well, you don't have to be decadent to have an independent voice--or even French. Melville got it right without Europe. In 1851, black families lived in chains across the south and were treated with hostility across the north. And homosexuality could get you killed. So give Melville some credit for courage or show me another antebellum American author who presents an interracial gay couple in a positive, even heroic light.
Sounds postmodern. But you're not subverting the patriarchy nearly enough. I thought that was mandatory for rebels.
Correct and well put. But I don't think he was getting it from Blake.
Yes, I don't understand it, either. They were all part of the whale hunt--why should Ishmael survive? Perhaps Melville wanted a first person perspective, but he also wanted the ship to sink, so he had to save someone. On the other hand, I think there may be something going on with Queequeg's coffin. I have to think about it some more.
I am joking, but I do not remember among the attacks (some personal) he received in XIX century to deal with the homossexual theme. He was a drunkward, coward, madman, etc. Melville wasnt openly out of closet and even the novels before Moby Dick have this kind of homossexual undertone. I think however (as most things about melville) the critics started to find this kind of reading after Billy Budd discovery and in the XX century. So, we may be saying something obvious but in the XIX i was not as we read today.
No, Blake link, as far I know, was given by yoou only. Except some simialr source and attiude...Correct and well put. But I don't think he was getting it from Blake.
If Ishmael is only a point of view, he must survive. But Queequegg relationship may have saved Ishmael?Yes, I don't understand it, either. They were all part of the whale hunt--why should Ishmael survive? Perhaps Melville wanted a first person perspective, but he also wanted the ship to sink, so he had to save someone. On the other hand, I think there may be something going on with Queequeg's coffin. I have to think about it some more.
About white, since the white whale was a theme given to Melville, I believe the white is used as something fantastic, not a symbol of purity.
Sometimes Leviathan is just a whale
Now, I've said that before, and I don't want to beat a dead horse; I understand your position, and I think you understand mine. But since we have been talking and I have been rereading parts of Moby-Dick, I have had some new ideas (I can hear prendrelemick groaning now
I wonder if the paradox of Moby-Dick (a monster whose distinguishing trait is its ineffable purity) is Melville exploring the idea that Blake described as "the marriage of heaven and hell" (not that he necessarily got the idea from Blake). Jonah and Ahab put their will before God's; both are driven over the sea where they encounter Leviathan. Jonah is swallowed; Ahab was symbolically swallowed when he lost his leg. Jonah repents and aligns his choices to God's will. Ahab remains (heroically) defiant and is dragged down to hell.
Okay, roger that, Houston, so the question is: who is Leviathan (mentioned several times in Moby-Dick's Etymology section)? By Melville's time, he/it would have been identified with the devil. But in strict monotheism, who must devil actually be (or who must be responsible for him on any case)? How many options are there? That was Blake's point--Heaven and hell are just opposite sides of the same thing, and the same God who made the Lamb made the Tyger.
In Melville's version (if I am right about this), God not only sends Leviathan to swallow Jonah and (symbolically) Ahab, God IS Leviathan or rather Leviathan is an aspect of God--the Tyger as opposed to the Lamb). For all its terrors, Leviathan's purpose was to bring Jonah's choice into alignment with God's will for his salvation (though Jonah's actual will was what it was--there was nothing to be done about it).
This, I am beginning to suspect, is the reason for the terrifying whiteness of the whale. Ahab was not the devil, he was just an egomaniacal sinner. But Moby-Dick was the same Leviathan who swallowed Jonah and (perhaps) for Melville an aspect of God Almighty. And since, for Trinitarians, the Father and Son are persons of the same godhead, Ahab's final piercing of Moby-Dick's side may resonate with the Crucifixion after all.
What do you think? I'm not completely convinced. It's certainly not my theology, but it may have been Melville's. Will this be the harpoon that finally makes it through? I don't know.
At least in this book. Melville seems to use whale/leviathan as interchangeble terms. Interestingly one time he should've used Leviathan, he uses whale (chapter 41)-
"Here then was this grey-bearded, ungodly old man, chasing with curses a Job's whale round the world..."
Then of course you look up Job and find God boasting that only he can handle and defeat Leviathan.
“Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
or tie down its tongue with a rope?
2
Can you put a cord through its nose
or pierce its jaw with a hook?"
followed by a description that is very un whale-like. But it seems clear that Leviathan is God's buisness and should be left to God.
So then you look up Leviathan and find that at the end of days, God intends to kill the Leviathan and feed its flesh to the righteous.
You may've given up your harpoons in favour of a net, and spread it pretty wide there Pompey. I prefer the Miltonian explanation because I see hints in the text. But I shall have to think a bit more.
Last edited by prendrelemick; 09-29-2016 at 08:22 AM.
ay up
No, I didn't mean he was getting it from Blake, just that they seem to be working with a similar idea.
Well, I think of the image. There's Ishmael left alive amidst the debris of the wreck. Why? To me he is like a Christian amidst the wreckage of the Church, although many interpretations are possible. I don't know why he alone has been spared; it seems arbitrary. But Melville says that jaws of the passing sharks have been "padlocked"," which sounds miraculous (like the angel closing the lion's mouth in the story of Daniel). So why Ishmael? Or is God's Grace simply inscrutable?
The coffin he clings to is an ambiguous symbol. At first it seems straightforward enough. Here is humankind cast adrift in a vast, unknowable cosmos, with only our mortality to cling to. This is the human condition. Action, heroic or otherwise, can achieve no more than this. And perhaps the image means no more than that.
But it is Queequeg's coffin, so maybe there is something else. Maybe mortality is not the only thing human beings are left with; maybe there is also the potential to love one another, even the memory or idea of one another. Maybe that is why Queequeg's coffin bears Ishmael up. Melville certainly emphasizes their love for one another from the novel's first chapters. What I am still working out is whether there is some special meaning to the coffin itself (which gets its own chapter after all).
I'm not sure what you mean about the white whale theme being given to Melville. Are you saying that because the Essex was destroyed by a white whale, Melville would not have been able to use a "white leviathan (inspired by the Essex whale) to represent the marriage of Heaven and hell? And if so, why not? As far as the idea of purity goes, Protestant churches in the Northeast during Melville's time were enormous structures painted ghostly white; many are still here--I grew up worshipping in them. During the winter, the ground and trees turn the same color white--but now blinding from the sun's glare. You go to church through white passageways cut in the deep snow. I don't think Melville's readers (however few they may have been) would have had any trouble recognizing "mystical and well nigh ineffable" whiteness of the whale. What is innovative and unsettling is that the Puritan white appears on a sea monster.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-29-2016 at 12:57 PM.
Look, it's just more complicated than that, prendrelemick. The Hebrew Scriptures were influenced by the Babylonian myth of combat between Marduk, the king of the gods and a primal sea monster, preserved in the cuneiform text usually called the Enuma Elish. References to some version of this cosmic heavy appear in Psalms, Prophecy and elsewhere (including Job) under a variety of names: Leviathan, Rehab, the crooked serpent, the serpent that is in the sea, and others. Some of the references are quoted by Melville in the introductory section of Moby-Dick called Etymology. Etymology refers to "a chronological account of the birth and development of a particular word or element of a word, often delineating it's spread from one language to another and its evolving changes in form and meaning." So it is reasonable to suppose that Melville alluded to at least some aspects of the Hebrew version of this myth in his vision of Moby-Dick.
As far as nets and harpoons go, as I said above my conversation with JC and rereading parts of Moby-Dick has given me new ideas I am tentatively pursuing. I hope that's not a bad thing.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 09-29-2016 at 11:28 AM.
I think it would be too weird using Ishmael and then relating him to Christ or Daniel. Relate to Ishmael, who is the son of Abraham, who had to deal with pagans, so maybe it is all about survival over paganism (but not against it) amid the profane act of Ahab or watever act we find God getting pissed at those times. How many times have God destroyed everything pissed in the OT and let alone a survivor? It may be a motif Melville followed. Queequeeg death is something unique too. Maybe we can relate Ishmael survival to Queequeeg death (Not that Melville could know, but Gilgamesh/Enkidu analogy - both also hunters that went in a profane quest) .
Yes, I mean that first he was impressed, atracted by the white whale (which was a just a whale). As purity, maybe this last line of yours suits me more : mystical and well nigh ineffable, as we kind agree in Moby dick we have together what is holy and profane, in Yaveh mode, OT. I think the White Whale is that: something fantastic, a great literary device that indicates something fantastic and impressive, unique. There is a motif for white being something not scary, but opressive or terrific, Blinding (Milton on whiteness in Aeropagitica , thinks about whiteness is sometimes a blank virtue, not always a pure one). Considering Melville humor, bleakness, complexity I do not see Moby as something pure or whole).I'm not sure what you mean about the white whale theme being given to Melville. Are you saying that because the Essex was destroyed by a white whale, Melville would not have been able to use a "white leviathan (inspired by the Essex whale) to represent the marriage of Heaven and hell? And if so, why not? As far as the idea of purity goes, Protestant churches in the Northeast during Melville's time were enormous structures painted ghostly white; many are still here--I grew up worshipping in them. During the winter, the ground and trees turn the samme white--but blinding from the sun's glare. You go to church through white passageways cut in the deep snow. I don't think Melville's readers (however few they may have been) would have had any trouble recognizing "mystical and well nigh ineffable" whiteness of the whale. What is innovative and unsettling is that the Puritan white appears on a sea monster.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote