tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post6488806537893218291..comments2024-03-26T22:47:45.276-07:00Comments on Intro to Critical Reading: The Importance of CetologyAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post-49562190296973136472012-03-30T16:40:16.054-07:002012-03-30T16:40:16.054-07:00The style of your intro is a little awkward, but t...The style of your intro is a little awkward, but the focus on the legitimizing function is good. An actual quote from Ward might have helped here.<br /><br />The next couple paragraphs about Ishmael as a character are solid, but would have been better if your introductory paragraph had said something about the relationship between Cetology and Ishmael's personality - which seems to be your topic, more or less.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I agree that "Cetology" is the center, or at least a plausible center, of the novel (his other experimental novels lack such clear grounding, and suffer for it). But you're a little slow to articulate for what purposes/ends the novel is grounded.<br /><br />I think the claim that "We should use those sections as grounding points to affirm the iea that this whale is real, that it can be killed and that the members fo the Pequod are valid in attempting to do so" should have been your thesis, and presented as such at the beginning. One reason I think that is I immediately found myself arguing with it - which is a clue that there is something to argue *about*. In other words, you should be trying to prove this claim from the beginning, ideally.<br /><br />The other truly interesting moment here is when you begin to argue with Ward. I liked this a lot, because you are working on developing your own reading of the novel: one which resists metaphysics, or at least leans toward the physical rather than the metaphysical. You're making a case for a novel which belongs (these are my words, of course) more to the history of science than to the history of metaphysics.<br /><br />It's a great approach. I like it, and I'd be happy to read this stuff all day. What's lacking is a strong relationship with Melville's text itself. You spend the whole essay working out your thesis and your relationship with Ward - what's lacking is, for instance, a detailed attempt to show us how "Cetology" can lead us to rethink or challenge a particular symbol or set of symbols- perhaps to read that symbol scientifically rather than metaphysically?<br /><br />For instance, you might have begun with the chapter "The Quadrant" - a great one to approach with this argument, I think, challenging but with great possible rewards.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com