Parsee

Fedallah has often puzzled and dissatisfied critics (Isani 386). He can be generalized as Ahab’s alter ego and a personification of evil, but his lack of character development left me wondering what the point of his presence was in the novel’s main argument. He is a man guided strictly by his orthodox religion, which ironically reduces his religion to ritual. In this matter of faith, Fedallah is both a foil to the rationalistic rebel Ahab and a reminder that orthodoxy is not without its dangers (Isani 385). In order to better understand his actions, one needs to understand his religion—which is his main motive for the course of actions he takes.

He is a Parsee, which is a very orthodox-based Indian branch of Zoroastrianism. As discussed in class, the main points of this religion is the bases of the two Gods—one good and one bad. “The Zoroastrians think that of animals, such as dogs, fowls, and urchins, belong to the Good God Ahura Mazda, and water animals to the Bad God Ahriman” (Isani 387). The latter point may imply the reason as to why such a religious man chose such a barbaric career; he may see whales as the offspring of his God’s enemy. This also shows that Fedallah is not actually the evil figure he is brought out to be, but a soldier of the Good God. If one views Fedallah as a soldier of Good, his actions on board the Pequod become even more obscured. For instance, many times throughout the novel, the Parsee is described as worshipping fire (often a symbol of raging and destructive evil):

“Fedallah; tail coiled out of sight as usual. What does he say, with that look of his? Ah, only makes a sign to the sign and bows himself; there is a sun on the coin—fire worshipper, depend upon it.” (Ch. 99).

“The hard pressed forge shooting up its intense straight flame, the Parsee passed silently, and bowing over his head towards the fire, seemed invoking some curse or some blessing on the toil” (Ch. 113).

The first example takes place during the crew’s discussion about the value of the doubloon; while everybody is discussing its worth, the Parsee simply bows to its engravings. This portion exemplifies Melville trying to make Fedallah look evil, as he writes of him as a demon-like character—tail coiled out of sight as usual. The next example shows Fedallah secretly bowing to Ahab’s weapon as it is being forged. This scene once again purposefully leads the reader into an ambiguous understanding of his motives, as Melville does not specify whether he uttered a curse or a blessing.

“There is, in truth, nothing that can be seen or felt, which combines so many symbolic attributes of splendor, terror, and beneficence, as fire” (Isani 385). With a stronger understanding of the metaphysical concepts surrounding Zoroastrianism, one would see that neither fire nor light can be evil; instead, it is a symbol of enlightened truth (Isani 386). With this in mind, I find it a curiosity that Melville painted such a misleading picture of Fedallah—did he purposefully portray him through the racism of the Christian crew or did he want him to be inherently evil? Perhaps he wanted Fedallah to symbolize the extremities of orthodox religions?

This last argument is reinforced by the Parsee’s failure to abort the hunt for Moby-Dick, even after his prophetic foreknowledge of his own fated death upon the water. He continues to hunt the whale only in his devotion of ritual and sacrifice. He knows that his body is “destined to defile the sacred ocean” (Ch. 113), and that his death will signal the imminent death of Ahab. With these half-truths, Fedallah deceives and uses Ahab for his own orthodox religious ends, as he misleads Ahab into believing his death can only occur on land via hanging. Disregarding reason and seeking justification solely in faith, he perpetuates evil in the service of the Good God and does not recognize the paradox of his actions. (Isani 389-390). And, as predicted, he does sacrifice himself as a ritual for his religion, as well as indirectly sacrificing the rest of the crew in the process.

Through my research of the Zoroastrian religion, and the more specific Parsee branch, my point of view of Fedallah has changed immensely. I no longer distinguish him as a demon-like worshipper of an evil religion, like Melville and the Pequod crew tried oh so hard to do. I am now able to understand the reasons for his unclear actions during the novel; however, this has also caused me to feel a sense of sympathy—not necessarily for him, but for the people like him that turn to the outer extremities of religion and end up being consumed by its false promises. To reiterate, I do not want readers to picture Fedallah as either good or bad; instead, see him as a symbol of the countless unnecessary deaths caused by the over-belief and over-exaggeration of one’s faith.

Isani, Mukhtar Ali. "Zoroastrianism and the Fire Symbolism in Moby-Dick." American Literature 44.3 (1972): 385-97. Http://www.jstor.org/stable/2924149?seq=1. Web.

Land

The story of Moby Dick is set almost completely at sea. The sea, however, provides more than the just the setting of the novel, but also plays an important role symbolically. Similarly, the land also plays a symbolic role in Moby Dick. Although it is not as much a presence as the sea, for obvious reasons, the land, and all that it stands for and symbolizes, is an important part of understanding Moby Dick.

Ishmael’s first discussion of land comes in the very first chapter: “But these are all landsmen; of week days pent up in lath and plaster—tied to counters, nailed to benches, clinched to desks.” (4) In this section, Ishmael is discussing landsmen who live in by the shore and look to the sea. In this description, it seems as if these landsmen are almost prisoners. They are “pent up,” “tied,” “nailed,” and “clinched,” trapped on land but looking towards the adventure the sea offers. When Ishmael goes on to discuss his own reasons for wanting to become a whaleman, it is clear that in the beginning, Ishmael does view the land as a sort of holding room. He is restless to leaves the confines of dry land and get out on the ocean, which provides a seemingly endless opportunity for freedom.

Ishmael goes on to criticize the land and its occupations when he discusses the importance and honor of whaling. He believes that to a true whaleman, the sea can provide the same simple comforts as the land: “With the landless gull, that at sunset folds her wings and is rocked to sleep between billows; so at nightfall, the Nantucketer, out of sight of land, furls his sails, and lays him to his rest, while under his very pillow rush herds of walruses and whales.” (71) Even “out of sight of land,” the whaleman gain all the same ease from the sea as he would from land, rending the land less important that the sea, for the sea also provides a livelihood and home for these men. When describing the whalemen Bulkington, who at the beginning of the novel has just landed and is already eager to sail off again, Ishmael says “The land seemed scorching to his feet.” (116) This goes beyond merely saying that to whalmen, the land is less important than the sea, but also says that to a true whalemen, the land is that same prison it was compared to in the first chapter. Ishmael goes even further in criticizing the land when describing what it does to ships: “one touch of land, though it but graze the keel, would make her shudder through and through.” (116) With this, the land becomes not only imprisoning, but actually dangerous.

In the final paragraph of this same chapter, the great ocean is compared to the highest of powers, God, while the land is compared to the lowest of creatures, the worm: But as in landlessness alone resides highest truth, shoreless, indefinite as God—so, better is it to perish in that howling infinite, than be ingloriously dashed upon the lee, even if that were safety! For worm-like, then, oh! who would craven crawl to land!” (117) With this final image, it is clear that the land is to be considered inferior to the sea.

Other images appear later in the novel which also depict the land in a negative light. When Ishmael is talking about the blacksmith’s unfortunate past, he tells of how the mermaids of the sea cry out “Come hither! bury thyself in a life which, to your now equally abhorred and abhorring, landed world, is more oblivious than death.” (529) The land here seems unforgiving, constantly reminding the blacksmith of his life’s failures. Despite these many negative descriptions of land, Melville also portrays it in a positive light. Although the land is portrayed at other points at being “peaceful,” (590) “flowery,” (534) and “steadfast,” (605), the best positive description for the land comes in the middle of the novel:

Consider all this; and then turn to this green, gentle, and most docile earth; consider them both, the sea and the land; and do you not find a strange analogy to something in yourself? For as this appalling ocean surrounds the verdant land, so in the soul of man there lies one insular Tahiti, full of peace and joy, but encompassed by all the horrors of the half known life. God keep thee! Push not off from that isle, thou canst never return! (229)

In this description, all land is an island, surrounded by the harsh, cannibalistic sea. This island is equated to the peacefulness of a man’s innermost soul, the only part untouched by the “horrors” of life.

Although these many descriptions of land, both negative and positive, seem contradicting, I think that they all portray land in perfect contrast with the sea, and thus set the land up as the sea’s symbolic opposite. The sea is portrayed as the superior to the land in almost everyway, even if the sea’s superior power means it is less peaceful than the land. Even the land’s greatest living being, the elephant, is directly compared to Leviathan, and found to be in every way inferior to the sea’s greatest beast. If Moby Dick can be seen as God, or at least as godly, then the sea would be his heavenly realm. This leaves the inferior land to be just what it is: earth. While the god that Melville portrays in Moby Dick, often through the whale himself, is certainly a vengeful and unforgiving god, this god is still far superior to anything that the land has to offer. The land may be a flowery, steadfast sanctuary of peace, but based on the entirety of the novel, Melville seems to believe that a life lived completely on land is not a life fully lived.

To go a little further, if we view the sea and those that inhabit it as being god-like in their power, then where does that leave the inferior land? I believe that in comparison to the godly sea, land seems almost human. Land, just like man, can have its positive characteristics. But land, just like man, can destroy things. Man can also be vengeful and unforgiving. Man can imprison, and man can be unwelcoming and useless. If the sea is everything god-like and superior, then why shouldn’t land represent the epitome of everything flawed and inferior to God: mankind.

The Influence of Ishmael

I have been intrigued by Ishmael and how he went about telling the story. He does not focus on himself very much even though he has such a big role in the novel. Ishmael is a character who has a large impact within Moby Dick but the reader may sometimes forget how important he is. People may not understand his importance as a character since it doesn't seem like he is very involved in the ongoings of the ship. But, he probably has the most impact on the story out of everyone because he is the one telling it. Manfred Pütz analyzes the styles in which Ishmael describes certain events and works, like books and art, and attributes it to a reader’s interpretation of the novel.

Pütz explains throughout his article how Ishmael orients his views and descriptions in two different ways depending on the subject or circumstance, “in some cases his responses are reader/viewer-oriented, whereas in others they are object-oriented, which is to say that in the one case they tell us something about the perceiver, while in the other case they tell us something about the perceived” (161).

When Ishmael tells us of something that is being perceived, it can sometimes give us a glimpse on what is going on with Ishmael without him directly stating it. For example, Pütz points out how Ishmael describes the painting in the chapel where Father Mapple’s sermon took place. Ishmael sees an angel over a ship that is fighting through a storm and perceives the angel to be encouraging the ship to persevere. Pütz focuses more on Ishmael’s reaction to the painting rather than the painting itself. He believes that Ishmael’s reaction gives the reader insight into Ishmael’s state of mind. “What Ishmael as a personified audience figure believes he has grasped – lost in himself though seemingly reaching out beyond himself to a world of signs and significances – is that the angel’s message spells hope and blessing for the ventures he is soon to embark upon” (164). If the reader were to realize this, they could understand Ishmael a little more by his underlying opinions and mind frame within almost every event and description that he tells throughout Moby-Dick.

Ishmael is so important because he has control over how the story, each character, and each event is portrayed. “Ishmael as a personified audience figure, then, functions as an interpretative model for the reading of the story he himself narrates” (170). I agree with Pütz that Ishmael has a lot of influence on how the reader perceives the characters and events that happen throughout Moby-Dick. Yes, many times Ishmael spoke objectively about certain things, but at the same time, it seemed as though there were hidden opinions and views of Ishmael’s within his descriptions. Whenever Ishmael describes something regarding Queequeg, like when he dove after the man that went overboard or when he rescued Tashtego from the whale head, it seemed as if there was a little tenderness in the way he described Queequeg’s actions. When a reader sees characters in this light, they begin to believe it themselves. I found myself growing fond of Queequeg because of the things he does for others but it was probably encouraged or amplified through the remarks and feelings of Ishmael.

If Ishmael “misreads signs” and interprets things according to his moods or circumstances, how much of a reader’s interpretation is their own and how much is a result of Ishmael’s? Would Queequeg have been just like any other character if Ishmael had not grown so close to him? What if the story was told from a third person narrator? How different would Ahab be in the eyes of the reader if, for instance, Pip was the narrator or maybe even Starbuck? I believe that the story, as a whole, would be the same but the portrayal of individuals would be different. For example, if Pip or Starbuck were the narrator, Ahab would have been seen in different ways. Pip would have seen him as a friend or companion where Starbuck could have emphasized more of the transformation, or at least temporary transformation, of Ahab when he became compassionate since it probably affected Starbuck more than anyone else.

I noticed how open Ishmael is when it comes to people of other races. He painted positive pictures for those of different colors like Pip, Fleece, and the harpooners. This could have been the complete opposite if someone who was of the white supremacy ideology narrated the story instead. I think of Marcuse when it came to what he called “hypnotic language”. Even though Marcuse references it in terms of manipulation through advertisements and politicians, the narration of Moby-Dick is almost manipulation in regards to the reader’s perception of characters through Ishmael’s eyes.


Pütz, Manfred. “The Narrator as Audience: Ishmael as Reader and Critic in Moby-Dick”. Studies in the Novel 19.2 (1987): 160. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 16 Mar. 2011.

The Albatross

Herman Melville’s Moby Dick is a novel rich in symbolism and allegorical reference, all of which certainly have merit in discussing their significance and effect on the understanding of the piece. While imagery of the phantom and symbols of religion and fire are abundant, of particular interest to my reading was the more peculiar symbol of the albatross. While it is only mentioned eleven times throughout the novel, Melville’s manipulation and clever usage of the bird provides a further means of foreshadowing events to come.

The connection of the albatross to seafarers is perhaps not commonly known but is nonetheless significant and should therefore impact the reading of novel such as Moby Dick that takes place almost entirely on open water. Previously known as a goney bird, the albatross was given its name and subsequent symbolism by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in his poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.” In the seven-part piece, a troubled ship is one day stalked by an albatross which then brings the sailors good fortune:

“At length did cross an Albatross,
Thorough the fog it came;
As it had been a Christian soul,
We hailed it in God's name.

It ate the food it ne'er had eat,
And round and round it flew.
The ice did split with a thunder-fit;
The helmsman steered us through!”

So long as the bird followed the ship, the men were guided by “a good south wind” and no longer encountered the mist, snow, and ice they had struggled against early in their journey. As popularity of Coleridge’s poem rose, the albatross came to be a symbol of good fortune on the sea, a guide to safety for sailors in unknown and troubled waters. In chapter 42, “The Whiteness of the Whale,” Ishmael recounts “the first albatross [he] ever saw” (Melville 201) in what appears to be an insignificant, foot-noted anecdote. For the protagonist, it is the whiteness and mysterious regality of the bird that is most striking; He recalls that “it arched forth its archangel wings” and “as Abraham before the angels, I bowed myself” (201). Although this does not necessarily indicate that the albatross will become a bearer of good fortune throughout the novel, it provides even the reader unfamiliar with Coleridge’s work with a context of how to regard further references made to the bird.

The Pequod’s encounter with the Goney in Chapter 52, itself titled “The Albatross,” is Melville’s first true representation of the bird as harbinger of safety at sea. The boat itself bears a resemblance to the white bird that Ishmael revered so many years ago as it was “bleached like the skeleton of a stranded walrus” (252). Though manned by weary looking whalers “long absent from home” the craft is still described as one homeward bound and is guided by the same good wind that Coleridge hails the force of the albatross in his poem. With “the wind now rising amain” the Goney is pulled past the path of the Pequod while “shoals of small harmless fish, that for some days before had been placidly swimming by our side, darted away with what seemed shuddering fins, and ranged themselves fore and aft with the stranger's flanks” (253). Here Melville provides us with a more symbolic and humanized albatross that guides its sailors and signals to all nature around it to follow its kind hand and stray away from the terror that is the journey of the Peqoud. This meeting did not bring the Pequod any further luck because by so adamantly sailing away “round the world” Ahab has denied the safety and guidance the albatross provides; in this way Melville uses each encounter and denial of the albatross throughout his novel as a sign of increasing bad fortune for the Pequod as it delves deeper and deeper into Ahab’s madness.

Though brief, the next mention of the albatross in Moby Dick is one of the most significant as it marks the change from albatross as a good omen to one of a darker meaning. In “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” the bird likewise comes to attain a more foreboding significance when a sailor aboard the ship decides to murder the bird with his crossbow, at which point he was burdened with wearing it around his neck as a reminder of their lost luck. After encountering a large typhoon and suffering some structural damage to the ship, the crew is still urged on by Ahab to continue their doomed voyage. Ishmael watches as “the shivered remnants of the jib and fore and main-top-sails were cut adrift from the spars, and went eddying away to leeward, like the feathers of an albatross” (547). This second denial marks the Pequod’s own metaphorical murder of the albatross, the casting away of whatever remnants of good fortune may have been with them. The old sails, which had guided the crew on a relatively safe journey, were tossed to the sea in favor of new ones marking the beginning of the most perilous stretch of the Pequod and the now bad fortune of the forsaken albatross. With a careful reading of Melville’s use of the word throughout the novel, we may gather from this symbolic sacrifice that the Pequod will never be guided safely to her home waters.

Queequeg's Coffin

Moby-Dick contains an exuberant amount of symbols, with most of them having more than one meaning. I want to explore the meaning of the coffin but more explicitly the meaning of Queequeg’s coffin. In general the coffin represents death, but also a place to house the dead; to give the dead a home for their mortal body. This is what I would guess most people would first think when the word coffin enters their mind. Moby-Dick gives the term “coffin” several meanings in which I believe all of them relate to Queequeg in some way. In the novel coffin means death as well as life. The contrast of life and death was shown through Ahab walking along the deck; “his one live leg made lively echoes along the deck, every stroke of his dead limb sounded like a coffin-tap” (254). Another general meaning for the coffin in the novel is immortality. As Ahab gets excited about Queequeg‘s coffin being converted into a life-buoy he states, “Can it be that in some spiritual sense the coffin is, after all, but an immortality-preserver!” (575). While the coffin has meanings that relate to Queequeg, I want to point out how I feel the coffin represents Queequeg as well. “Many spare hours he spent, in carving the lid with all manner of grotesque figures and drawings; and it seemed that hereby he was striving, in his rude way, to copy parts of the twisted tattooing on his body” (524). By Queequeg inscribing the same markings onto the coffin that were found on his very own body enabled the coffin to symbolize Queequeg and more or less his legacy.

The coffin was introduced in the very first paragraph of the novel by Ishmael,

“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” (3).

This shows the obvious importance the coffin is going to play and that it has a great importance to Ishmael, we can especially conclude this because one of the main meanings of the coffin is Queequeg himself, in which Ishmael comes to adore. We can thank Peter Coffin for bringing Ishmael and Queequeg together. When Ishmael first encounters Queequeg the very first thing Ishmael says is "Landlord, for God's sake, Peter Coffin!" shouted I. "Landlord! Watch! Coffin! Angels! save me!" (26). With just this initial statement from Ishmael and after knowing what is going to eventually happen, you can see this as a foreshadowing to the end and a meaning for Queequeg. That Queequeg becomes Ishmael’s savior and guardian angel.

During the episode of Queequeg feeling as if he were dying he requested a coffin to be made for him. He then strangely made the coffin his deathbed as well, and after laying in there for a little while he suddenly “changed his mind about dying: he could not die yet, he averred” (523). It is if from laying in this coffin it embodied Queequeg with a new gust of life, which is very opposite from the very deathly image the coffin gives someone while lying in it. This shows that this coffin is not to be taken literal. At the end of the novel, the contrast of life and death is shown through Queequeg’s coffin after he suggests that his coffin be transfromed into a life-buoy.

By Queequeg suggesting to create his coffin into a life-buoy is what saves Ishmael's life. Ishmael was on the verge of joining his fellow shipmates in death when surprisingly “the coffin life-buoy shot lengthwise from the sea, fell over, and floated by my side” (625). Knowing the relationship Queequeg and Ishmael had with each other and knowing that the coffin represents Queequeg, this is more or less a romantic way for Queequeg to save Ishmaels life even after he is dead acting as his guardian angel as he floats to shore. “The unharming sharks, they glided by as if with padlocks on their mouths; the savage sea-hawks sailed with sheathed beaks”; I believe this was Queequeg’s markings engraved on the coffin keeping Ishmael safe from predators (625). This once coffin, now Queequeg life-buoy, was Ishmaels only hope for life. And this coffin is the reason the story of Moby-Dick is forever more immortally preserved.

Melville, Herman. Moby-Dick. New York: Penguin Group, 1992.

Depth, God, and Man

In Moby Dick, there is a heavy emphasis placed on the concept of depth. The word depth itself appears (as depth or depths) about 20 times through the novel; considering the nautical nature of the story, one would honestly probably expect it to turn up far more frequently. This is a good clue that Melville has used it sparingly to be cautious with how it is used, rather than simply coincidentally. Melville attempts to use the word “depth” to connect readers' interpretation of the physical story with an interpretation of their idea of God.

The first occurrence of the term is during Father Mapple's sermon on Jonah and the whale. He says “...one of the smallest strands in the mighty cable of the Scriptures. Yet what depths of the soul does Jonah's deep sealine sound!” Father Mapple clearly is intertwining nautical imagery and language with an underlying spiritual meaning. Melville is showing a character who very clearly puts great import on words; Father Mapple believes the depth of the ocean to be a metaphor, perhaps for God's power or for the power of a person who works with God. The most significant aspect to this usage of the word depth is that it depicts a dimension both of the sea and of one's soul. Of course, physical depth representing metaphorical or spiritual intensity is not a new concept. Deep objects, especially the sea, are very frequently compared to people's emotions and thoughts. However, this immediately sets a tone for the rest of the novel; depth is clearly a word to be interpreted as having multiple implications.

The next unique appearance of the word depth appears in Chapter 41, “Moby Dick.” In this chapter, we learn Ishmael's experience with the great white whale. Depth appears in a very intellectual discussion of the whiteness of the whale, “Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?” This is Ishmael's personal struggle. He is attempting to come to terms with both his own connection to the whale and the terror of the whale's pure whiteness. This is very reminiscent of a religious struggle; individual men must come to terms with their own personal connection to God and the terror that some of God's deeds induces.

Depth rears its head again in Chapter 82, “The Honor and Glory of Whaling.” This time, he appears in a discussion of another God. “...so Vishnoo became incarnate in a whale, and sounding down in him to the uttermost depths, rescued the sacred volumes.” Once again connecting the physical presence of the whale, deep in the ocean, to the spiritual presence of God, deep within man. This solidifies Melville's connection between depth and God in a much more blatant way, addressing the actual name of an extant god.

Again we see depth appearing, in Chapter 87, The Grand Armada. “The lake, as I have hinted, was to a considerable depth exceedingly transparent; and as human infants while suckling will calmly and fixedly gaze away from the breast, as if leading two different lives at the time...” Melville is almost directly addressing the idea of a dual consciousness; a consciousness of both what is occurring in the visible, clear, top portion of the water and what is occurring below the level of consciousness. This is very blatantly to be compared to man's physical consciousness of his existence and his spiritual consciousness of (and faith in) the existence of a higher spiritual power, or God.

Much like Father Mapple, Melville is attempting to achieve an effect on his audience by embodying a previously meaningless word, depth, with heavy-handed meaning. Melville very clearly struggles with his image of God in many of his works. In Moby Dick, he interlocks discussion of physical depth with discussion of God, hoping most likely to describe man's struggle to connect their physical and visceral experience with the highly philosophical God that they answer to.

(I used an e-text for reference while I wrote this entry, so I don't have page numbers. If necessary, I can find my text at a later date and add the page numbers in to cite my quotes properly.)

Moby Dick

Kasie McLatchy

In this section of Moby Dick, there were several interesting topics to discuss. Although finishing the novel brings up a multitude of things I wish to say about the book, I find one particular trait intriguing. The relationship between Ahab and the other captain who lost his arm appears to be harmless and superficial, but I think once you really start to look into it, it becomes so much more than that. At first glance I feel that this relationship, although fleeting, and not given all that much detail in the book, really speaks to the character of Herman Melville and the message he was trying to portray. I saw that some people had commented that after Ahab died they were relieved, indeed I agree that Melville could have done without all the extra information and large sections devoted to Ahab, and I also wish that some more of the shipmates had been detailed further, but I find that Ahab is the most interesting character in the book. He is given levels of character, even though almost all of them are shown to be bad. Melville still takes the time to detail this character, and there has to be a reason why. When he first meets the captain of the Samuel Enderby, it is a brief encounter, and their personality differences are striking. On one hand you have the happy, almost carefree captain, who has sworn against taking vengeance on Moby Dick after the whale took his arm, and on the other you have Ahab, a crazy and delusional man set on revenge at all costs. Really the only similar thread tying them together is their loss of limbs. This gives them an instant sense of comradery which makes the reader question if Ahab would have made any sort of connection with anyone if this superficial binding did not exist. The interesting bit is that both the captain and Ahab had replaced their stolen limbs with the artificial limbs made of the very same thing that stole it from them. Is this supposed to signify their acceptance of becoming a part of the whale? I think that it is very possible that replacing their lost limbs with that made from a whale allows the two men a sense of belonging. They could do nothing about the loss of their limbs, but they could help to heal the wound left behind. I think this helps to explain why Ahab goes so insane. The acceptance he feels is no longer good enough, and thus decides to embark on a journey with the end result hopefully being what Ahab thinks will cure him, the revenge on Moby Dick. Sadly Ahab is killed off before he begins to realize that killing the whale will not make him feel any better, what he needs is to find acceptance, and take a page from the other captain’s book. He had gotten over and accepted what happened to him, and because of that he could lead a functional and happy life. In the chapter “The Symphony” we finally are given a chance to see the compassionate side of Ahab as he talks to Starbuck, but even after this chapter, any chance Ahab has at a normal life are shattered. His death was really a disappointment to me, as I thought the closer he came to reaching his “goal” the more likable and admirable of a character he became. Ahab is not given the chance to live on after the whale, and it makes me wonder what is the purpose of Ahab’s character? I find it so troubling to think what his function in the novel is. Melville takes the time to overly explain, define, and rationalize his character, just to have him killed off near the end, which not only leaves the readers hanging, but also a bad taste in my mouth. I did not appreciate how the novel ended, I feel like I spent a lot of time reading, analyzing, and trying to understand any hidden meanings in the text. And then at the end, all their fates came true, just like that. For such a complex and dramatic novel, the build up deserved a much better ending.

Assignment for Moby-Dick, 4th Week

Option 1: We've spent a great deal of time and effort in class stepping through the resonance of particular symbols (for instance, the pyramid). Now it's your turn. Pick one term, which seems to you to carry a heavy symbolic weight. Examples include "phantom," "candle", "Zoroaster," etc. Use an etext to search for all occurences of your term. You don't need to write about every single one, but you do need to at look through all of them in order to argue what we can/should read differently when paying careful attention to this one term throughout the book.

Option 2: Answer this question (using an argument, citations, etc.): what is the significance of Pip's speech to Queequeg?

Option 3 (yes, this is a repeat. It worked well once, so here it is again): Perhaps using my discussion of Typee or the Book of Jonah as a model, or perhaps ranging a little farther afield, everyone should do some additional Melville-related reading. If you're reading an academic book, read a chapter or two. A full length academic essay (say, 15-20 pages) is also fine. If you're reading a biography, 20-40 pages. Or, you might read an extended selection from one of Melville's other works (not including "Benito Cereno" or "Bartleby the Scrivener") - say, roughly 40 pages.
What you're doing is summarizing some relevant argument or moment from your chosen text, and then exploring how that text can help us understand Moby-Dick. If you're using an academic article (or excerpt from the book), use (or challenge) its argument. If you're using a biography, show us some way in which knowing something about Melville's life illuminates his work. If you're reading one of his other works of fiction or poetry, put it to work (as I did with the excerpt from Typee).

In any case, you must apply some particular, cited passage from your chosen work to help understand a particular, cited passage from Moby-Dick, with no exceptions.

What Sources are Valid?

Any academic essay of at least fifteen pages in length, which you will find in our library using the MLA index. Hopefully this link will work, although you'll need to log in using your Pitt Id: MLA.

Any academic work (biography or criticism) on Herman Melville. An easy start is topittcat.pitt.edu, then click on "search," change from a "title" search to a "subject heading" search, and enter Melville, Herman. If you want a biography, don't use one older than 20 years. Most people like Herschel Parker's. Personally, I like like the one by Laurie Robertson-Lorant. There are other good ones, too.

Any of Melville's other fiction or poetry. I suggest Typee, Omoo, or White-Jacket as the easiest to apply - but anything is fair game. If you're really lazy, you can use the Gutenberg etexts. If you do, link to the text whenever you cite it, and I'll search for the exact passage if I want (read about a quarter or a fifth of the whole for the first two, or half that for White-Jacket, since you won't have a page count). Cut and paste to be sure your spelling is correct. If you can't figure out how to do links - too bad. Go to the library instead.

Instruction for Self-Evaluation (important!)

These are due within the next week.  Just to be clear:  you are evaluating yourself on work done before break.  Anything during or after break will count toward the second half of the semester.

There are three components to the self-evaluation.  You will evaluate yourself on your participation in class, on your participation in the weekly short blog entries due the day before class, and on your participation in commenting on one another's work.  You will evaluate yourself on a five point scale for each category.  The criteria are as follows, for each category.  Please read the criteria, and send me an email before our next class, which includes the name of each category and your self-evaluation for that category.  You *may* include a paragraph or less commenting on your own work.  You *may* give me links to your best work for the weekly short blog and/or commenting on the work of others.  These links are *required* if you are giving yourself a 4 or 5 in that category.

In-Class Criteria

5:  You always come to class, always participate multiple times, and your part in the discussion is productive (for instance, you might regularly move the overall discussion in a new direction).
4:  You come to class, always participate at least once in a given session (alternatively, you might have the occasional off class, but otherwise perform at the 5 level), and your participation is consistently productive.
3:  You come to class, and usually have something to say in the course of the session.  The value of your participation might be inconsistent, or you might have had several silent classes.
2:  You do not habitually participate, but you pay attention, and occasionally have things to say.
1:  You rarely or never participate in class.

Weekly Short Blog (this is Monday night entry)

5:  You always do the blog entry, you always put some thought into it, and your work is invariably productive; you would feel comfortable writing a full essay on at least some of these ideas.  Your ideas might often show up in class (hopefully with your name attached to them).
4:  You have missed no more than one weekly blog entry.  While the quality of those entries might vary (and their length probably does), and while only a few of your ideas might have come up class, you feel like some of them *could* have been the basis of a discussion.
3:  You have missed no more than one weekly blog entry.  The quality of those entries may be somewhat variable.
2:  You do your blog entry more often than not; when you do it, its quality may be inconsistent.
1:  You don't usually write an entry at all.

Comments on the work of others

5:  You always make your weekly comment on another person's blog entry.  You always put thought into your comment, and you always productively focus on their overall argument, without getting wrapped up in details.
4:  The same as 5, except you might have missed an entry, or you might sometimes wander in your focus, or you might have done one or two of them in haste.  Generally, though, you do well.
3:  You usually remember to make your weekly comment, but they are often short and/or unfocused on their argument.  You might, for instance, usually focus on grammatical or mechanical issues instead of their argument.
2:  You have commented on others' work, but you sometimes forget to do so, and you don't put much effort into it when you do.
1:  You don't usually comment on others' work.

Open thread for Moby-Dick, Fourth Day

Note:  if you were negligent, and didn't do your blog entry for the last reading, email it to me ASAP.