Talk:Moby-Dick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moby-Dick article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Priority 3  

    Contents

    [edit] Hyphenation of Moby-Dick

    Bless you for properly hyphenating Moby-Dick. Dpbsmith 02:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    My copy of Moby Dick has no hyphens in the title, or in any reference to the whale. I can't find a text that does. Does this relate to the original or something? Someone please explain.

    Arcturus 19:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    According to http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/as/Literature/Moby-Dick/amlit.sightings.html, the whale is Moby Dick and the book Moby-Dick. My copy (Penguin Classics) gets it right. A facsimile of the title page of the first edition (New York, 1851) shows a hyphen. -- Heron 19:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (a British book, of course) says that the title Moby-Dick should have a hyphen. (Somebody recently disputed this by reverting my edit.) I would be interested to know if there is an equivalent book for USian editors, and what it says on the subject. -- Heron 16:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    My edition of Moby-Dick has a hyphen in both the title and the name. Ionesco 13:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    The title is hyphenated - the whale is not.

    Edition online at Google Books [1] shows the whale's name hyphenated throughout, so I have hyphenated here and removed unsourced statement stating otherwise. --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed that seems so. However, my copy of the book does not contain the hyphen in the whale's name, but does in the title. Why? Because that's how Melville originally wrote it. To change it just because Google Books has the hyphen makes little sense to me, since we know Melville wrote it without a hyphen for the whale's name.
    http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2909/md1ou1.jpg
    http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9720/md2lu0.jpg Kyouraku-taichou (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Accuracy of Ishmael quote v/v bible

    "when God granted her a son, Isaac, Ishmael and his mother were turned out of Abraham's household"
    I'm not going to edit the page, not having read Moby-Dick, but the above seems to imply that Ishmael was turned out as soon as, and as a result of, Issac's birth. This is not accurate - see Ishmael and Ishmael for more detail.


    Moreso, neither the King James Version nor the New International Version list the messenger who informed Job of his children's death as Ishmael. In both, he's referred to simply as a messenger. I'm not going to edit this, since there may be translation issues and I'm far from a biblical scholar, but I'd like some verification. -zenostortoise

    Actually, no, I think I'm going to remove that reference after all. I'd never heard it before and it sent me on a half-hour search for something to back it up, and I'd rather save others the trouble. -zenostortoise

    [edit] Critique of article

    Was this article written by someone who read the annotated version of the novel? It is incredibly simplistic and its critical theory is high school quality. JimmyjimJam 12:19 22 Feb 2005

    Then put your money where your mouth is and write something yourself.Ionesco 17:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Once having been forced to read it in high school, no one is likely to ever want to wade through it again, so if the writeup is at the high school level, it stands to reason. Wahkeenah 22:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    Hey now, don't be dissing us.Cameron Nedland 14:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Author of the Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex

    The text states, "The story was recounted by the survivor Thomas Nickerson in his Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex."

    The account mentioned was penned by Owen Chase. Nickerson's account was not published until after Moby-Dick was written (see Nathaniel Philbrick's "In the Heart of the Sea" or the Wikipedia link for the whaleship Essex).

    Mark

    [edit] From unpopular to "canonical"- how?

    "Although its initial reception was unfavorable, Moby-Dick is now considered to be one of the canonical novels in the English language, and has secured Melville's reputation in the first rank of American writers." A description of the chain of events that led to this reappraisal would be very nice. 84.58.42.189 23:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

    Basically, a bunch of colleges decided to make a criteria of books to be required to be read, and Moby-Dick had the qualities they were looking for, despite what a horrible story it is.

    If you weren't completely wrong, I would be inclined to agree with you. In any case, that's hardly a wiki-worthy explanation.

    Moby-Dick was unpopular because it did not fit the sterotypical demands of sea adventure novels of the 19th century (which the first few Melville novels did). It's popularity increased when it was "discovered" in the early 20th century by the modernists who were attracted to disjointed, digressive, fragmentary narratives whose meaning cannot be precisely pinned down; unlike, for example, the novels of Dickens whose overt didactism they found purile.

    On the "Learning Channel" series on Great books, (narrated by Donald Sutherland), part of the "discovery" of Moby-Dick in the 20th century can be attributed to Hollywood, namely the 1926 film: "The Sea Beast" and the 1930 movie: "Moby-Dick". While the movies take liberties with the book, (they have Ahab returning to the woman he loves after he kills the whale), films can help people to rediscover a forgotten book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.80.61.10 (talk • contribs) .204.80.61.10 19:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

    Good point. Dracula was the same way - fairly unknown until the first movie. -- Stbalbach 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    One way to measure when Moby Dick became popular is to search for used copies of the book (abebooks.com, etc..). Anything 1919 or later can be found fairly cheap, $20 or less. Anything before 1919 is about $40,000.00 .. 1919 is the date people really started reading Moby Dick, prior to that there were about 1500 copies in circulation, many of which were never even read in private collections (attics, etc..). -- Stbalbach 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    Moby-Dick was discovered anew in 1921, on the reissue of the work seventy years after its first publication, by a noted English critic who thereafter pronounced, "...Having done so, I hereby declare that since letters began there never was such a book, and that the mind of man is not constructed so as to produce such another. I put its author with Rabelais, Swift, Shakespeare." (The World's Best Reading, Reader's Digest 1989 edition) As for the book itself, those who don't like it often don't think much of the Shakespearean format the book is written in, as well; lazy readers, that way. Ahab is all professional revolutionaries who've ever taken power over a country and tried to conquer a city, a state, a region or the whole world, and he is one of the greatest triumphs in literary history. Period. --Chr.K. 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Selected adaptations and references

    Not having watched the movie in question, after having read the plot summary of Run Silent, Run Deep I get a feeling it has similarities with Moby-Dick:

    "A World War II submarine captain ... has an obsession with the Japanese destroyer that sank his previous boat. He is single-mindedly training the crew of his new boat to sink that destroyer. The executive officer ... is worried about the safety of his boat and his crew."

    Could someone familiar with this movie please verify (and subsequently add it to the list of 'Selected adaptions and references') or deny this? --x-Flare-x 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

    I have seen Run Silent, Run Deep and it has no similarities with Moby-Dick whatsoever, nor is it inspired by Melville's story in any way. The movie is about the real-life adventures Edward L. "Ned" Beach had on a WWII sub. Minaker 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

    By the way, I removed the link allegedly leading to an article on Moby-Dick in popular culture. It was instead a link to adaptations of the novel, which is related, but certainly not the same thing; it was therefore a misleading link. Minaker 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

    I just fixed the Mad Magazine reference -- it's "Call me Fishmeal", not "Call me Fish-smell!" and is easily verified in a copy of the Dec. 1956 Mad (#30).

    [edit] Religion and Symbolism in Moby Dick

    This appeared to be sincere, not just vandalism, but violated WP:NOR. In any event, discussion related to 20th c. Church of Satan and symbolism developed by its founder Anton LeVay and could not possibly be a relevant interpretation of symbolism in the book. See WP:CB --JChap 13:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    • I'll agree with WP:NOR, however I disagree that its not a relevant interpretation, given the widespread view of the white whale symbolizing God. Just my two cents :) Instead I put a short line about Ahab's struggle against fate. Marty Donakowski 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll agree that the whale is widely seen as symbolizing God. However, the deleted discussion was about LaVay's philosophy (not that there's anything wrong with that ...), which did not develop until after the book was published. --JChap 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Aha, I understand, my intent wasn't to connect LaVay's theories in particular but rather Satanism in general. I'll accept the current revision. Cheers Marty Donakowski 02:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

    The article includes two assertions reflecting the statement above that the whale is seen as "symbolizing God," but there are no citations for that. Given the differences between the text and the two screen adaptations, I suspect such statements may reflect 20th century misinterpretations rather than Melville's 19th century intent. Melville signed aboard a whaler at the same time that naturalists were likewise taking to the sea, and he wrote Moby Dick at the same time that Darwin and other naturalists were developing the theory of evolution. The text extols the dynamism of the early American republic, which had recently been founded as perhaps the first country without an official religion. The text does not appear to respect the biblical god over Queequeg's idol, for example. It seems unlikely that Melville intended the book's title character to symbolize any particular god. More likely, the sin of Ahab was to attribute excessively human characteristics to a dumb animal, in violation of both biblical religion and natural law. (Remember that when Mickey Mouse debuted, religious groups protested that a talking mouse was sinful, and of course in nature mice don't drive boats and whistle and sing.) Assigning divine characteristics to the whale would go even further in the wrong direction. Unless someone can provide citations to credible sources, the probably inaccurate claims should be removed.TVC 15 09:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Additional themes

    I haven't finished the book quite yet, but I'm about 95% through it. Anyway I saw a few complaints that the themes and symbolism was a bit sparse. Maybe someone can come along and wiki them up.

    I've got a few in mind just off the top of my head. Early on in the novel (about 30% through I think) Starbuck (or maybe it was Stubbs) has a conversation with Ahab about whether he would chase Moby Dick if it caused them to not catch as many whales and make less money. This could be seen as a question about utalitarianism in a way, since Ahab is making a decision for his personal gain rather than what is good for his crew.

    Also a more literal theme is that of revenge. Although several times in the novel (specifically when Ahab spoke with the British captain who lost his arm to Moby Dick) Moby Dick is described as not doing anything he(it?) did out of malice, Ahab wants to get revenge on him(it). This offers the question of just how far does revenge go? Should you get revenge on nature itself? It seems like Ahab wants to revenge.

    [edit] Why was my Jed McKenna comment removed?

    Hello, I've only dabbled on Wikipedia in the past - in fact I haven't even created an account yet, so bear with me. User Stbalbach removed my comment (below) about Jed McKenna's book citing a reason of "not literary criticism but pop spiritualism". First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "pop spiritualism" but I sense it may be derogatory - can you explain further please? Secondly, how did you make your decision as to whether or not McKenna's book may or may not be literary criticism? Thirdly, why does a comment on this page have to be one of "literary criticism"? I found McKenna's take on Moby-Dick very interesting and feel other Wikipedia readers may find it like-wise. Should I instead add my comment to the References section?

    thank you. Brian--62.231.39.150 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    In his book Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, Jed McKenna argues that Moby-Dick is actually Melville's description of his spiritual awakening, and that the novel only makes sense when seen from the perspective of spiritual enlightenment. He also claims to have identified what happens to Ahab at the end of the story, that in fact Ahab doesn't die in the destruction of the Pequod.

    I'm reverting as you haven't replied (either here or on your Talk page). Brian 83.71.171.217 08:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    By the way, I've just created a user. This is me. :-) --Brian Fenton 11:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hi Brian, sorry I took a while to respond. The reason is we are supposed to use scholarly sources on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, in particular when it comes to literary analysis. Based on what I could tell, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment is not scholarly or peer reviewed. I called it "pop spirituality" because it's like "pop psychology", not associated with mainstream religion or a school of thought, it is targeted to a POPular audience. For example what is a "Spiritual Autolysis journal". I'm not saying he's wrong, but it's not a great source for Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


    Hi Stbalbach, thanks for replying. That makes sense, I'm still finding my feet here on Wikipedia.
    The reason I objected to your "pop spiritualism" remark is that McKenna is far from a mainstream thinker, but I can understand now what you mean. Thanks for clearing that up.
    I appreciate the Jed McKenna is certainly not an academic or peer-reviewed author - I understood from Wikipedia:Reliable sources that articles discussing art or fiction didn't necessarily need to have academic sources, only "reliable" sources. More than half of McKenna's book is devoted to the subject of Moby-Dick (in fact, the opening line of the book is "Call me Ahab"), so I could argue that by setting the right context (which I see you have already started to do in your recent edit), that it is "reliable". Obviously that context is meta-physical, which can be problematic I accept. However, I'd argue that anyone interested in the deeper symbolism of Moby-Dick would find McKenna's book fascinating (especially his claim to have identified what happens Ahab (I don't want to spoil it by giving it away here!)), irrespective of it's meta-physical context.
    I completely appreciate the need to avoid meta-physical discussion on an encylopedia, but I feel there is a gray area when it comes to symbolism in literature, and I genuinely feel that McKenna's book sheds some fascinating light on Melville's intent and on understanding Ahab's madness.
    If you'd prefer, I'm happy to move my paragraph to the Reference section. Or is the context you added in the Symbolism section enough for you?
    After all, it's just some guy's opinion on a book about a fish! ;-)
    Also, you made a good point about reliable sources; do you know if any of the other paragraphs in the Symbolism section come from reliable sources? Maybe they need to cite their sources too.
    Many thanks,
    Brian --Brian Fenton 11:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


    To user 86.135.245.174 - stop deleting the Jed McKenna section without discussion! If you have a problem with please talk about it here. Brian Fenton 09:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Same goes to user 81.129.112.217 - please discuss your objections before deleting! I'm starting to think I wouldn't have bothered in the first place if I thought my comment was going to upset so many people! Let's hear your arguments though. I'm not in the Wikipedia that long as a user myself, so I'm open to discussing anything but I don't think deletes in this manner are acceptable Wikipedia behaviour. If anybody else thinks I'm guilty of too many reverts please let me know, but to be honest, this is getting a bit depressing. Brian Fenton 13:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    I think your going to have this problem. As I said before, this is an academic topic, and we are supposed to use academic sources - spiritual enlightenment guru POV's are not really what you would expect to find in an encyclopedia article. I mean, why not add the Jewish Orthodox view, or the Roman Catholic view? We generally try to stay away from religious polemics and stick with academic literary sources. -- Stbalbach 15:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    Hi Stbalbach, did you not see my earlier answer to these issues (3 paragraphs above)? Looking forward to your replies. Brian Fenton 07:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    I'm willing to drop the question of Mr. McKenna's "reliability" or "scholarliness," because Brian Fenton rightly points out that those characteristics are vague. However, to be blunt, I think he exhibits several signs of crankdom. First, notice that he espouses an unorthodox theology, presumably of his own making. Second, notice that his interpretation of Moby-Dick seems to run counter to the accepted lines of literary criticism, and that he uncovers hidden meanings in the book that run counter to the apparent plot and meaning. As such, he deserves little more attention than I would, if I were to publish a book claiming that The Lord of the Rings (to choose a widely known example) does not actually end with the downfall of Sauron. --Smack (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    Hi Smack
    I want to be clear here - I'm not claiming that Jed McKenna is correct or that I agree with or condone his view. I simply thought the book contained enough merit to be of interest to readers of Moby-Dick who may be open to a meta-physical interpretation. There's no other agenda here. Considering the article already mentions that the dog in the X-Files is named Queequeg, I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. (I have my theories, but I'd prefer some honest debate rather than wasting my time speculating).
    I'm not quite sure I see your points here - what does McKenna's "theology" have to do with anything? The reason I added the McKenna reference was that it was something new and different from "accepted lines of literary criticism" - after all, should an encyclopedia article not contain many points of view?
    Within a certain context, McKenna's book is certainly a valid take on the symbolism or meaning of Moby-Dick. I have already tried to establish that context (see my comments above at 11:07, 24 August 2006).
    I don't want to get into defending McKenna's thesis but I will say this in reply to your "hidden meanings" comment: all McKenna does is point out that nowhere in Moby-Dick does it say that Ahab dies, simply that "he was shot out of the boat" into the water by a rope. McKenna proposes the theory that possibly Ahab is the sole survivor of the Pequod, and that Ishmael is, in fact, Ahab (this is the spoiler piece of information I didn't want to reveal in my comments above). This, McKenna claims, explains the mysterious opening line of the book "Call me Ishmael". What reasons would the narrator have for not giving the reader his real name? In the context of McKenna's explanation of Ahab's "madness", this makes sense; outside of the context of McKenna's book, I can understand how it sounds like outlandish claims. He builds a case which I'm not going to reproduce here. All I wanted to do was point it out to other interested readers of Moby-Dick. (It's just a theory, like lots of other theories on novels. I'm certainly not suggesting we put the whole of McKenna's thesis in the article, simply a reference to it.) I claim the topic has merit to be included in this article. If you have a problem with the wording, I am totally open to hearing your suggestions on that.
    Your point about crankdom would be a valid one within a purely scientific context - I maintain that we are in a very different context here with McKenna (that of a metaphysical discussion of the symbolism of a novel). I'm sorry but your Lord of the Rings analogy sounds like a Straw man argument to me.
    I suspect much of the difficulties people here are having with the McKenna reference is its metaphysical basis, but I'd like to remind everyone of the very obvious mystical elements to the book, and the already widely accepted "spiritual" theme. I submit that if McKenna were a meteorologist writing a book about Moby-Dick from a meteorology perspective, there wouldn't be this much controversy about it (or is that me making a Straw man argument? :-)).
    Let me repeat: help me re-write the comment to your satisfaction if you so wish, but I've yet to hear a reason not to include a reference to McKenna's book. --Brian Fenton 10:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Hi Brian,
    You seem to have addressed your entire comment to me, even though you reply to comments that I did not make. (For instance, I said nothing about theology; that was Stbalbach.)
    Any encyclopedia needs a set of standards by which it can decide what content it must include, and what content it should not. You propose Wikipedia should include everything that is valid in some context, such as its own. Note that every argument is valid in its own context, unless it's composed by a raving lunatic who can't string an argument together without contradicting himself. In effect, you propose a policy of "no lunacy."
    I find this criterion unsatisfactory. I propose to demonstrate this by way of the Lord of the Rings example. Let's say I were to compose an argument, internally consistent but specious nonetheless, that Sauron survives. I hope that we can agree that this argument has no place on the wiki. Now, as far as I can tell, your standard claims that it should be included.
    If we reject your standard, we need another. In fact, Wikipedia has one. See Wikipedia:No original research. I think that sections 1, 3, 4, 8, and 11 apply particularly well to our discussion here. --Smack (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Hi Smack,
    Thanks for taking the effort to reply - I appreciate your willingness to stick in there and help resolve this.
    In fact, my last reply was directed to you in its entirety (Stbalbach never responded to my earlier comments to him, so I assumed he was happy with them). Also, unless my eyes deceive me, it was indeed yourself who made the comment about theology.
    In your replies, I think you have focussed too much on the minor issue (McKenna's interpretation of Ahab's death) and not enough on the major issue (whether a spiritually-themed book about Moby-Dick deserves a mention in this article). I'm interested in hearing your comments on this major issue. I think you make some valid points on the minor issue, but I also feel it's distracting from the major issue.
    In the interest of resolution, what can we do to resolve your issues: remove the comment entirely? Move it to the References section? If it would help, I'm happy to remove the last sentence (McKenna's interpretation of Ahab's death) as it seems to have created undesired confusion. Please tell me what you would like.
    many thanks
    Brian
    PS As an aside, I'm still curious about your (and other people's) motivation for focussing on this one comment. There are as many other equally troublesome (by your criteria) comments in the article. For example, the very first reference in the Adaptations section describes the 1930 movie "in which Ahab kills the whale and returns home to the woman he loves" - a movie with an entire alternate ending! Surely this fits into your "Sauron survives" analogy? Just curiosity... Brian Fenton 08:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    I missed this discussion, overloaded watchlist :) You would never see his views mentioned in Encyclopedia Britannica, or in a scholarly commentary - it's just some guys views who has no review process or professional reputation among peers. I just don't think it is appropriate for this article, and at least 2 other people seem to agree (at some level). That's 3 to one. If we made a straw poll I'm sure it would continue to trend in that direction over time. Given the context I added, it makes it clear, but I think because of the context, this will be a problem for future editors who come across it. IMO it should be moved to an article about Jed McKenna and/or his book and expanded upon within the context of spiritualism - afterall he is really writing about spiritualism, not Moby Dick. -- Stbalbach 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    Brian: Now I see that I did comment on McKenna's theology. However, I don't want to defend that statement. Neither am I interested in Ahab's death for its own sake; I'm just using it as an example to demonstrate how unprecedented McKenna's claims are. I agree that it's a minor issue, but I also think that McKenna's spiritual motivation is a minor issue. The only major issue here, as far as I'm concerned, is McKenna's reputability.
    You shouldn't compare films and books based on Moby-Dick to McKenna's book. The movie where Ahab survives is an independent work of fiction that was based on Melville's book. McKenna's book is a work of literary criticism. They need to satisfy different criteria to be included. I think McKenna clearly fails his, and I believe that he should be removed from the article.
    Stbalbach: I would rather explain to Brian why his view doesn't work, before we try to squash him with a straw poll. --Smack (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    I agree McKenna does not qualify as a literary critic and should not be in this particular article. But he does qualify as something (published author and well known commentator on spiritualism) that would allow him to be mentioned in Wikipedia - as a compromise I suggest this discussion be moved to another article about McKenna, his work and his books and re-phrased to focus on McKenna's overall views of spiritualism, perhaps using the Moby Dick stuff as an example in explaining McKenna's views. -- Stbalbach 05:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    Ok guys, you win. I'm going to remove the paragraph from Symbolism and put in a simple entry in the References section based on the Philip Roth one. Hope this is ok:
    A 2004 book, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, by American author Jed McKenna begins with the line "Call me Ahab," and refers to Moby-Dick several times throughout its length. --Brian Fenton 14:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    PS Stbalbach, spiritualism is something entirely different from spirituality. Just so you know :-) --Brian Fenton 14:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    Ok I don't know which one is the right one for the book I did "spirituality", hope that is correct. -- Stbalbach 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Characters

    Dear readers,

    Would it be proper to include the Filipino whalers Captain Ahab smuggled aboard in the "Characters" section? Or would that be on the same scale as the other named whales? Elijha too plays a significant, if not lengthy, role in the beginning of the book, would he be considered for inclusion as well? Indeed, there is quite a large cast of characters which never so much as set foot on the Pequod; are they eligible? Cheers!

    Sincerely,

    Mbrutus 01:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    I think that we should have a section on minor characters. Fedallah's companions deserve mention, but only as Fedallah's companions. Speaking of Fedallah, I don't like the way he's filed away with the other harpooneers, becasue he has a very different plot function and bears imagery that they do not. --Smack (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    (This is Ionesco...alas, not logged in...)
    Each of the harpooners (and in fact virtually all of the named characters in the novel) bears his own unique imagery. If we are looking at plot function, I would argue that Quequeg would be the first to be separated from the group, since he is a much more significant character than any of the other three harpooners. On my list of things that need to be changed on this article, that is pretty low tho. --Ionesco64.108.68.195 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Split the article?

    We have a slight problem differentiating between the book (Moby-Dick) and the character (Moby Dick). The problem appears conspicuously in the long list of categories to which this article belongs. The categories refer sometimes to the book (ex. "1851 novels," "Massachusetts in fiction") and sometimes to the whale (ex. "Cetaceans," "Fictional albinos"). I'm not sure whether or not the whale deserves an article of its own, but note that we have one on Ishmael (Moby-Dick). --Smack (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

    The category confusion aside – and I'm about to remove 'Fictional albinos' as it's inappropriate – I don't see a need to split off an article about Moby Dick (the whale/character). The character Ishmael is somewhat more extended than that of the whale, I think stemming from the fact that there are a lot of Ishmaels out there and there's a need to distinguish between them. Moby Dick, however complicated a role he plays in it, is intrinsically linked to the book – how many times have you run across the idea of Moby Dick the whale without Moby-Dick the novel being involved? In addition, the Ishmael article isn't really a good example of a split-off article, as it doesn't give more information than is now on this page (except for the actors portraying the character in film adaptations, which would be inappropriate here).
    As to the length of this article, well, Moby-Dick is considered one of the most important American novels and has been very influential on a lot of literature following it. I'd say, if anything, the article should be longer.--Andymussell 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC
    I pointed out the confused categorization just because it reveals the problem; it is not the entire problem. People reading an article about whales in literature might click on a link that says "Moby Dick is a famous character..." and wind up in this article, which begins, "Moby-Dick is an 1851 novel..."
    I agree with you that we should have more information on this important book, but I see no reason why we need to keep it all in one page. For instance, the "Selected adaptations" section could be split off for brevity's sake. --Smack (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    The only split I can see being useful would be to create seperate entries for the book and the for each of the various film adaptations, or all together if they're not notable enough to have entries on their own. Like was stated above, I see no situation where one would mention Moby Dick (character) and not have it reference the novel. Same thing for Ishmael, merge him back in to this page. Ionesco 20:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Unfortunate Word Choice

    It is written: "...Ishmael sees his shipmates as avatars of human nature and society,..." This use of the word "avatar" is most inappropriate and should be changed. What the writer meant is "types" or "exemplars". "Avatar" is trendy; that's all. --User:Writtenright

    I agree and changed this to 'archetypes'. Which might have a whole new set of problems, but I still think it's better in this situation than 'avatar' is.-BlackAndy 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    That doesnt seem right either. Although I dont know what is right 10max01 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Plot Summary

    With so much dedicated to the historical background, the symbolism and to other works making allusion to the novel. A few paragraphs dedicated to what actually happens in the story could help make this article seem more complete. Dr. Lobotomy 01:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Alias?

    Dear readers,

    Could we have a passage or two backing up the implication that Ishmael is an alias? Having read the book, I can't really say that I wholeheartedly agree with the claim.

    Sincerely,

    75.34.209.36 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    I don't understand either how one can make such a claim. I've changed the article to say that it's unclear. --Smack (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    In literary and artistic circles, the name "Ishmael" can be an alias assumed by an outcast and/or wanderer, in a nod to the original Ishmael, who was both. Given some additional information, for example that the character Ishmael has no surname, and that he announces himself with the phrase "Call me Ishmael" rather than "My name is Ishmael" or "I was born Ishmael", it's seems likely that Melville meant to suggest that Ishmael is, in fact, not the character's given name, though this is never overtly stated. --BlackAndy 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    In other words, you claim that the context in which "Ishmael" says this leads the reader to suspect that it's an alias. I don't see anything wrong with including an interpretation like that one in the article, so long as we don't claim that the alias-ness is self-evident without knowing the context. --Smack (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Addiction to oranges?

    "However this has yet to be proven, it is rumored that Melville lived in Manhattan and had a strange addiction to oranges while writing this novel." This seems a bit fishy(if you will excuse the pun) to me... any source? Seems like the kind of thing someone would throw in as a test... Schuyler s. 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    Removed this and one other apparently bogus comment. They were both added by 68.84.48.89 (talk · contribs) on November 29 (see page history). --Smack (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


    I remember hearing that Melville once came down with scurvy and thus had to eat loads of oranges as a sort of treatment for it. While this is not exactly an addiction, it would substantiate that information. Mary Karr (Carr?) said this at a writers' conference in Pittsburgh, and she's friends with some famous person who wrote a Melville biography, which is where she claimed to get her information. BobCinnamon 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] New Page: Allusions to Moby-Dick in Popular Culture

    The allusions to Moby-Dick section of this article has gotten much to big. I would like to get people's input on spinning off a new page which would be a listing of these allusions (a real page-turner, I know.) I think it would make the article much more manageable...

    Ionesco 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    Makes perfect sense. I say go for it. if you need help, tell me on my talk page, I'd be more than willing to. --DurinsBane87 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Then take bets on how long it will be before someone proposes merging them. Wahkeenah 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Very Likely, but I think the fact that it is such a large and varied list will allow it to stand on its own. It could even be split up in to categories such as television, movie adaptations, music, etc.Ionesco 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    Moby-Dick in Popular Culture has been created. I will reduce the current listing to just the direct film and television adaptations. lets see how long this lasts...--Ionesco 16:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Savage?

    The word "savage" for the harpooners seems a bit non-NPOV. While certainly Melville uses the word "savage" to describe the harpooners, it doesn't feel right for Wikipedia to do so as there's nothing at all "savage" about them, save for being non-white. Anyone have any problems with deleting it? Melvillean 05:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Put it in quotes. Wahkeenah 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

    Some of them were canibals after all. Savage is used not specifically to refer to them as black (even though it was assumed) but to their differently cultured nature and that many of their practices seemed different to normal acceptable society. I think that the savage reference should stay as it is, as this is how they are refered in the book and increases their presence in the text rather than the little cabin boy Pip who is also black but not described as a savage due to his unbrutal and unimposing appearance being both young and thin. Hex ten 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    All of the harpooners called "savages" in the article are so named in the book. I originally put quotes around the word when I created that portion of the article, but I now think they should be left as is without removal or quotes. Ionesco 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    I added something to the section about Queequeg (the bit about the boots) that I hope gives some insight on this concern. Melville seems to use 'savage' to contrast a character to someone who is 'civilized' (mostly meaning 'a member of Western/Christian civilization'), which I think is pretty much what the word 'savage' means. Of course, the view that there exist individuals who are 'uncivilized' (i.e. that is not a member of some civilization) is no longer seriously considered by most (except maybe Kaspar Hauser for example would have been fairly savage in this sense), which is where the tension nowadays comes from. I've heard that Melville is considered by a lot of commentators to have a more enlightened viewpoint than most of his contemporaries, and this is bourne out by the quoting of Queequeg's description of his tribe's wedding feast and the gaffe by the ship captain, but the fact remains that he's a white male from the mid-19th century and is likely writing this book for an audience that he considers will be substantially similar.
    Maybe it would be a good idea to add a section describing how the usage of the word 'savage' in the book is similar to the Ancient Greek usage of the word that became 'barbarian', which from what I've heard is basically a term that meant 'non-Greek-speaking person'. Of course, for me that's all hearsay, so I'd have to do some research to first of all back up the claim about the word barbarian (for all I know it's on the barbarian page, I haven't checked), and second to back up the claim that the usage of 'savage' in Moby-Dick is similar.--BlackAndy 00:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Not that important but... why not?

    Why no put Ambroise Louis Garneray's Pêche de la Baleine that Melville talks about in chapter 56? That would make the article, compared to a continuous whiteness, more comfortable to read. The image is available on the internet. -- 213.6.22.218 12:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Major revert

    I was looking over the article today and noticed that many paragraphs, links, and quotations were mangled. Breaks were inserted into links, breaks were removed from indented quotes, and the article was pretty seriously messed up. After going through the history I found the original edit was by 69.143.228.193 on September 5, 2007 at 16:06. Unfortunately some intervening edits made it impossible to undo that edit, so the only option that I know of was to revert back to the last clean version. I looked over the intervening edits and most of them appeared to be attempting to clean up the garbled text, so I think they are all taken care of. Apologies are due, however, if I inadvertently reverted over a positive edit. -Taranah 06:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

    i think this article needs a revision. there is some good stuff, but could use some reworking. willing to help. Platypusjones 04:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

    certainly agree. on the whole, the information is good, but the prose is often very poor. Ionlyamescapedalone 12:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] incorrect- plot summary

    in Plot Summary, the following sentence: "The two quickly become fast friends; Ishmael even humorously calls the relationship a "marriage", and he joins Queequeg in worshipping his idol god." It's not Ishmael, but Queequeg: "He seemed to take to me quite as naturally and unbiddenly as I to him; and when our smoke was over, he pressed his forehead against mine, clasped me round the waist, and said that henceforth we were married; meaning, in his country's phrase, that we were bosom friends; he would gladly die for me, if need should be" (p. 51). Will change.Platypusjones 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Incorrect Ahab quote

    The Ahab quote, "God hath struck a chord on this here coin!" doesn't seem to exist in any edition I've looked at. See, for example, the text at Project Gutenberg. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I suggest that it's removed. Timohannay 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for pointing out the error. I've corrected it along with two other probable errors as noted above in the discussion on religion and symbolism. I suspect that all three originate with the 20th-century movie versions.TVC 15 22:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] symbolism section

    after reading it again, the symbolism section is in dire need of references. outside of those, it borders on "original research" since the interpretations could be construed as idiosyncratic.Platypusjones 03:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] An observation about luck and some related subjects

    According to the article the narrator is saved "by pure luck". Luck? In Melville's words the devious-cruising RACHEL is there, because it is forever looking for her missing children. If one calls this luck, then one would have to call everything else in the book also luck. Everything, that happens to the PEQUOD and its crew. For example the meetings with all the other ships, the ROSEBUD, the VIRGIN, the DELIGHT, and so on. But maybe this is only, because the autors of the article have not had yet enough time to think about this problem. That would also explain, why in the article none of these ships are mentioned, although in the book they form a framing.

    Another thing that gives me a riddle: The book begins with the ETYMOLOGY supplied by the pale Usher - "threadbare in coat, heart, body, and brain". And it is this, and not the opening words of Chapter One, which sets the tone of the book. Could it be, that the autors of the article are basing their writings on some badly shortened version of Melville's work? -- Hanno Kuntze (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    • these are melville's words: "It was the devious-cruising Rachel, that in her retracing search after her missing children, only found another orphan". But yours is a question of motivation or intention. of course in M-D there is a strong theme of whatever you would like to call it: personal will, personal choice, self-direction, agency, single-mindedness, monomania, goal-oriented behavior. the distinction between choice and chance, or luck, is one of those metaphysical questions for which there is no good answer. indeed, the rachel was as stuck on its course to find its missing children as much as the pequod was on its course to find moby-dick. (the pequod's encounter with the rachel invites us to explore values and what we find important: does one help find a missing person (the captain's son) over and above a whale? can one allow oneself to let go of one's goal to help another achieve theirs? nevertheless, that is beside the point.) that said, there is a strong element of "luck" or "chance" evident in the epilogue, which led up to his discovery. Ishmael says the following: "it so chanced, that after the Parsee's disappearance, I was he whom the Fates ordained to take the place of Ahab's bowsman." He is also surrounded by sharks that do not bite and sea-hawks whose beaks are sheated. there appears to be a sense of providence evident in this scene (that even the coffin bubbled up to the surface and provided safety). true, the rachel was there looking for the missing children, but in a wide sea to come across a small speck could be luck. so, maybe "pure luck" might be overstating, i don't think there is a case for predetermination of predestination either.
    • as far as the second point, i cannot speculate about the intentions of other authors. traditionally, the etymology and and excerpts sections are considered to be prepatory materials; prefaces of sorts, as the article suggests. i disagree that the etymology preface sets the tone of the book, simply because it appears first. in the consequent section, extracts, melville asks us not to take the extracts too seriously: " As touching the ancient authors generally, as well as the poets here appearing, these extracts are solely valuable or entertaining, as affording a glancing bird's eye view of what has been promiscuously said, thought, fancied, and sung of Leviathan, by many nations and generations, including our own." granted extracts is a different section, but melville is setting us up for something different, which begins with chapter 1, loomings. that aside, the first line of chapter one is considered by some schoalrs and most lay readers to be one of the most famous in (american) literature. Platypusjones (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you very much for going to so much trouble. Unfortunately I am in no position to argue about the finer points of the English language with a native speaker of this beautiful idiom. All I can say, is that in reading good novels in English, my feeling has always been, that the word "chance" as a verb implicated coincidence, and if it was to implicate "luck", the writers would make this explicatedly clear. But even if Melville had done so, it still would not have been a statement about his fictional figure's luck, but about his real reader's luck. Namely to get the story, which would not be, if there would be nobody to tell it. Melville makes this very clear with a quote in the epilogue: "And I only am escaped alone to tell thee." So it still remains, that "by pure luck..." is not fitting. And also, that the other ships are missing in the article.

    About the opening words of Chapter One you are of course absolutely right. They are justifiedly famous and define the main narrator and the whole narrative. But not the tone of the book. This is set by the voice of the autor. The ETYMOLOGY does not just chance to be at the beginning instead of at the end of the book. But - and I'm sure, you will agree with me on this point - what really counts, is how the article gets built. So if you want to know, how the pale Usher could be handled, you might want to take a look at an article, that gets another tonesetting beginning of a book exactly right: the "notice" that starts off the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. -- Hanno Kuntze (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    • No worries about going to trouble. after all, that is what the discussion pages are for: to think through thoughtful queries and comments. i agree with you that building the article is important. on that note, i can make two suggestions pertaining your concerns. the first is that the phrase "pure luck" appears in the context of the plot summary. Perhaps that phrase can be removed and a sentence can simply describe the rachel finding Ishamel in the water. The question of luck or chance can be discussed in another section (major themes) or an "analysis" section can be created. as far as whose "luck" it might be, Ishamel's or the reader's, I'm sure reader response theory can be used to interpret the text, but that too would be better served in the context of an analysis section. second, on tone: with Huckleberry Finn, Twain's admonitions to the reader are important, just as are Melville's (see again extracts where has asks us not to take things too seriously). I also agree that Melville placed the etymology section at the beginning instead of at the end for a purpose. perhaps to set a tone, as you argue. the question that would require exploring then, would be what tone is set by this section? and perhaps an exploration of the significance of this section could be added to an analysis section. hope this clarifies somewhat. be well and thank you. Platypusjones (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Ahab ill?

    This article states "For several days, though, an ill Ahab stays below decks..." I don't remember anything in the novel that actually says Ahab is ill. Can someone please clarify or explain? Kingturtle (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

    True. There is no mention of illness. Even Ishmael comments that he appeared to show no sign of illness or recovery from one. Platypusjones (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Moby Dick character section verif.

    In the characters section, for Moby Dick it starts as:

    "Moby Dick is a mottled penis with a white hump, of extraordinary ferocity and size...."

    I am not well versed with whale related terminology, but isn't there something wrong with how this sentence starts. Is it supposed to be "Moby Dick is a mottled penis whale with a ..."

    Please clarify if I've missed out on something basic. Cheers! Julyda4th (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Critical reception---current

    This subsection needs at least one citation, probably more. The first sentence is not particularly controversial, but it is a very strong statement, begging for a source, and the quotation should definitely be sourced. As to the second sentence, I am not at all sure if it is true that Moby-Dick is "studied in most schools in the United States". My impression is that other, shorter Melville works are preferred to the rather intimidating Moby-Dick. So a citation supporting that claim is necessary. I'm not in a great position to add these citations myself. -- Spireguy (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)