Moby-Dick discussion

Who's not keeping up? I must put up my own guilty hand, having been caught up in the journalistic vortex of the euro crisis this week. I am IN the proper set of chapters, but not THROUGH them. Here they are:

Ch. 57 Of Whales in Paint; in Teeth
Ch. 58 Brit
Ch. 59 Squid
Ch. 60 The Line
Ch. 61 Stubb Kills a Whale
Ch. 62 The Dart
Ch. 63 The Crotch
Ch. 64 Stubb's Supper
Ch. 65 The Whale as a Dish
Ch. 66 The Shark Massacre
Ch. 67 Cutting In

I like how Melville warned us that "The Crotch" would be important in coming chapters. At least he's aware of any possible impatience on the part of his gentle (or seasick) readers!

The chapters describing the hunt are really exciting. Not sure what I was expecting, but they are good.

Not sure I need so much detail on the blubber but I did like the discussion re eating the whale by whale-light and the ethical dilemma therein. Melville's knowledge continues to amaze.

I've been waiting for a whale for Stubb's Supper to come up because it's in this rather brilliant scene that Melville shows his hand. There is really no meaningful ethical dilemma here -- It's like eating a buffalo's meat and wearing the skin.

But he does suggest one nonetheless and in doing suggests an identification of Christians with cannibals, and it is clearer and clearer where Melville stands.

Civilized man is a cannibal, perhaps figuratively feeding on each other, he abuses his authority (Stubbs; attitude toward the cook and the flogging on the Town-Ho), and later comments, referring specifically to Stubbs (view spoiler)[ when Stubbs is guilty of behavior that is truly morally questionable, letting Pip flounder in the water to be picked up (possibly -- but as we discover not inevitably) by a passing boat, he suggests we not be too hard on Stubbs because (hide spoiler)] "man is a money making animal."

Melville enjoys Stubbs -- and it is difficult not to enjoy Stubbs. But Stubbs is one kind of highly competent self-centered individual who's not troubled by the larger questions.

Isn't it rather Christians/civilized man as not being self-acknowledged cannibals where true cannibals therefore are somehow more pure. Why can't there be an ethical dilemma (though we do know Melville likes to play with us).

Many would find an ethical problem with eating a buffalo's meat and wearing the skin. Is this just a modern concern?

Some people would find an ethical problem with EITHER eating a buffalo's meat OR wearing his skin. They don't believe in killing animals.

But typically, if you're killing the animal to use part of its body, there's no principle that I'm aware of that requires you to refrain from using the remainder. Wasn't it a native American principle (or of some tribes) to use the whole animal, not to waste anything? Wasn't that both practical and a kind of respect?

It's a contradiction to say you have no problem wearing leather shoes but see no problem chowing down on steak.

Now you can argue -- I would, in fact, make the argument -- that Melville sees something horrible in killing this magnificent animal for, in essence, a luxury good.

But he doesn't really have an argument that it's wrong, after we've killed the whale for its oil, to chow down a little too.

Stubbs is very much l'homme moyen sensuel the antithesis of Ishmael. Stubbs would go to sea with a book on navigation, not a Platonic dialog, like Ishmael.

Wasn't whale oil used for lighting? Or am I confused? If it's lighting, I would not put it under the category of "luxury good."

My impression is that it was the highest quality lamp oil, producing the best light.

Yes, but it wasn't your only option for lighting. It was the luxury option. Throughout the book Ishmael speaks of it this way, although it was not something I flagged.

This is from the web, however.

"Whale oil was the fuel of choice of the wealthy. It burned bright and did not create a great deal of odor. The lamps it was burned in were often very beautiful and very expensive because they were made for people who could well afford such luxuries. They were made of pewter, silver, bronze and glass as well as other materials."

http://www.ramshornstudio.com/early_l...

I'd be making do with candles.

Bill wrote: "Yes, but it wasn't your only option for lighting. It was the luxury option. Throughout the book Ishmael speaks of it this way, although it was not something I flagged.

This is from the web, howeve..."

Beautiful lamps. Like you I would be using candles.

Or some very smelly oil that would make living in my home/hovel unpleasant.

I'm not sure what the alternative oils were, though. Does anyone know? My interest in researching 19th century oils for lamps only goes so far. :-)

I think it said fish oil and animal tallow.

so in additional candles it was fish oil animal fat -- but the choicest, best oil was from sperm whales, which lit the evenings of the wealthy.

Guys, I wanted to share some cartoons with you, but the paper they're printed on is very thin and printed both sides so it's difficult to scan.

They're from a collection of New Yorker cartoons 2011.

So...not quite the same but...

Large white whale in small chair reading to a little white whale tucked in bed. The little white whale says,

"Moby-Dick again?"

_____

Ahab in a boat. Moby-Dick has bitten of his other leg and is swimming away. Ahab says,

"Now you're just being a jerk."
_____

Guy at bar says to girl, "I know this is going to sound like an opening line, but 'Call me Ishmael.'"

____

It's interesting that the New Yorker would have three Moby-Dick cartoons in the same year.

I only wish I could tell Melville.

This is the year of living Melville. With Bartelby on Wallstreet and Moby everywhere.

Bill, will take a look if our Library carries the New Yorker. As I said on another thread, Moby Dick is one of those classics that is both timeless and always current. I think the themes of environmental degradation, species extinction and communication between species, though probably not intended by Melville can still be gleaned from MD, just as, mentioned above, Bartleby is more relevant today than
during melville's time!

Bartleby may be equally relevant, but I doubt more relevant. The degree of drudgery experienced by clerks before typewriters, carbon paper, xerox machines, etc. is difficult to imagine and the hours were much longer. This is before there were labor unions and regulation.

I'm not sure there's a need to add to Melville what isn't there -- I think the questions he does raise about fundamental human nature and ethical responsibility -- not to mention the poetry and wit -- are enough. :-)

Those were very funny cartoons, even though the cartoons weren't there.

I didn't know ...

Bill wrote: "I'm not sure what the alternative oils were, though. Does anyone know? My interest in researching 19th century oils for lamps only goes so far. :-)"

The cheapest alternative was to go to bed early and avoid the dark.

Failing that, many poor folks made do with tallow dips, pieces of paper dipped in rendered beef,mutton or pork fat and allowed to dry. Often rushes were used in place of paper. Tallow could also be refined a bit and made into candles that were cheaper than the beeswax variety.

All of these variations were smokier, not as bright, and had an "interesting" aroma. In a pinch frontier homes used whatever fat was available, pig, bear, possum, racoon... Hence the "interesting" smell.

Interesting, Stephen.

This is from Con Ed's website:

Con Edison traces its early history to the New York Gas Light Company, founded in 1823. New York Gas received a charter from the New York State Legislature to serve all of Manhattan south of an east-west line created by Grand, Sullivan, and Canal Streets. Like most early gas companies, New York Gas would focus its efforts on street lighting, in this case, supplementing or replacing the whale-oil lamps that were installed by the city beginning in the 1760s.

Interesting that they were using the most expensive kind of oil for street lights. But it also foretells the end of the whaling industry.

Bill wrote: "This is from Con Ed's website:

Con Edison traces its early history to the New York Gas Light Company, founded in 1823. New York Gas received a charter from the New York State Legislature to serve all of Manhattan south of an east-west line created by Grand, Sullivan, and Canal Streets...."

At the time, (1823) that was pretty much all of the posher residential areas. The opening of the Erie Canal in 1825 really kick-started the growth of the city. Greenwich Village really was a village at the time. And the Stuyvesant family still owned farms at what's now 13th street at that time.

In 1823 they hadn't yet broken ground on the new reservoir for the city (Now 42nd Street and 5th Ave, the site of the main branch of the NY public Library)

I'm wondering if the whole "eating whale steak by whale-oil light" wasn't an off handed reference to the kosher prohibition about separating meat from milk.

To keep kosher, Jews must not eat meat and milk products at or near the same time due to a verse in the Book of Exodus, which forbids "boiling a (kid) goat in its mother's milk." Hence the whole second set of dishes thing (and the lack of cheeseburgers at seders).

One can also note that Melville makes note of the book of Judith. That book is found in the Jewish and Catholic Bibles, but not the Protestant one. I've always been puzzled about just what made certain books acceptable as part of the Bible and others not. I do note with some glee that the book of Wisdom is omitted from the Protestant Bible (King James Version).

Of course I've also been fascinated by the way that the Jewish Talmud is presented for study. The text in the middle of the page and 5 commentaries printed in the surrounding margins.

Newengland wrote: "I like how Melville warned us that "The Crotch" would be important in coming chapters.!"

What with all the ribald humor mentioned about earlier chapters I'm surprised at no one has mentioned NE's grabbing his crotch (reference)

What can I say. I was a baseball player at one point.

Stephen,

The Book of Judith is absolutely NOT found in the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) -- only in the Catholic and Orthodox.

NE,

You say baseball. I say you were a rapper.

Bill wrote: "Stephen, The Book of Judith is absolutely NOT found in the Tanakh (Jewish Bible)"

I don't suppose a mae culpa would be in order here (I was raised Methodist but have been fascinated by the delineations in faith all my life... particularly after beginning my stint in NYC)

Wonder if the writers of Cheers/Frazier were fans of Melville? Their Judith bore more than a suggestion of the biblical one.

ha ha, maybe a " mea culpa ". :-)

And I think the question of being canonical has to do with authenticity -- there may not be a Hebrew source despite the Hebrew story. Or I may be making it up.

It's all part of the general question of the Apocrypha.

New York is wonderfully ecumenical. I was in a story today run by Muslims selling Christmas and Hannukah decorations made in Taiwan.

But I don't know that kosher was what Melville was thinking about. It wouldn't quite work with stretching the idea of eating whale meat to be cannibalistic. But -- who know?