Moby Dick

I have read Moby Dick three times, and firmly place at the top of US literature. Recently two Harvard philosphy professors wrote a book (i forgot the title) about the spiritual vacuity rampant in the US and they discussed the role great literature can play in reviving the spirit. Their number one remedy: Moby Dick.
I recently saw several folks denigrating this book, and I was rather shocked, given that this is LibraryThing, and that Moby Dick is an absolute must for any respectable English language library.

I am not aware of the thread of which you speak, so can't comment about said denigration.
I have to agree with you about Moby Dick, though. It is a great piece of writing. Having said that, it's been over 45 years since I've read my father's copy of it, and do not have it in my own library. It being a classic, I'd only buy a relatively inexpensive finely-bound copy to re-read and put on my shelf. I realize there's an oxymoron in my previous sentence. My bad...

I am not sure that I would agree with the two Harvard professors (although I would really like to read their book), but people ~wanting~ to read more literature would be a positive net effect.

I am curious as to how they define and measure "spiritual vacuity".

Well, spiritual vacuity may be my words; I don't recall. But that's more or less what they meant, a lack of meaning in daily life, lack of sacrilization of the mundane, perhaps. A certain robotitude.
The interview I saw was by Stephen Colbert and can easily be found. It was in the last couple weeks.

If its your words or not does not really matter, fact is the statement is spot on! The idea of a well rounded culture is dying on the vine. Get off the couch kids and interact with the world.

Rick,
I've had no luck at finding the SC interview, nor in determining the name of the book or its authors. Is there any more information you can provide?

Google 'Stephen Colbert and Harvard philosophy professor Sean D. Kelley'

#1 --

I couldn't stand Moby Dick. This arrogant lunatic harasses a whale that is minding its own business, and loses a leg. He then has a grudge against the whale that was only defending itself.

Queequeg was cool. Sane. But tatooes don't do it for me.

And then later on it was rewritten as a horror tale, with the whale reduced to being a "giant" white shark.

:-)
Thanks again, JN. I never understood why Moby Dick was considered such a big deal. And certainly not why it would still be, except for historical reasons.

The idea that they would pop this on school kids to get them interested in literature is daunting.

Moby Dick isn't a big deal; it's the best book every written by a US citizen.

Ahab, 'I'd strike the sun if it insulted me.' And the chapter 'The Lee shore'...

yes, it is too soon in high school, but that isn't melville's fault.

Pithy three sentence summaries are too easy to mock, so I will hold back, but consider the confluence of extraordinary prose, the deepest philosphizing, the humor, the uttely gleeful grandiosity, metaphor of every shape and size. Not a word wasted in a giant book.

The cook, asked if he ever went to church: 'Passed one once in Capetown.'

The book, like the whale, is easily dismissed by the landlubber.

Moby Dick is hands down one of my favourite books - ever. When I first read it, thankfully as a full-fledged adult, I was amazed, enthralled. I never knew anyone to write like that. I found a tale full of humour, mystery, omens, spirituality, documentary information of all things, and certainly passion. I was engulfed in the briny sea with Ahab, his crew and the Whale until the final epic, satisfying final battle.

Obviously I had a very emotional reaction to Moby Dick, and I don't expect everyone to "get it" the way I did. That notwithstanding, it is undoubtedly one of the greatest novels ever written. So I have to wholewheartedly agree with the Harvard Profs. on this one.

I'm always shocked when I see people say that sort of thing.
I don't see how it could be even compared to Mark Twain, much less man modern American writers. But it's very much a subjective thing, of course.

Linton--Please read the Lee Shore. It's only a page or so, but it contains multitudes.

1, 2, 4 & 10

I'm with you, Moby Dick is one of the greatest books in American literature. It is most definitely one of my top ten favorites (it became my favorite even at the tender age of 16 when I first read it for school), and I've read it multiple times and I will read it again and appreciate it even more with age.

#9 --

"Moby Dick isn't a big deal; it's the best book every written by a US citizen."

That's why Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is considered the greatest American novel.

There is a phony, pseudo-intellectualism which boldly declares its own view superior to that of lengthy consensus, having the additional purpose of showing off an "intellectual" "independence". Moby Dick is classed among the greatest US novels -- plural; but it is Twain's that is considered the greatest of all those.

On top of which, Melville's writing in Moby Dick is probably the most claustrophobic, even suffocating, I've ever encountered.

"I'd strike the sun if it insulted me" is what? -- insight? Tough-guy arrogance? Modeller of "appropriate" manly-man conduct for G. W. "Mission Accomplished" Bushit? Poetry?

See "Huck Battles His Conscience" in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, an excellent reading of which is Hal Holbrook's in his "Hal Holbrook performs Mark Twain Tonight!" (Audio Editions 25562) -- a wise, humane insight into appropriate humility, as contrasted with the more than sufficient hubris in other characters in the book, beginning with the racist Tom Sawyer.

And then there's the appeal to the ego's "Look how wise I am!" -- at least when I and others are looking --

"the deepest philosphizing,"

I toss off first-draft poems which I'll from time to time stumble upon years later, after they are wholly forgotten, and find in them "the deepest philosophizing" -- though "philosophizing" was consciously avoided at the time of writing.

"The cook, asked if he ever went to church: 'Passed one once in Capetown.'"

My, my, what an amazingly sophisticated satirical kneeslapper for a non-landlubber with ship-sized ego and lack of reading material. Of Hawaii, non-landlubber Mark Twain commented,

"The earliest pioneer of civilization is never the Bible, never the missionary, but whiskey".

But you've got me on the "pithy three sentence summaries": Twain was rendered nearly impossible* to quote in three-sentence soundbites because the five-to-seven sentences leading to your three, and the seven-to-ten following your three, were no less quotable than your three.
_____

*Only nearly impossible:

"There is no such thing as a civil war."

"A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on."

"This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them."
_____

And then there's a flow to Twain's writing that Melville couldn't begin to accomplish:

". . . . I see a bird setting on a dead limb of a high tree, singing with its head tilted back and its mouth open, and before I thought I fired, and his song stopped and he fell straight down from the limb, all limp like a rag, and I run and picked him up and he was dead, and his body was warm in my hand, and his head rolled about this way and that, like his neck was broke, and there was a little white skin over his eyes, and one little drop of blood on the side of his head; and laws! I could n't see nothing more for the tears; and I hain't never murdered no creature since that war n't doing me no harm, and I ain't going to." Tom Sawyer Abroad, "Oxford Mark Twain," 1996, Ed. Fishkin, p. 74.

That magic rivulet isn't your three-sentence soundbyte; so I'll quote the larger context leading thereto:

"The minute Tom begun to talk about birds I judged he was a goner, because Jim knowed more about birds than both of us put together. You see, he had killed hundreds and hundreds of them, and that 's the way to find out about birds. That 's the way people does that writes books about birds and loves them so that they 'll go hungry and tired and take any amount of trouble to find a new bird and kill it. Their name is ornithologers, and I could have been an ornithologer myself, because I always loved birds and creatures ; and I started out to learn how to be one, and I see a bird setting on a dead limb of a high tree, . . . ." Ibid.

And that is from one of Twain's minor works.

Outer-directed arrogance and ego can be found anywhere and everywhere -- even outside Capetown, South Africa. It's the humility, and its expression as compassion -- and the courage to reveal it to others, though that is not the self-conscious motive -- that is the precious humanizing rarity.

#11 --

The subjective is only one part of an art. Methods and techniques can be adduced from an art, and those become objective rules of both practice (repeated over and over and over again in differing contexts) and analysis.

For an addictively lovely series of examples, go to youtube and watch Michelle Kwan's short and long program skates from --

1993 Olympic Festival;

1995 Worlds (in Birmingham, UK);

1996 Nationals and Worlds -- and Exhibitions;

1998 Nationals and Worlds;

1998 Pro-Am;

1998 World Pro;

2002 Olympics Exhibition (to "Fields of Gold");

2004 Nationals long program "Tosca".

Be sitting down for the latter, else she, an old lady of 23, knock you down, while showing the kids how to do it.

#10 --

"I found a tale full of humour, mystery, omens, spirituality, documentary information of all things, and certainly passion. I was engulfed in the briny sea with Ahab, his crew and the Whale . . . ."

Read Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, in which you'll find "a tale full of humour, mystery, omens, spirituality, (superstition), documentary information of all things, and certainly passion."

And you will be "engulfed in" a journey on a raft down the Mississippi River, "rolling its mile wide tide along*," with "Nigger Jim" and "the" terrors of being involved with helping an escaped slave, penalty for which was death.
_____

*Life on the Mississippi, Mark Twain.

#12 --

". . . contains (sic) multitudes."

That's Walt Whitman, not Herman Melville.

Whoa there hossy!

Thanks for the Whitman not Melville, but I know Whitman and Melville, and I did not attribute that to Melville.

But first, in such a 'debate' it is bad form to cite whatever you are citing that regards Huck as the greatest American novel. Especially since I consider the greatest American novel is probably Conversation in the Cathedral by Mario Vargas Llosa, though it still may be Moby Dick.

I say Moby Dick is the greatest novel written by a US citizen. I will not argue against Huck, for I love Twain. In fact, I'm reading Roughing It these days. Such a comparison is fruitless.

What I object to is...let me find a polite word...the dismissiveness in such passages as:

'This arrogant lunatic harasses a whale that is minding its own business, and loses a leg. He then has a grudge against the whale that was only defending itself.'

and:

'There is a phony, pseudo-intellectualism which boldly declares its own view superior to that of lengthy consensus, having the additional purpose of showing off an "intellectual" "independence". Moby Dick is classed among the greatest US novels -- plural; but it is Twain's that is considered the greatest of all those.'

Nobody re-reads a book like Moby Dick if they are phony and no one, based on such scarce 'evidence' accuses others of pseudo-intellectualism or showing off "intellectual" "independence".

This is not an argument you can win. Though if you display enough arrogance you can certainly lose. Mentioning your early poems puts you in some danger.

Finally, for this is already too much:

'"I'd strike the sun if it insulted me" is what? -- insight? Tough-guy arrogance? Modeller of "appropriate" manly-man conduct for G. W. "Mission Accomplished" Bushit? Poetry?'

It is one of the central metaphors of the book. I think you could figure it out if you humbled yourself into taking an objective stance.

I don't know if it's the Great American Novel -- I'm undecided on which is -- but it comes close and it is a Great Book. I think many people are stopped dead by its 19th century prose. And it is a complex book. Certainly more complex than anything Twain ever wrote. Melville was more intellectual. Twain had sort of an anti-intellectual mindset which he considered more American.

I think Twain played with an anti-intellectual mindset--he was definitely quite an intellectual.

Rick, I think you'll soon find that discussing anything with JNagarya is pointless. He's infamous.

As for Moby Dick, it is indeed worthy of the praise it gets. Many get bogged down reading it, I think, and miss the point.

Yeah, JN generally an okay guy, but he pegged me a couple of years ago as a crazy right wing conservative (contrast with: sane right wing conservative) because I stated the Regan was a charming fellow. I'm somewhat conservative in a lot of respects, and I'm somewhat liberal in others, but there was no way he was willing to consider that. But really, he, like the Earth, is mostly harmless.

well, yes, after all, the world contains sic multitudes

Anybody looking for "the great American novel" would do well to look into Berger's "Little Big Man" or Don Robertson's "Paradise Falls".

If people get bogged down in something and lose the point... how great is it?

I remember when flunking English courses for insisting that Milton is no big deal I ran into references to his veneration being due to "a hypnotized audience".
I think this is a danger with "classics"... they hang on because of force-feeding in school and can't even be examined objectively.

So people keep on having to read "Silas Marner" because it's so "great" and end up going through their lives thinking "Catcher In The Rye" is some huge bit of literary mastery.

To bad there's not some decertification process where "classics" get retired for awhile to see if new eyes are as easily impressed.

Then there's THE CHOKEHOLD OF FLAMGASS by Leonard Dobbes, if you can find it.

If people get bogged down in something and lose the point... how great is it?

If people get bogged down in something and lost the point, are they good and sensitive readers?

It cuts both ways.

Well, this seems to have degenerated into 'I didn't like it so it sucks'; 'here is what I like, so it is great'.

Moby Dick's big problem is that it is not an obvious book. First off, it seems to be two books -- there's a disconnect between the start of the book, which seems to promise a light seafaring tale, and Ahab's revenge quest. And then you have the whaling manual layered over top of it, which many people find a tough slog.

A synopsis of the book will usually focus on the Ahab story, instead of considering how the pieces form the whole.

everything about whaling works as metaphor. i would argue that there is no disconnect at all.

Well, I'd agree. But I think that many people don't make the connections, partly because they're primed by every synopsis ever printed to think that this is a supposed to be just a revenge tale about Ahab and a whale.

The greatness of Moby Dick lies in its grand scale.

Hamlet, too, is a revenge tale, but of a different type, engaging in Hamlet's attempt to refuse to take revenge as long as possible.

Moby Dick is a revenge tale, of course, but a great book is often easily synopsised, leaving out the prose, the depth of it, the mystery, the symbolism...

@# 16

I have read Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and enjoyed it. I don't know why you would presume that I hadn't. The fact is, it didn't move me the way Moby Dick does.That's a purely subjective reaction, and that's fine. I don't see why the debate, why one book has to be considered great and the other overrated. Regardless of which you prefer, they are both Great Works in my opinion.

I'd say that the mark of a really great book is that it resists summary. That's certainly true of Moby Dick.

To me, it's not a tale of Ahab's revenge-fuelled madness so much as a tale of Ishmael's madness. The narrator's growing obsession with whales, the whale, and whaling throughout the book as the tone of the story progressively darkens is unequalled. It's one of the great examples of just what you can do with the novel as a form.

#18 --

Bad form? For citing to lengthy consensus that isn't mine? There we go again: rejecting existing views -- in this instance lengthy consensus -- because we disapprove them.

"What I object to is...let me find a polite word...the dismissiveness in such passages as:

'This arrogant lunatic harasses a whale that is minding its own business, and loses a leg. He then has a grudge against the whale that was only defending itself.'

That is what the book is about: an idiot harasses a whale, loses a leg, blames the whale, and then goes and harasses the whale again. That isn't "dismissive"; it is the plot.

"and:

"'There is a phony, pseudo-intellectualism which boldly declares its own view superior to that of lengthy consensus, having the additional purpose of showing off an "intellectual" "independence". Moby Dick is classed among the greatest US novels -- plural; but it is Twain's that is considered the greatest of all those.'

"Nobody re-reads a book like Moby Dick if they are phony"

Where'd you find the guarantee of that? I've known people who re-read a book because they didn't "get" it the first time. I've known people who've reread "major classics" which are actually run-of-the-mill children's pulp fiction.

"and no one, based on such scarce 'evidence' accuses others of pseudo-intellectualism or showing off "intellectual" "independence"."

That consensus I note is hardly "scarce 'evidence'" in view of the fact that it is the consensus.

"This is not an argument you can win."

Here we go again: every view different than mine is an "argument" because I say so, while overlooking the fact that I am the one turning it into an argument.

The consensus I identify, though I agree with it, is not mine. So it isn't "my" "argument". (Is there any "intellectual" on Librarything that can do anything OTHER THAN* argue?)
_____

*Go ahead: make issue of the bold whereas it is legitimately a non-issue.
_____

"Though if you display enough arrogance you can certainly lose."

Arrogance? Disagreeing that Moby Dick is the greatest book written by a US citizen? Oh -- I see: disagreeing with you is arrogant.

Or was it my citation to something outside my self -- that bugaboo objective consensus -- that is "arrogant"?

"Mentioning your early poems puts you in some danger."

I said nothing of "early poems"; I said first drafts. And as you've not read them, they couldn't possibly put me in any danger, objective or otherwise.

The fact is that what one finds in a piece of literature is not necessarily something the author consciously put there.

"Finally, for this is already too much:

'"I'd strike the sun if it insulted me" is what? -- insight? Tough-guy arrogance? Modeler of "appropriate" manly-man conduct for G. W. "Mission Accomplished" Bushit? Poetry?'

"It is one of the central metaphors of the book. I think you could figure it out if you humbled yourself into taking an objective stance."

In view of the fact that you believe you know its meaning better than I, then perhaps you should forcibly humble me by proving you do.

Citing to "evidences" beyond myself, such as said consensus, is citing to the objective outside myself. That there is confidence in that method does not mean it is not humble. If you didn't know a particular first draft poem of mine were made by me, you might rant and rave in praise of its philosophical depth -- even though I consciously -- "humbly" -- avoid putting "philosophy" into my poetry.

In another thread or two -- here I go, being "arrogant" again by citing objective source -- I cited, and even quoted relevant portion of, an interview with poetess Denise Levertov in which the interviewer insistently tried to tell Levertov what a series of poems Levertov wrote was about.

By the terms you present here, Levertov had a lot of damned -- arrogant -- gall to stand her ground and insist that the poems had nothing whatever to do with what the interviewer was reading into them.

Granted, as I know from my own -- earlier -- poems, one can be surprised by what is in one's writing that one didn't intend or realize. One of those I stumbled upon within the past several days might be interpreted as "philosophy" by another reader than myself; or by another slightly more perceptive as being a political satire; but actually I wrote it as excuse to (yet again) use the plural for my favorite bird:

sparrows.

Same goes for the "philosophy" one might find in Moby Dick: what you "find" might not be what Melville realized or intended.

I do suppose it safe to assume that Melville didn't intend that the reader feel sympathy for the whale. I do so nonetheless, as I've already made clear.

#19 --

Twain was a satirist; with a measureless compassion; thus he included both a genuine understanding of those he satirized, and himself in the human race he was mocking.

But he was not at all anti-intellectual; he was at war against the unintelligent, the mindless, the anti-intellectual. He condemned the brutish.

He also played with having a huge ego:

"I was once introduced by a lawyer who kept his hands in his pockets, as that rare creature, indeed: a humorist who is really funny.

But we had an even rarer creature in our midsts than a humorist who is really funny. We had a lawyer who kept his hands in his own pockets."

And on such introductions:

"I prefer to do the act myself, so I can rely on getting in all the facts."

"It's always sad to have one's name mentioned with the great authors. Milton is dead. Shakespeare is dead. And I'm not feeling too well myself."

But close listening will discern that he was anything but that.

And one won't find anything more complex than Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (I noted the "Huck Battles His Conscience" scene). Ask yourself: If "Nigger Jim" was running away from slavery, why then was he running south?

#22 --

Reagan is "charming" if one doesn't look through that surface to the destructive economic meanness -- the consequences of which ripened under G. W. Bushit. We are finally to the point at which many who were defending his "charming" meanness are catching on: those who don't benefit from the tax cuts for those who don't need them are the ones required to pay for the deficit caused by those tax cuts.

Actually, as another said, I am "harmless" -- and that is a conscious element in my aesthetic. It underlies my dislike of Moby Dick, which is about an arrogant lunatic attacking the inoffending, losing a leg as result, which loss he blames on his victim.

Then he goes after his victim a second time in order to get revenge for the loss.

I look for stories and ways to tell stories -- even if one isn't actually "doing" "philosophy" -- which aren't about, especially, revenge as "solution".

#21 --

"ajsomerset" presumes to speak for others, instead of only for himself, in effort to poison the well, based upon his inability to do anything other than argue, as if that is the purpose and proof of intelligence and intellectuality, and his concomitant inability to particiate in non-argumentative discussion.

My suggestion elsewhere in response to his attidude is that he block all others' posts so he can discuss stuff without the danger of encountering any views different than his.

Consensus is agreement, and there is no consensus in this regard. Nor is there just one 'poll'. Europeans prefer Moby Dick.

As I writer I anyway tend to scorn consensus.

No, your summary of the book in inaccurate. Ahab is not an idiot, for instance. Besides, in my opinion the plot of a book is not what makes it great. Otherwise, such a clever plotter as John Grisham might be the great US author.

Your hostility is evident throughout your post--and rather than ajsomerset, it is you who come across as unnecessarily argumentative.

Yes, there are many gentle souls on LT who can discuss in a lively and interesting fashion without your venom.

Arrogance? What readers might find in Moby Dick may not be what Melville intended?
Disagreeing with me is not necessarily arrogant, but you are absurdly arrogant in the way you disagree. I think we may not reach a consensus on that, but you would surely win the vote. Especially considering your insistent and repeated misuse of the word consensus and inability to accept that it is absurd to argue to such an extent which of two great books is better.

#38 --

The concensus remains that Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is the great American novel. Regardless your view of that consensus, or of consensus in general. That's the objective fact.

Ahab is a nice guy? No, he is not. If not, he's an ass. And regardless whether the plot makes a book great, my description of the the plot is accurate.

And I've been warmly humorous throughout -- that made clear with my quotes from Twain, my reference to my aesthetics, and to my favorite bird. Not a wit of hostility in any of that.

"ajsomerset" tends to speak for more than himself, even though not elected by anyone but himself to do so. If he disagrees with an individual he suggests that everyone else agree with him, against that individual, for his "reasons" -- those "reasons" conclusive, undiscussed -- and join him in ignoring and suppressing the views of which he disapproves.

He already showed all of that in his single comment about me.

As for "able to discuss? Is that why on-point quotations from books, and citations to and suggestions of on-point reading tend to elicit comments that I am "hostile"? What in any of that is "hostile"? Being informed, instead of attempting to bluff it? Knowing in advance what one is talking about?

I'm a gentle soul; but I'm also critically aware and incisive. I'm not stupid, and won't pretend to be.

And, as not only said but shown, informed. I did learn a while back that contributing on-point information which can and should further discussion is instead viewed by some as somehow going too far; and then the personal attacks that I'm "hostile" begin.

Obviously Ahab's problem can be summed up as "hubris" -- arrogance.

"What might readers find in Moby Dick may not be what Melville intended?"

Have you never shown a piece of your writing to another that the other saw differently than you? I've learned through decades (though not so much in more recent decades) that pieces I wrote could be subject to more interpretations than I consciously intended; interpretations I didn't see. And -- yes -- even interpretations which aren't possible given the limitations of any finite piece of writing.

So I can read in what an author didn't intend (I gave an example re. Denise Levertov and an interviewer; I would have provided sufficient cite except that that volume is currently on loan). But that reading can be off-base, false. (If a finite piece of writing is infinitely interpretable, then not all those interpretations can be correct.)

So the "philosophizing" you see in Moby Dick may not actually be Melville's. And I gave an example of a poem I wrote: one reader might take it to be "philosophical"; another as political satire; and those might be "legitimate" interpretations of its contents, even if I didn't intend or see them. Actually, though, it was nothing more to me in conscious intent than excuse to yet again use the plural of my favorite bird.

Why? Because each poem is but a "point" in a process, the thrust of which process is effort to find the penultimate image of my favorite bird which will satisfy a "felt" need.*
_____

*Actually, of course, it's more complex than that, as there are any number of favorite objects or symbols for which I'm constantly seeking their penultimate depiction.
_____

As for the way I disagree being "arrogant": have you not noticed that I tend to back up my "disagreements" -- and my agreements, too, though when I agree I also tend to contribute additionally -- with examples from other than myself? (In this thread I contributed a sample of Twain's writing, in support of my critique of Melville's writing; I've seen nothing objective from anyone in any effort to defend his writing as better than I said.) But you're right: it's "arrogant" to not only know what one is talking about, but also to back it up, in keeping with standards of scholarship, with objective evidences from actual sources, with sufficient citation so other participants in the thread can "check it out" for themselves.

I learned to back up my assertions at university; it's required of mature scholarship. And I maintain that professonal standard out of respect, foremost, for scholarship, and the inplicit generosity it is.

Nor is my use of "consensus" incorrect:

con-sen-sus . . . 1 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief 2 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY b : collective opinion. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1970, p. 177.

In my view it would be arrogant to dispense with objective evidences, and standards, such as the long-standing and well-known consensus that Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is the greatest American novel. To expect my word alone to carry the day.

There is opinion; and there is informed opinion. The latter has the greater weight of the two. It would be other than humble for me to expect my unevidenced opinion to be the equal of the informed.

The same phenomenon occurs when I, as a legal professional, write about the Second Amendment: I back it up with legitimate scholarship, and provision of sufficent citations to sources; and the "response" is to attack, and call me names, instead of speaking to the evidence presented, or even attempting to present counter-"argument" based upon standards of scholarship and legitimate evidence.

You Are amusing, I'll give you that. You definitely pass your own exams. And you put yourself on the same level as Melville, which is possibly true, but I'd rather see evidence of it. Regarding philosophy: why suppose that in Moby Dick is not Melville's?

Regarding consensus, thanks for the EVIDENCE you suggest that you alone provide (in a generally 'matter of opinion' exchange) regarding the word. There is no group solidarity in sentiment and belief, no general agreement, no unanimity expressing that Huck is #1. It came first in a poll. As for collective opinion, several exist, some have Huck on top, some have Melville on top, some...who knows--it doesn't matter to me. Schools don't teach Henry Miller generally. Canons often blow up.

I don't want to be mean but:

'Ahab is a nice guy? No, he is not. If not, he's an ass. And regardless whether the plot makes a book great, my description of the the plot is accurate.'

Your description of the plot is plainly juvenile.

Imagine a like description of Huck:

A smart ass delinquent who makes insights that could only be stuffed into his mouth by a writer runs away and takes up with the charicature of a runaway slave, spending time on an island in the Mississippi that has no mosquitos.

Plainly juvenile. Please don't quote me on it, for as I have made clear, I have a high regard for the book.

As for the way you argue, it seems you set your own terms and follow them, while others may simply consider your terms a departure from the discussion. There is not quote I can give you from Melville that will necessarily convince you of anything.

Great Neo-American novel: Reagan vs Ahab in smackdown cage match.

From Wikipedia:

Though the term is singular, many novels have been referred to as "the Great American Novel".

List of possible Great American Novels
At one time or another, the following works have been considered to be the Great American Novel:

19th century
1851: Herman Melville's Moby-Dick (full title: Moby-Dick; or The Whale)
1885: Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
20th century
1925: F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby
1939: John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath
1951: J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye
1953: Saul Bellow's The Adventures of Augie March
1955: Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita
1957: Jack Kerouac's On the Road
1960: Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird
1973: Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow
1985: Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian or the Evening Redness in the West
1996: David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest
1997: Philip Roth's American Pastoral
1997: Don DeLillo's Underworld
21st century
2000: Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
2006: Cormac McCarthy's The Road
2010: Jonathan Franzen's Freedom (Franzen novel)

So, it looks like several books have got Huck Finn beat, although I don't necessarily agree.

There was a member of my writing group who wrote a book - worst piece of crap I've ever read (in my humble opinion), yet right on the spine it reads: "The Great American Novel". Who am I to argue that it isn't actually better than Huck Finn and Moby Dick combined?

PBS has a show titled Novel Reflections on the American Dream airing on 4-Apr regarding GANs and how they influenced life and culture in the USofA.
Their TOP 10 Picks for novels are (in order):
THE ADVENTURES OF AUGIE MARCH
THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN
CATCH-22
THE CATCHER IN THE RYE
THE GRAPES OF WRATH
THE GREAT GATSBY
INVISIBLE MAN
MOBY-DICK
THE SCARLET LETTER
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD

So, consensus is as consensus does... which is fluctuate widely and often, depending on who you ask and, how you state the question, and the mood and level of knowledge of the people you ask. Then of course, you have to consider the biases of the poll-taker and how s/he will choose to interpret the responses.

J - you argue forcefully, in a bullying manner, about things that are merely unsubstantiated matters of opinion and taste. You still (ref: your #36 to my #22) over-interpret my statement about Regan being a "charming" fellow. Aside: If you want to get back into it, feel free to send me a private message. End-aside. There is no Greatest American Novel. There are several contenders, but everyone has different, VALID opinions of which it may be for them. It mostly depends on the criteria (which can vary from person to person) and the amount of exposure (overall) a person has to literature. There is no arguing that, although, I'm afraid you'll do it anyway. Do us all a favor, and after you write whatever you're going to, do something else for about 10 or 15 minutes, then re-read what you wrote and ask yourself if it's ~really~ that important and enlightening. If you think it is, then by all means, hit the SUBMIT button. Otherwise, you can modify what you wrote or tone it down, or even delete it.

Well done, WHL.

Of course, overlooked candidates are already popping up in my mind...

Well done, WHL.

Of course, overlooked candidates are already popping up in my mind...

Some of Wikipedia's great American novels are surprising. Chabon? Really? David Foster Wallace? Kerouac????

Lists are for gentle argument. Who would put Blood Meridian above Suttree? Who would leave off both Thomas Wolfe and Henry Miller? Which Roth do you choose?
And how lovely that Lolita, written in a man's third language, is among the candidates.
Kerouac? Maybe the most 'U.S.' of all, a separation from the old world once and for all.
But then, where is Sesshu Foster's Atomik Azteks?

I guess my point is that if Wikipedia wants to strive for objectivity and ensure that everything is referenced, I'd like to see who proposed half the books on that list as "the great American novel."

As the list moves forward in time, the claim for consensus weakens rapidly.

Whoa! I can't believe I never heard of Atomik Azteks before. Gotta see if I can get that.

I just got a BUNCH of crap on the SiFisteria group for mentioning Mayan Calendar Girls (which once billed itself as "the great Meso-American novel" because my publisher was giving away their ebook.

So much fun I'll also mention a book sold by my ex-agency, "America Libre". Another po'ed Chicano scenario.

Ex-agency? intriguing--see my neglected group: agents exeunt

#47: I imagine that if a review calls, for instance You Can't Go Home Again, something like 'as close to the great American novel as we've seen,' etc. etc..........E.T.C....it could be on that list

Indeed, but a review ain't consensus.

Although what I'm really arguing now is the weakness of Wikipedia, i.e., anything you can cite will stay in Wikipedia, no matter how silly.

It can be, in the proper dictatorship.

"The consensus remains that Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is the great American novel."

No. I have an M.A. in English. There was no consensus then and there isn't now.

One other mistake you made is bringing politics into this group. Save the politics for the proper forums.

Given the course of this thread, I wonder if it might be interesting to create a near consensual must read list of US literature, just as an exercise.

Starting with

Huck Finn
Moby Dick

In al fairness, denero, it was I who mentioned the political figure first. My bad!

Pretty much anything by Twain, I'd say. He stands head and shoulders above other American writers. He suffers academically, I guess you'd say, because he's sort of a great author disquised as a popular author. Something like "Connecticut Yankee" immediately conjures an image of the classic switcheroo, the first "high concept kids' movie", maybe. But inside it's an important literary and political book, as important in that respect as anything by Calvino or Koestler. (Just as people are often shocked to find the Brit psychological workings behind the Disney characters in "Peter Pan".

The funny thing is, I can't really come up with much else for this list. And the more I think of it, the "great American writers" who come to my mind are mostly masters of popular lit. People who show up on best-seller lists, maybe get shelved as thrillers. This may be the American literary genius, in fact. But for straight-out literary giants, I look around in vain for people like the non-American writers I absorbed when young: Bulgakov, Gombrovitz, Kawabata, Borges, etc.

Is Mailer a great writer? Should "An American Dream" be on this list. I rather think so.
As should "Little Big Man" and "Paradise Falls", which I already mentioned.

This should be it's own thread. I'd repost if somebody started a "Great American Novel" discussion.

One thing that commends the three I mentioned, by the way, is not so much the trappings of "Litterachoor" but their essential American-ness. They tend to distill that experience in some way, their characters and stories could exist nowhere else and, to a large extent, can't really be totally understood by those not intimate with American history, culture and table manners.

Twain is highly regarded in academia.

Another nominee: Tropic of Cancer.

I just read a book last year that could qualify as the Great American novel. It was Jayber Crow by Wendell Berry, about the disappearance of the small family farm, but also a mini history of the 20th century.

Don't make me list the whole American canon. I still have my anthologies.

Thomas Wolfe, You Can't Go Home Again, or The Web and the Rock

#34 --

I've been immersing myself in criticism on Moby Dick, and stumbled upon this thread. I thought that others may find some of these comments to be interesting.

As to Melville's intention: while I don't believe in interpreting a work solely based on authorial intention, as we don't always know what an author said about a particular work, Melville was fairly explicit in the grand, philosophical scope of Moby Dick, mostly from his letters to Nathaniel Hawthorne. He saw it as no less than a meditation on the human condition and even of the universe itself.

From Lewis Mumford's biography of Melville: "How then with me, writing of this Leviathan? Unconsciously, my chirography expands into placard capitals. Give me a condor's quill! Give me Vesuvius' crater as an inkstand. Friends! hold my arms! For in the mere act of penning my thoughts of this Leviathan, they weary me, and make me faint with the outreaching comprehensiveness of its sweep, as if to include the whole circle of the sciences, and all the generations of whales, and men, and mastodons, past, present, and to come, with all the revolving panoramas of empire on earth, and throughout the whole universe, not excluding its suburbs. Such, and so magnifying is the virtue of a large and liberal theme! We expand to its bulk. To produce a mighty volume you need a mighty theme." (p. 151)

It is also fairly well known that around the time Melville was writing Moby Dick, he had begun to re-discover Shakespeare, and that the figure of Ahab (and to an extent, much of the Pequod's crew), were meant to be Shakespearean characters, complex and dramatic. Thus, even critics who condemn Ahab--and certainly not all do--appreciate him as a fascinating and tragic figure. (See F.O. Matthiessen's chapter on Moby Dick in American Renaissance.) Unfortunately, many readers are polarized, siding with either Ahab or Ishmael (or in some cases Moby Dick himself). The fact of the matter is, the book's structure and value lies in a confluence of characters and themes that have the magnifying effect Melville spoke of.

Ahab's diatribes against Moby Dick are rants against not just a single whale, but against cosmic injustice, about the indifference and cruelty of the universe itself. That is why he says: "Speak not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd smite the sun if it insulted me." This is not just arrogance or machismo; it is defiance of the horrible inequalities of existence. A defiance which proves inevitably, tragically, fatal.

What I find disturbing is the lack of attention in criticism and in readers in general to the loss Ahab suffers when he is maimed. Without justifying his quest--I certainly don't, I'm a vegan and I abhor the act of whaling--people have lost sight of the fact of the trauma he's undergone, and how this has shaped his character. There is a surprising dearth of commentary on this, even among those sympathetic to Ahab. Since I am disabled myself, I am interested in the depiction of disabled characters in literature, and how they are interpreted, even those this is still a small field of criticism. Much more common are examinations of race, gender, class, and sexuality. It is clear to me that there are some interesting things going on here, especially given the figure of Captain Boomer, also maimed by Moby Dick, who is Ahab's opposite.

As for having sympathy for the whale, I think that Melville intended it. Not that he wanted us to "take sides" against the human characters, anymore than he wanted us to side with Ishmael over Ahab or vice versa, but that in many ways he was commenting on and satirizing the cruelty and hypocrisy of the whaling industry and those who profit from it. If we were meant to endorse the killing, why not end with Ahab's victory?

Here is a quote from the book about the killing of an old, crippled whale. If this is not meant to evoke sympathy for the whale, I'm not sure what is:

"But pity there was none. For all his old age, and his one arm, and his blind eyes, he must die the death and be murdered, in order to light the gay bridals and other merry-makings of men, and also to illuminate the solemn churches that preach unconditional inoffensiveness by all to all."

And asomerset contributes nothing but cheap shots in effort to contaminate others with his bigot'ry.

And takes it upon himself to presume to speak for others, ignoring the fact that he hasn't been elected to do so.

asomerset is the resident cynic with nothing of value to contribute -- least of all anything remotely recognizable as being an idea.

The central flaw in Adventures of Hickleberry Finn is that Twain has Jim running South in effort to escape slavery.

Twain was sly, not anti-intellectual. He also "boasted" of a huge ego* -- but that too was a ruse.
_____

*It's always sad to have one's name mentioned with the great authors. Chaucer is dead. Shakespeare is dead. And I'm not feeling too well myself."

"Mentioning your early poems puts you in some danger."

Did I do so? Have you read them, despite their not having been published?

The fact remains: Ahab harassed a whale that was minding its own business. As consequence he lost a leg -- for which he blamed his victim. He then had to satisfy the hair across his butt by killing the whale.

The guy was beyond irresponsible bully to out-and-out nut.

Wow, folks, what a discussion! Now I'll have to read Moby Dick. The subject never attracted me but you all make it seem fascinating.As to Huckleberry Finn, I preferred Tom Sawyer.

>66 JNagarya: Except that he wasn't a real guy and never did anything. He's just a character in a book.

Your attempts at literary criticism are about as penetrating as a NRA bumper sticker.

*** Making a huge batch of popcorn to take to a safe distance and watch the fireworks display ***

>62 AndrewSydlik: Thanks for posting those insights. The book is certainly among my favorites, and I've been meaning to get a deeper understanding. Despite Melville's genius, it always felt a little like a first draft. At places it reads like a novel, and at others it feels more like a stage play, and then there's the long tangents about whales and whaling, which sometimes did little to advance the narrative.

Trying to bump this up so I don't lose it again. Starting Moby Dick next week and will be happy to join in the discussion then.

>71 oldstick: Audible.com has many recordings of the book. I'm very fond of the one by Adams Morgan, which for some reason no longer appears on Audible. The others might be very good too, but Amazon has the one narrated by Morgan:

http://www.amazon.com/Moby-Dick-Library-Herman-Melville/dp/078619572X

>71 oldstick: or you could "star" it.

I would certainly rate Moby Dick alongside the likes of The Adventures of Huckelberry Finn as great American novels but for me To Kill a Mockingbird surpasses both.

Still reading. One sentence had over 300 words!

What a lot of reviews on LT. I didn't read them all but I am glad you inspired me to read it. The whaling detail did hold up the action but I didn't find myself skipping passages until very near the end. Waiting all that time for what I knew was the final chapter was quite a feat. The book did make me want to know more about the author and I am surprised that it was a story given to young people to read in the fifties and sixties. I doubt if anyone other than a university student would manage it nowadays.

77: HA! There are university students who can't handle it, they avoid it like the plague if allowed, and will be first in line to complain that they HAD to read it for a class and hated it. It's such a pity...I can't fault the students, I fault the teachers who fail to inspire the readers (I had a good teacher in high school.) Many years ago when I worked at a university bookstore, I'd catch students sniffing around for the Cliff Notes, so I'd scold them for their laziness...at that time I was only a year or two older than they were! Yup, I felt like a nagging old fart before I turned 30. Good grief, I've always been an old soul.

It's a rare few who discover Moby Dick early and even rarer ones who come to it later in life, and I'm really glad you enjoyed your reading of The Whale, it's such a special book.

I just recently picked up a copy of Melville's short works including Billy Budd and Bartleby, it's on my winter reading pile after I finish reading a couple of other things...winter is almost over, my pile is getting smaller. :D

>78 LauraJWRyan: I'll admit to being one of those restless slackers who had difficulty focusing my attention for the length of time needed for "The Whale". Even now, in my 40's, I rely heavily on audio books, and I'm really hoping I'll live to see the helmet gadget that just dumps them into your brain.

I got a volume of Melville's short stories, and was terribly disappointed. The stories didn't include "Billy Budd", but I've wondered if he did anything else that approached the level of Moby Dick?

As has been pointed out, Moby is two (or more) books in one. It's a good novel and an acceptable travel story. The question remains, why did Melville see the need to combine the two?

I'm late to this discussion and just joined the group, but...

My two-cents on Moby Dick (and this coming from Mark Twain's #1 fan): this book is a tough and challenging read, but, if you can do it, well worth the effort. Is it the greatest American novel? Well, not in my opinion, but it is up there. Part of the problem is that parts of it really are stuck in the time in which they are written, which is too bad, because other parts are timeless. One thing I found that rarely, if ever, gets mentioned is that Moby Dick was way funnier than I expected it to be. I thought I was in for 600+ pages of grim seriousness, yet found myself chuckling and even laughing out loud several times. It is a great book and, although maybe not suited for high school curriculum in the 21st century (which is a shame) should still be regarded highly.

Further on Melville, his travel essay on the Enchanted Isles (Galapagos) was OK, Billie Budd is overrated, Typee interesting but not wonderful, Bartleby overrated, and his satirical story on lightning rods heavy-handed. All in my opinion, of course, and I'm sorry I can't recall any others.

But why-oh-why would anyone think his work suitable for high school? Same question re vanity Fair, Romeo and Juliet and many other "classics." The answer, I suppose, is that sex and swearing are minimal, and the tales are old hat to the academics. Not the best way to interest youths in literature, though.

to JNgararya

H'mm. With respect, a couple comments.

In previous eras, revenge was a strong motivator both in real life and in fiction. These were Biblically-influenced societies. The story of a man seeking revenge on the creature who tore his leg off is hardly outlandish fare for story material of any of those timeperiods.

Furthermore, I think that the whale in real life was legendary among real life sailors for its surpassing intelligence and willfulness; it was a whale with personality and attitude. Stuff to set any high-minded man's teeth on edge.

p.s. Peter Benchley's "Jaws" drew from several big themes besides that found in Melville.

#14

Disagree.

Twain is merely the writer who set the standard and starting point for all *modern* American novelists. He'd have been lost in either the period after, or the period before, his heyday. Without a phony society full of all sorts of foibles for him to lampoon, half of his output would go missing. He's a cynic.

'Gatsby' is considered the greatest American novel of the Twentieth Century. Twain kicked off all the generations of writers which resulted in Fitzgerald and Hemingway and Faulkner; all the writers who deal with things like psychology and social schisms and convention and hypocrisy and fraud and falsehood. That's Twain's great contribution, beginning that trend of realism. He's a social writer; everything he writes is firmly bound by pragmatism. But Twain can't write about God or the universe.

Melville is the writer who covers everything else which came before Twain. Melville is the writer who can talk about myth. Melville came up with things on his own, new things; not simply 'skewering' and 'satirizing' what he found in his neighbors. He's got Melville behind him and Fitzgerald after him; so anyone who considers him the greatest is expressing rather a truncated view on two scores.

The pre-Mark Twain era is nothing to sneeze at; it needed a great writer of its own --and it has one in Melville. If we just had Twain, we'd have cynicism, but what's that worth? What imagination is there in being a mere cynic?

You're simply judging Melville disparagingly, because he's not modern and 'smart' enough for you. Twain and the entire tradition he spawned suits you much better; but then don't disparage Melville simply because he isn't to your taste.

Also: its ludicrous to attempt a "great line vs great line" contest between the two authors.

This is a de-railing of a potentially decent, ongoing thread. Making a contest between Twain and Melville is absurd; as if they are in competition(?)

FD

P.s. Note how my tone towards you has changed: I read your earlier post in this thread, with appreciation and compunction--but then, when you start telling people they are 'pseudo-intellectuals' ...you accordingly lost my respect and now I'm simply telling you flat out what I think of your opinions. Just a tip.

Debating about who or what is supposed to be the best strikes me as rather sterile, particularly any references to expert opinion. The ultimate judge of "best" should be: what do I want to re-read, and how many times. Neither Moby nor Huckleberry stand high for me, but for those who like them, more power to you. I've read Franklin's autobiography and Grant's memoirs more than either, assuming you agree with me that memoir should be considered a branch of fiction.

(Twain is) a social writer; everything he writes is firmly bound by pragmatism. But Twain can't write about God or the universe.

I agree that Twain was mostly interested in the parochial human world. But he was a lot broader than US high school curricula would suggest. E.g., The Mysterious Stranger, and the story about the captain who has an extended trip into a hallucination - sort of like Phillip K. Dick, in a way, very epistemological, "Mark Twain Can Remember it for You Wholesale."

He also did religion to good, comedic effect in "Eve's Diary." (Though the ending is bittersweet.)