Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

In another group we discussed why Melville opened his book with the line "Call Me Ishmael."

Some said it was an indicator that the narrator was hiding something or being duplicitous.

Others said it was Melville trying to evoke the imagery surrounding the biblical figure of Ishmael, an outcast. The bastard son of Abraham, the branch of the semetic peoples destined to be muslims.

Yet others maintained that it was just an introduction, a call for familiarity the way that some Roberts might say "Call me Bob"

I'm curious what others think.

All of the above. And none. Maybe.

Some people approach literature as if the author has a hidden code where a single character or word could be related to a single theme. If only we could figure out the code we would know what the author meant, like a literary version of the Da Vinci code.

And that leads people into sometimes very simplistic "explanations" of a text. This figure is meant to represent death, and this one represents unrequited love and X marks the spot, and so on.

Most authors (or at least most good authors) don't write like that. There isn't a single explanation for a given character or theme. More often the writing is more nuanced with several layers of meaning.

The line "Call me Ishmael" is many things. It is conversational and so prepares the way for a story told in the first person. It hints that we may have an unreliable narrator because we aren't sure if that is his real name or a pseudonym. It suggests the biblical Ishmael.

Melville would almost certainly have known that the line had many interpretations, and that this gives it a richness of meaning. The ambiguity is almost certainly deliberate and not something that we can decode and say for definite that the lines means X or Y.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I just think that by discussing these things we might even encounter interpretations we hadn't thought of.

Some folks here have had a background in literature, others like me come to these things as philistines but are seeking enlightenment.

There is no mystery. That was his name. Don't you want to know the name of the person telling you a story? Don't try to second guess the author or look for meaning which just isn't there. It's a good opening line. Nothing fancy or contrived.

Reinhard wrote: "There is no mystery. That was his name. ..."

The line was not "My name is Ishmael" it's "Call me Ishmael" and there is a ton of subtext in this book if one looks for it. Finding it makes for a richer more meaningful experience.

Classic writers didn't write books at the pace we read them. A LOT of thought went into word choices and hidden meanings.

Reinhard wrote: "There is no mystery. That was his name. Don't you want to know the name of the person telling you a story? Don't try to second guess the author or look for meaning which just isn't there. It's a go..."

Eh? I fear this may not be the book for you sir...it's not just about some chaps that go fishing either.
;)

Reinhard wrote: "There is no mystery. That was his name. Don't you want to know the name of the person telling you a story? Don't try to second guess the author or look for meaning which just isn't there. It's a go..."

Ah, no. Sorry, but no.

It is true that we sometimes look for meanings that aren't there. But in many novels, and certainly in Moby Dick, the author is choosing his or her words carefully and with deliberate meaning.

So when Melville says "Call me Ishmael" and not "My name is Ishmael", he is inviting the reader to speculate why and to wonder whether Ishmael is his real name or not. Quite deliberate.

By all means go through life not looking for hidden meanings. Sometimes you will be right. And on other occasions you will miss details that the author intended and that others picked up.

My impression was that the name Ishmael, real name or not, was chosen for its Biblical connotations, in the same way that Ahab was (and that association Melville mentions outright). Melville's readers would have caught on to it instantly. If the narrator's name were only to conceal identity, it might have been a surname like Stubbs, or Bartleby.

Just my two cents, though...I'd certainly be interested to hear other interpretations.

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "There is no mystery. That was his name. Don't you want to know the name of the person telling you a story? Don't try to second guess the author or look for meaning which just isn't..."

What? It's not about fishing?

Reinhard wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "There is no mystery. That was his name. Don't you want to know the name of the person telling you a story? Don't try to second guess the author or look for m..."


As one troll to another:

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "...As one troll to another:..."

Now wait a minute! You don't catch a whale by fly fishing. And you don't really troll for them either ;-)

Stephen wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "...As one troll to another:..."

Now wait a minute! You don't catch a whale by fly fishing. And you don't really troll for them either ;-)"

Getting back to the main point...you (the reader) shouldn't get too hung up on the significance or lack of it in the opening sentance of this book. The guy is holding out his hand and saying; Hi "my name is Ishmael" - and I'll take his word for it. At face value. The author might want to attach some significance to the name or the way he introduces a character but the author should also realise when he (or she are chewing the end of the pencil) that it might mean nothing to the reader. It might go right over their heads. So, should it be put in? It's a bit like people splattering their book (or film) with "in" jokes. What is the point if the reader is not "in" on the joke. You (the reader) are being excluded by the author because you are not "in" with the right crowd. So why the hell should I read his damn book then?

Reinhard wrote: "You (the reader) are being excluded by the author because you are not "in" with the right crowd. So why the hell should I read his damn book then?"

When he was writing the reading public would have gotten the biblical ref...now folk expect pop culture refs in texts.
Mind you no one seems to have bought it or read it much on publication... :(

From what little I know about him he had a real struggle to get the book published and to judge by some of the comments I've seen people seem to be of the opinion that its a book they wish they could like. Despite my "not getting the biblical ref" (not my fault) I really enjoyed the book but not necessarily for the reasons that the author might have intended. I was gripped by his detailed account of whaling; supplying the ship, all the tools and equipment and what everybodies job was and the day to day chores and grind of being on board a whaler.
Have you read Ulysses? That's another whopping great novel full of references that I didn't get mostly because I'm not Irish, Catholic or born and breed in Dublin. And there were lots of references in that book (and "in" jokes) that wouldn't mean anything to someone living in 2015. I think writers should make a bit more of an effort to "draw people in" when they make a biblical or historical etc reference.

Reinhard wrote: " I think writers should make a bit more of an effort to "draw people in" when they make a biblical or historical etc reference."

I think that to fully get all the "in jokes" or contemporary (for the time of writing) refs then you need to be familiar with the period and culture a book was written in.
But to enjoy a book in a more general way I don't think this is necessary.
Also, I think the thing that makes a book a "classic" is that while this knowledge may enhance the reading experience, the book still speaks to the reader without it.
You mention Ulysses and I agree with your points, I also think that the reading of it with a knowledge of The Odyssey would be a different experience from reading it with no knowledge of Homer or classical myth. Yet its mythologizing of the mundane is still evident in the text.

Another point: as the text was written a fair wee while ago and Herman Melville could not foresee the future I don't think he could have made "a bit more of an effort to "draw people in" when they make a biblical or historical etc reference."
But there is hope!
The Norton Critical edition or the Penguin Classics one both have excellent notes that explain many biblical/mythological/nautical terms.

Reinhardt - so now you've gone from claiming that there is no meaning to "Call me Ishmael" to saying that there might be a meaning but the author should have explained it better?

That's not really how fiction works. When an author writes a sentence like "Call me Ishmael" they will generally be aware that their readers will have a number of reactions to that sentence. There is a biblical reference which most of his contemporary readers would have understood. It is also (possibly) the main character's name. It hints at an unreliable narrator. There is a familiar touch by asking the reader to do something.

In other words, it's a multi-purpose sentence. It is almost certainly deliberately ambiguous. There is also a layer of unconscious meaning. All authors write in their time. Without realising it, we add meaning and emphasis which reflects the time that we live in. Hence Melville including a biblical reference. We could hardly expect him to future proof his book by explaining every reference that a possible future reader might struggle with.

When we read a book we have a choice about how to perceive it. At the simplest level we can focus purely on how the book makes us feel. Did we enjoy it and/or understand it. This is literature as a consumer product.

At a deeper level we can try to understand what the author wanted to say and to appreciate the meanings and images - both deliberate and unconscious. Here we need to avoid the trap of thinking that a novel is a code with one meaning and one meaning only for each name, event, character. This is literature as a shared experience - the reader getting closer to the writer.

Then we can look at a book as a snapshot in time. Moby Dick was written in 1851. Some of the human emotions and customs haven't changed between then and now, but some have. Understanding that will help us to get more out of the experience of reading. This is literature as an exercise in history.

How much of this do you need to do when you read a book? As much or as little as you want. If you don't want to know about the biblical Ishmael, then just skate right on by. Treat it as a factual discovery channel book about whaling if that is what works for you.

But please don't try to tell the rest of us that there is no meaning to Ishmael or that Melville should have done this or that. The best writing is multi-layered. We can either appreciate those multiple layers or we can choose not to.

Oh come on!...Why not say "there is no meaning to Ishmael" or that "Melville should have done this or that"? "that opening sentance meant nothing to me". Should I read the bible before staring to read Moby Dick? Shouldn't a writer ask...why am I writing this and who am I writing it for? People "in the know" or everybody? How does lierature become a shared experience? It's when you realise you are reading a book you wish you had written.

You seem to be implying (and I apologise if this is not the case) that books should all be written so that everyone understands them no matter who they are or what their social, educational, or temporal background is.
If this is indeed what you are saying I have to disagree.
I don't think an author necessarily owes anything to a reader (this works both ways though)...they may owe something to a publisher though. By that I mean mass market fiction will always be different from "literary" fiction (I don't like this term myself). With regards to Herman Melville he wrote in a very different way to the hacks that produced much of the (now forgotten, though I'm sure enjoyable enough at the time) fiction of the period.

Reinhard - Herman Melville wasn't writing Moby Dick just for you. He was writing it for his readers at the time (1851). They would have been far more knowledgeable about the bible than we are. The reference would have made perfect sense to them.

It's a bit like an author writing a book today and making a reference to the Beatles or Elvis Presley or JFK. That reference would work now but readers in 200 years time readers could need footnotes.

But imagine how tedious it would be if every book had to explain every single cultural reference just so someone in 150 years time would understand it. That would make books very dull for readers right now.

So, no, we can't say that the line has no meaning because it almost certainly does. You don't have to read the bible before reading Moby Dick, but you will get more out of Moby Dick if you do refer to the footnotes. Or google the bits you don't understand.

This is the same with every single book that has ever been written. Sooner or later every book gets out of date. It will include technology or cultural references that a future audience will not understand. That isn't the writer's fault. It is simply the passage of time.

Try reading Shakespeare. Or Chaucer in the original Middle English. Or Beowulf in Old English. Or the Iliad. You will come across words that you don't understand, customs that seem strange, biblical and classical references that you don't know.

Or are you going to tell us that Shakespeare should have written in modern English and explained every image, cultural reference, simile or metaphor? Should we criticise Shakespeare for not anticipating the level of knowledge of readers 500 years after he wrote the plays?

The bottom line - old books are harder to read than new books because they were written for a different age. This means the reader has to do more work to get as much out of those books as their original readers did.

It's not the author, it's you.

OK.... I've heard enough about whether authors should writing with future readers' ignorance in mind.

I'm more curious about looking FOR additional meanings in the literature I read, whether it's Melville's intent in the opening line "Call Me Ishmael" or whether it's why J.K. Rowling called Dumbledore's phoenix Fawkes.

BTW... Reinhardt, that's a historical/cultural reference as well. One that many miss.

so... other than the three that I mentioned in the opening post, does anyone have any other insights into "other" things that might be implied by this line?

And any thoughts on my other post? The one about Melville's naming two chapters the same thing? (Knights and Squires)

Regarding the "Call Me Ishmael" opening, to me it's like the way Seamus Heaney starts his translation of Beowulf: A New Verse Translation with "So".
It is like an attention grabber, it also seems to quickly dispose of the identity of the narrator in a careless way, it also hints at the outcast/wandering nature of this character (by way of biblical ref which is later backed up in the text).

By "careless way" I mean he says "call me" rather than "I am"...his identity is not necessarily his given name.
Is it his shipboard nickname?
(I crewed with a chap called "18"...from 18 months...because he had half an ear missing...ear and a half/year and a half=18 months. My point is what he is called and what his name is are not necessarily the same thing. Herman Melville had spent long enough at sea to be wise to this.)
Also, the unreliable narrator thing...as this is possibly a huge "fisherman's tale" with the mythology that may imply and as many readers may have known the fate of the crew of the Essex which the tale is based on, he may have wanted his real identity kept secret.

Good points. I'd add in that it's a familiar conversational phrase. It sounds like two people sitting in an inn sharing a story. That helps to set up the narrator's character.

A bit off topic but have any of you seen this story about how some whales living today were probably around when Melville published his book?



I had no idea that whales had this kind of lifespan. Funny how that lifespan thing was NOT one of the many facts about whales that he writes about...

Will wrote: "Reinhard - Herman Melville wasn't writing Moby Dick just for you. He was writing it for his readers at the time (1851). They would have been far more knowledgeable about the bible than we are. The ..."

I've met so many people who dislike reading because:
a) It's just fiction and made up.
b) not relevant. It all happened a long time ago.
c) I don't need to read the book...I've seen the film.
And ok it's all my fault. But how does that help Melville or Shakespeare in the long run if in the end no one reads their stuff anymore because it's "too hard"?

Melville and Shakespeare are dead. They made money in their lifetimes selling books/ writing plays for people who wanted to read the books or see the plays. Not so much money in Melville's case.

If you want to appreciate a writer from another age (or another culture) then to get the full benefit you will need to make some adjustment for the age or culture that they were writing in.

If you can do that, you'll get enjoyment out of the wealth of literature that is available to us. If you can't, well there's always the next Avengers movie.

Either way, I don't think Herman Melville or William Shakespeare will mind. They're still dead. And there are plenty of people who can make that adjustment and who can enjoy the classics just fine, thank you very much.

Reinhard wrote: "And ok it's all my fault. But how does that help Melville or Shakespeare in the long run if in the end no one reads their stuff anymore because it's "too hard"?"

I'm sure I smell troll...

Reinhard wrote: "...I've met so many people who dislike reading because:
a) It's just fiction and made up.
b) not relevant. It all happened a long time ago.
c) I don't need to read the book...I've seen the film.
And ok it's all my fault. But how does that help Melville or Shakespeare in the long run"

First, No one here is suggesting that reading them is for everyone. A large percentage of the American population is alliterate (those who can read but choose NOT to) To each his own. Personally I think Professional Baseball is a waste of time but I'm not on a sports site advocating that players should be forced to wear clown masks or something. That would make me a troll.

For those that DO enjoy reading the masters (and I think we can agree that Melville and Shakespeare are acknowledged masters of their craft) GoodReads is a place where we can discuss what we read and seek deeper meanings that we may miss on our own.

and as to your specific points...

a) It's just fiction and made up. - True but often more "real" truth can be gleaned from a fictional story than from reality. If you disagree you're free to go back to watching "the Jersey Shore" or whatever reality program floats your boat. BTW... Jesus used parables in his teaching. Stories that contained deeper truths (whether the event described happened or not) And last I heard there are a LOT of folks that think he was a good teacher.

b) not relevant. It all happened a long time ago. -
So did the Big Bang but people still find it fascinating and enjoy reading about it.

c) I don't need to read the book...I've seen the film. Most folks will tell you that film and print are very different media. Those that take the time generally say that the reading experience is more rewarding than the film experience. Of course there are exceptions and they vary from person to person, so if you enjoyed the movie more than the book, that's fine. But obviously it's NOT a reason to not write the book.

And Yes, I'm classing Reinhard among the trolls at this point but I could be wrong.

Reinhard wrote: "...because it's "too hard"?"

I don't think everything needs to be easy.
Even things people enjoy as recreation can be hard work.
The view from the hill can balance the work of the climb.

Will wrote: "If you can't, well there's always the next Avengers movie..."

And yet, to fully get all the in-jokes and subtext in the film you need to be familiar with the other films in the series and ideally with the Marvel back catalogue.
Same with many things...sport: more enjoyable if you know the team and the league...whisky: how is your palate/nose...soap opera: know the back stories etc...
I find that if I'm reading something outside my time or culture then an edition with notes helps...not big expositions and spoilers, just short explanations of the context etc to enable a better understanding of the period or culture the text was composed in and therefore helping me with in-jokes, biblical refs etc.

Call me Ishmael rather than I am Ishmael or My name is Ishmael is a clue to the reader on a theme of the novel. It is explicated by Ahab later in his pasteboard mask speech. He contends reality and appearances are Pasteboard Masks that he wants to peirce. To penetrate this "reality" to the mystery of what lays beyond or behind it. Call me Ishmael lets the reader know that is not his real name, there is a bit of a mystery of who Ishmael truly is. Is he Melville? Melville being the God of the universe contained in the novel Moby Dick? Ishmael his mask?

It's a cute theory, but I'm not convinced. With a few exceptions we shouldn't read the classics as if they are a hidden code that has to be figured out. Authors generally play with ambiguity and double meanings more than hidden meanings.

Ishmael may or may not be the narrator's real name.

This is not the Da Vinci Code or National Treasure where a hidden meaning can be worked out.

The purpose of the opening sentence in any story or book is to get the reader's attention. From that viewpoint, it's likely one of the most successful lead sentences in all of modern literature. Perhaps the only exception is (jokingly) Snoopy in the Peanuts comic strip when he pens: It was a dark and stormy night.

I've been writing professionally for more than half a century and, admittedly, have yet to write an opening sentence remotely as memorable or powerful. It's a WHALE (pun intended) of a lead sentence. Were it not for that lead sentence, would Herman Melville's work have been nearly as successful -- I think not. While a marvelous writer, even Charles Dickens Tale of Two Cities lead falls a distant second due to length and being a run on sentence -- yet, it remains a masterpiece of craftsmanship. Once read, who can forget the first phrase: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "And ok it's all my fault. But how does that help Melville or Shakespeare in the long run if in the end no one reads their stuff anymore because it's "too hard"?"

I'm sure I smell ..."

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "And ok it's all my fault. But how does that help Melville or Shakespeare in the long run if in the end no one reads their stuff anymore because it's "too hard"?"

I'm sure I smell ..."

Will wrote: "Melville and Shakespeare are dead. They made money in their lifetimes selling books/ writing plays for people who wanted to read the books or see the plays. Not so much money in Melville's case.

..."

Stephen wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "...I've met so many people who dislike reading because:
a) It's just fiction and made up.
b) not relevant. It all happened a long time ago.
c) I don't need to read the book...I've ..."

Don't be impertinent. Go home if you want to and take your ball with you.

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "And ok it's all my fault. But how does that help Melville or Shakespeare in the long run if in the end no one reads their stuff anymore because it's "too hard"?"

I'm sure I smell ..."

Yes, you are wrong. This is a public forum so don't forget your manners.

Let's try to keep it civil, eh?

Each of us will get a different amount of value from a particular book. As they say on the internet, your mileage may vary.

And everyone is entitled to their opinions. Some people will like a book, others will hate it. That doesn't necessarily make it a good book or a bad book.

We are all entitled to our opinions about whether we like a book or not. That opinion is personal to each of us. No-one can climb inside our heads and try to second-guess our opinions.

Where we slip into trollish behaviour is when someone tries to force their opinion on everyone else. Or says something deliberately provocative and/or obtuse which begs a challenge.

You may not be a troll, but you are certainly behaving like one. Trolling may have been mildly amusing in the early days of the internet, but it's as boring as hell these days. We've seen it all before.

Reinhard wrote: "Don't be impertinent. Go home if you want to and take your ball with you..."

Sir, defend your arguments.
If the challenging of your views is deemed "impertinent" then maybe you should keep them to yourself...by airing them you leave them open to criticism. If you do not wish them criticised then don't put them out there.

Reinhard wrote: "Yes, you are wrong. This is a public forum so don't forget your manners..."

Public forum means all opinions can be expressed...not that all opinions are equally valid. They will be forced to prove themselves against other opinions and ideas.

As to manners? If your gentle soul has been offended at any point may I suggest that the interweb and "public forums" are not the place for you to express opinions as the comments made above are positively gentle compared to the web in general.

I was impressed by the spinsterish way you called me out though: "Don't be impertinent"; " don't forget your manners."
I heard them in the stylee of Miss Jean Brodie (as done by Dame Maggie Smith).

What is it they say about trolls and not feeding them?

Will wrote: "What is it they say about trolls and not feeding them?"

Sorry...I shall back away...
I shall also apologise for the ad hominem response to Reinhard.
It was a cheap shot.

Will wrote: "All of the above. And none. Maybe.

Some people approach literature as if the author has a hidden code where a single character or word could be related to a single theme. If only we could figure o..."
Yeah, I think so too. All & none. We can't know without asking Melville. I suspect that he intended to employ more than one meaning to the opening line, and it has been considered one of the most memorable lines in an English novel. First, it implies that the narrator's name is not Ishmael, but that he associates himself with Ishmael. It evokes the dark old testament Bible ethos which pervades the book, and at the same time invites the reader to assume a relaxed, casual relationship with the narrator's tale.

Well said Kenneth!

I was a business major in college and went to a small public high school and a state university. I wasn't exposed to literature and the arts in the same way that others with a more sophisticated education were. Decades later I still feel like I'm "catching up" a bit but am finally in the frame of mind to contemplate some of these things more.

Hence my interest in this and other literary questions.

What about the extracts and the very beginning of the book?... I'd guess they count as the beginning of the book rather than Ishmael's introductory narration in chapter one...
Whether or not you agree with me... What does every think of the extracts? Do they add or subtract from the book itself?

I think there is a definite allusion to the biblical figure in as much as the allusion of the wilderness and the miraculous escape of both.

Oh goodness, people. No need to fight over this. It's obviously a reference to the bible and a slight hint at an unreliable narrator.

When I was a child in my one-room school in the Ozarks, my teacher went on and on about his college lit teacher who spent a whole week discussing "Call me Ishmael." I was in the fifth grade, and I see Mr. Inman's remarks as the beginning of my interest in literary fiction.

I'm sure that the opening line is a deliberate allusion. Biblical passages meant a lot more to literate people at the time than appears to be the case today. Calling to mind the Ishmael and Isaac story was deliberately used for sure. It might possibly have been intended to show that the narrator character is cast out into a dangerous world partly because of his own actions. That it continues to spur interest and discussion makes it a stroke of genius.

By the way, having a vigorous discussion (without rancor) is not fighting. It's communication between minds and worlds.

A.R. wrote: " ...having a vigorous discussion (without rancor) is not fighting. It's communication between minds and worlds."

Agreed! (or if you go for the biblical allusions, Amen!)

If you don't think books can spawn meaningful discussions check out this thread. It covers the meaning of life and everything else.

/topic/show/...

I tend to think that the allusion to the bible is a central part of the book. invoking the nomadic life of both and their miraculous escapes is too obvious to be a coincidence, the question that arises for me that by the end of the book was melville prophesising? Ishmael being the only one who escapes...the man whose branch of people was destined to be muslims....?

I was working on a theory while reading, that Ishmael is a fugitive who went on his voyage to escape justice. The sermon he hears before setting sail is about Jonah being a fugitive, “Call me Ishmael� implies that it might not be his real name, and Ahab tells him his desire to go whaling “looks a little suspicious� and then suggests that perhaps Ishmael robbed his last captain or thinks of murdering the ship’s officers. Furthermore, Ishmael reports a history of digging ditches (something that prisoners do for labor), and he admits that “pausing before coffin warehouses� and “bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet� are signals to him that it’s time to escape to the sea. I think this all adds up to a decent case.

Or it could just be that Ishmael was a “fugitive� in the same way that Jonah was, according to the sermon Ishmael hears, in that Jonah did not obey God’s will. Perhaps it’s simply that Ishmael hasn’t fully surrendered to the flow of life but comes to do so aboard the Pequod. It could also be that Melville names the narrator Ishmael to bring Islam into his theme about the role of faith (or religion) in man’s life. In chapter 17 (The Ramadan), we read, “Heaven have mercy on us all—Presbyterians and Pagans alike—for we are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly need mending.� If anyone reading this has seen a theory about this anywhere, please share. My initial online research didn’t turn up anything.