Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Marian wrote: "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 read..."

Makes sense.

From a brief essay I wrote in university:

"The immediate reaction to this sentence is to appreciate its efficiency. In only a few words the reader is introduced to the narrator in an informal and conversational tone separate from the actual narrative content. Ishmael does not waste any time in ensuring that the reader knows who he is before he can get on with telling the story, setting aside this brief introduction before anything else occurs. The brevity of this introduction however does not hide importance that Ishmael places on introducing himself and if anything, highlights it. This immediate reference to the self seems to indicate that Ishmael as a narrator is going to be deeply concerned with his own personal details and circumstances and how they will relate to the larger story rather than simply painting the action of the novel in broad strokes. The inclusion of his name in the early pages of the novel is not strictly necessary for the plot to move forward, yet it does occur, placed prominently in the very first line. In many novels written from the first-person perspective, the name of the narrator is not given until someone else speaks it, and even then, it is generally inconsequential. Ishmael’s narrative however begins with a personal introduction, suggesting that he feels the reader has something to gain by knowing to call him Ishmael prior to learning of the plot.
It is important to make the distinction between the narrator telling the reader to call him Ishmael, as he does, rather than simply stating that his name is Ishmael. This could simply be written off as grasping at straws, as simply the author’s personal preference, however, given the immense complexity and subtlety with which the rest of the novel is written, there is no reason to think that the opening line is any less complex and subtle. By asking the reader to call the narrator Ishmael rather than asserting that that is his given name, it allows for a hint of doubt as to the identity of the narrator. It also is the first clue that Ishmael may not be a completely reliable narrator, a detail that then colors the rest of the novel and the reader’s subsequent interpretation. If the narrator is willing to change such miniscule details about the story as his own name, then what else could he be willing to fabricate? And, if the narrator has changed his own name, and has placed his name as the entry point into the plot, then it invites the question of why? The answer to this question may lie in the origin of the name Ishmael.
In a novel of biblical proportions and depth like Moby-Dick, the inclusion of references to ancient works and in particular the Bible, is not an especially surprising detail. Like many authors before him Melville draws upon the classics to complexly layer his work granting it an epic feel in both scope and tone. According to Jewish and Christian tradition, Ishmael is the son of Abraham but not the son of Abraham’s wife, Sarah. He was conceived by Abraham and Hagar, one of his servants, at a time when Sarah was thought to be unable to bear any children. Unfortunately for Ishmael however, after his birth, Sarah becomes pregnant with Isaac. After the birth of Isaac, Abraham banishes Ishmael and his mother from the tribe and sends them into the wilderness where they are protected by God until they can make it to safety. It is likely no coincidence that the name of the narrator alludes to this story, as great parallels can be drawn between the biblical Ishmael and the Ishmael of Moby-Dick, especially given that Melville has already referenced the Bible in the earlier Etymology and Extracts section that prefaces the narrative. The Ishmael of the novel, like the Ishmael of the Bible, is a wanderer psychologically separated from the rest of the community. At the start of the novel he is without a place to stay and is forced to visit multiple lodgings before he can find one that he finds acceptable to stay in. He is destined it would seem to embark upon a dangerous journey into the wild and face the uncertainty of nature. He portrays his need to embark on a sea voyage not as a personal preference, but as the only option. He must go to sea and face whatever dangers it holds. However, because Ishmael is in fact narrating the novel, the reader knows that he will survive whatever misfortunes befall the Pequod and its crew, so like biblical Ishmael, he is led from the wilderness back to safety."

I read that Ishmael was actually the white whale himself. Basically, the theory is that no human could have realistically survived the sinking of the Piquod, and that the entire tale is an indictment of the whaling industry as told from the eyes of a whale.

This is no doubt a controversial opinion, but well supported by the literature. Many curious bits of the story are explained by this interpretation.

Cole wrote: "From a brief essay I wrote in university: ..."

Read and like your post a lot. The idea that Ishmael (and his mother) had been protected by God after being cast out was one that hadn't occurred to me. I'd only ever taken it as far as seeing him claim the name of an outcast.

I also caught onto the idea that saying "Call Me Ishmael" rather than saying his name WAS in fact Ishmael was an indication that he was telling a tale in which some parts may not be entirely factual.

Stephen wrote: "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 ..."Ishmael was driven into the desert to wander without a country and a home. Melville would have had a strong biblical background. It’s a wonderful metaphor

I think it just sounded really cool, and that's why he did it. How many times have you been searching for a catchy opening line and thought something had a great sound to it? For me, it's just a really neat-sounding line, and I think he liked it.

It's actually very simple. It means hang on to your hat, we are in for a hell of a ride. It's meant to give one a distinct feeling of unease in the pit of the stomach. By the way, the main original story that gave Melville the idea for the book is a truly horrifying tale, that's for sure, it begins with a harpooned whale sinking the ship. It ends in the survivors eating each other. The worst part is the survivors could have landed in the Marquesas Islands but refused to, believing the locals were Cannibals. The absolute irony is the the people of those islands weren't Cannibals at all. The other inspiration is in fact, about an actual albino Sperm Whale. Either way, it's one of my all time favourite books, with, in my opinion, the best opening line of any book in English.

Mark wrote: "It's actually very simple. It means hang on to your hat, we are in for a hell of a ride..."

And this is a hell of discussion. I asked this question almost a decade ago. I'd pretty much forgotten about and just read through the thread. I think that it's been interesting to see how folks reacted to the question.