/lit/ - Literature

>>7120945
fuckin idiot

What an ugly cover

>>7120952
Care to explain why?

>>7120945
I also want to add that usually, with more lengthy books, even if I don't like them I tend to develop a sort of stockholm syndrome for them, but this was not the case for Moby Dick.

Bumping with cheesesticks. Please tell me why I'm wrong, anons. I want to know.

>>7120945
It's subjective. Most people hated Moby Dick when it came out and I don't really blame them. Your criticisms are valid but I happened to enjoy the novel because I get off on that sort of historical stuff and saw it as an interesting take on American history and identity.

I loved it but I won't defend it to someone who's read the whole thing and formed a different opinion.

>>7121087
What I don't get is I've never met anyone who has read it and not loved it. I feel like I'm missing something that everybody else finds blatantly obvious.

>>7121097
All you're missing is good taste.

>>7120945
A reader's opinion of a book is subjective, but Moby Dick is undeniably a great book. I can never approach literature as simply a story told; literature serves as an expression of human endurance and responses toward the world at large, and it's in this way that Moby Dick is written. To say that Melville needed an editor is preposterous--he wrote with complete control and precision and everything in Moby Dick is deliberate. I wouldn't go so far with saying that everything in the book has a point, but it does have a purpose, which is to pose universal questions and exert an effort to explore them if not answer them. Moby Dick is very nuanced and contains passages of fierce irony, all of which serves to express Melville's (and our) preoccupations with humanity and its relationship to the world, the universe, and thought.

Wasn't it serialized kind of like every other lengthy novel of that time period? That would explain the episodic nature of portions of the book and the change in tone depending on what portion of the novel you pick to read.

>>7121097
You might be a dumb fag.

>>7121142
Absolutely fantastic post from start to finish. Whether you like it or not, the book's literary merit is undeniable, although appreciation of it will largely depend on your perception as a reader: Like you said, there are a lot of nuances in the text. Melville's "history of whaling" and whatnot is not useless, should not have been cut out, and does not "take away" from the story; the fact that OP thinks that is stark evidence that he didn't understand the point of the book.

I've found that people either love or hate Moby-Dick. I've also found that people either "get it" or they don't; it also seems that most people who "get it" love it, and I have yet to meet a fan of the book who didn't "get it."

>>7121154
Also this.

>>7121212
I should also add that it's totally possible to be a perceptive reader and not have liked the book; I didn't mean to suggest that if you don't like it, then you're stupid.

>>7120945
Okey OP, it's I didn't like it that much either, which is my opinion. Regardless of my opinion, the book is considered to be America's first great book to represent the American style literature we see today. It has a large historical significance too, but the book is boring as watching a turd in a toilet bowl.

>harvesting whale jizz.

>>7120945
I understand what you're saying. I loved the book in the first half but there was a point where i just couldn't take it anymore and i dropped the book for now. Even though i know it's a great story and written well, i was probably not in the right mindset to finish it then. But probably one day i'll get to the bottom of it and read the whole thing.
Sometimes it's just not the right time to meet a certain book.

>>7121212
What would you say is the point of the book and how is the history of whaling crucial to illustrating it?

>>7121347
You see, you can't think that way, you shouldn't approach the book as having an overall point or thinking it has several concrete points to be made about anything. A part of Melville's genius is utilizing that irony I mentioned earlier. Many passages contain abstract but clear images and ideas which in turn engages the reader to ponder how whaling or whales tell of our humanity.

>>7121363
not tell of our humanity, I mean, but offer insights of it.

>>7121347
But perhaps I can offer a sort of point, which is that our world isn't as concrete as one might think, that life is complex and our relation to the world equally so--there is no black and white in Melville's world, only an ominous gray with multiples ways of looking at it.

>>7121347
The history of whaling gives context and opens up imagination, even creates a mythical dimension to the story, which ultimately will give the active moments more depth and grandeur.

Moby-dick is a researched encyclopedia on one of the largest unexplored aspects of Earth -- the sea -- told through the lens of an immensely talented, passionate writer as much as it a great fictional story of its own.

The book seethes with knowledge and is around 100 years ahead of its time, if not more. It still, even after Joycean modernism, stands up on its own as a work of incredible inspiration.

>>7121347
Take, for example, chapter 32 "Cetology." Why would Melville go out of his way to include such a chapter? I can only offer that there whales, like human beings, are parts of families belonging to genealogies, but there are always differences in each species. Relate this idea to Ishmael's first meeting with Queequeg, two figures of different ethnicity and cultures--they may be different in this respect, but it's their understanding of their own connection as human beings can never be denied.

>>7120945
Gr8 b8 m8.

>>7121363
>>7121365
>>7121371
>>7121376
Sorry, but I still fail to see how 60% of the book being a dry-ass whaling handbook can possibly accomplish any of this. Also, there have got to be better and more interesting ways of doing so. I admit that this may be just me, but I remain wholly unconvinced.

>>7121347
Exactly these:
>>7121363
>>7121365
>>7121371
>>7121376

For example, the chapter ostensibly about the two "laws of whaling" actually touches on the human tendency to impose one's will on others, the conflict which arises between opposing wills, and the danger in not having a will of your own.

I can't remember a single chapter that was only skin-deep; everything had some deeper insight. If you realized this, you were at peace with the "lack of story." If you missed the fact that the narrative was merely Melville's vehicle for his commentary on the human condition, you were probably disappointed by the limited and frankly lacking "plot," as there is almost no action, and the climax of the adventure inhabits very few pages in comparison with the length of the entire text.

>>7121394
It's dry because you think it's about ropes and blubber and men in boats. If you fail to see deeper, really no comments here can change that.

Pick a chapter or two that seems dry. Read it slowly, think on it, and maybe re-read it. Is it really about whaling? How could it connect to humanity? How could it be a metaphor?

If you slow down and reflect, you may be able to appreciate the rich depth of the text. If you're unwilling to attempt this, it's your prerogative yet frankly your rather pitiable fate to walk away from one of the greatest novels ever written, thinking it a "dry-ass whaling handbook," and impelling me and probably a few others in this thread to wonder why you're on a discussion board about literature when you apparently have no interest in anything beyond the surface value of the texts you encounter.

>he isn't entertained by colorful descriptions of whales and whaling and the dangers of rope

It's also a great book to listen to on long drives, the detail allows me to become totally immersed.

>>7120945
>being this pleb

>>7121219
>>7120945
I remember that some parts of this book bored me excruciatingly, especially the Cetology chapter (however, I found the technical descriptions of whaling to be mesmerizing). At the time, I didn't really understand what Melville was doing, and I didn't love the book. Now, I think I understand him better, and I legitimately think this book is the greatest American novel.

As you read, you can tell that the man loved to write, and this delight is infectious. If you can get on his wave-length and enjoy what he's doing as much as he clearly did, you'll have a terrific experience. But you have to be able to share his delight in minutiae, history, and myth.

As a concluding note, I now find the Cetology chapter to be utterly hilarious. It's clearly a lampoon of amateur biology manuals of the day.

You could read a car manual and try to relate it to humanity. The reason you're doing it in this case is that someone told you to.

>>7120945
the retard thought the whale was a fish lmao

>>7121453
terrible analogy, terrible post

>>7121450
>As a concluding note, I now find the Cetology chapter to be utterly hilarious

My favorite bit from that chapter is when Melville suggests that a narwhal's horn must serve a purpose, but he knows not what, and muses that it would probably be useful to the narwhal for turning the pages of books as it reads.

>>7121453
If someone wrote a car manual with obvious intent to comment on human nature, and 150 years later people were still talking about how captivating and insightful that car manual was, and if that car manual was considered the greatest American narrative of all time, I would fucking read that car manual at the very least to see what all the fuss was about. If I didn't understand it, my first conclusion would not be that thousands of people over a century and a half are stupid and the car manual is just about cars, but rather a far more tempered and humble conclusion that there remains a possibility of me not seeing what everyone else is seeing, and I would resolve to take another look, or revisit the car manual once I've grown as a person and a reader.

>>7121453
This. Everything said in this thread sounds like bullshit literary analysis with little bearing on the actual text of the book as it stands. I don't doubt that those sorts of themes can be read from it, but if you have to try that fucking hard, then I feel like the book has failed in its (purported) purpose.

>>7121478
Please enlighten us anon, what was Melville's (purported) purpose in sharing this book with the world?

>>7121489
Fuck, I dunno. That's why I'm asking you guys.

>>7121453
In the hands of good writer, it can be done.

>>7121495
Have you read Moby-Dick? I'm not trying to be an asshole or anything, I just think OP has to be really fucking dumb to think that it's actually about nothing. Pic related is the "whaling law" shit I mentioned earlier (my favorite chapter). I don't know about you, but I didn't have to "try that fucking hard" to see that this chapter was not at all actually about whaling laws.

For context, the two laws are:

I. A Fast-Fish (anything attached by any means to whalers or their instruments) belongs to the party fast to it.
II. A Loose-Fish is fair game for anybody who can soonest catch it.

Does this chapter really strike you as one about "who deserves to take the whale"?

>>7120945
It's a fantasy novel, you tard. Try reading a simpler fantasy novel first, R.A. Salvatore or something.

>>7121535
>thinks Moby Dick is fantasy

oh boy here we go

>>7121347
>What would you say is the point of the book and how is the history of whaling crucial to illustrating it?
'Moby Dick' is a fantasy novel, one of the first fantasy novels written in a modern style. Fantasy novels always feature infodumps and long exposition; this is the 'world building' fantasy fans ramble on about so much.

'World building' is important for three reasons:
a) it pads the book and builds reader immersion
b) it provides much-needed context for exposing the author's philosophical and religious beliefs
c) it's a particularly creative and intricate task, and creative, intricate works are beautiful.

>>7121552
>>thinks Moby Dick is fantasy
It certainly is, it has absolutely all the plot and style elements of a fantasy novel. It was written way before fantasy became a popular style, but that only makes it that much better fantasy.

>>7121579

>>7121535
>>7121565
>>7121579
This fuckin guy

>people still thinking the whaling sections are dry and unrelated
Just... how? It's not like the book's subtle about how they relate to themes or foreshadow plot elements. Practically every bit of whaling knowledge includes something explicitly saying 'people are like this too, y'know'.

RIP /lit/

>>7120945
If you think Moby Dick would still be read without the "lame whaling compendium" your are quite mistaken.

>>7121478
So...because it wasn't easy (for you) to understand, you think it's shit? You must be new to these parts.

>wanting the book to be about dumb shit like Ishmael's feelings
>not realizing it's almost never serious, even when re: whale biology

Anyone else consider Moby Dick to be the pleb barrier of literature? I've yet to meet somebody with good taste who doesn't at least understand Moby Dick.

>>7123107
Agreed. It can be a tough book, but really only if you're stuck with relatively underdeveloped reading skills. It's not that bad.

>>7120945
you don't know anything
your opinion is worthless
you are nothing

>>7121520
I liked the part where he made the analogy about that one wife in the court case being a "loose fish" that her second husband claimed from the first husband by putting his "harpoon" in her.

>>7121347
Thats why you didnt like it. Stop thinking in terms of points. Fuck points. To hell with points. People who obsess with the point of art means they didnt detect anything else with which they identify and find pleasure in because they lack all artistic sense, but they still feel compelled to "like" it becau se they fancy themselves an appreciator of the arts, so they try to project some bullshit abstract summation of the work to justify themselves giving a shit about it when they fucking didnt because they just suck.

>>7123128
I think it might have to do with when someone reads it and how much they've read prior to reading it. I didn't read Moby Dick until I was 26, and though I loved it I probably wouldn't have liked it as much had I read it when I was younger. Part of what makes the book great is just how deep it is and how many different things you can find in it; that's why entire books have been written just about Moby Dick and reading Moby Dick.

>>7121453
>>7121505
In the hands of a good reader, it can be done.

>>7123165
I totally agree. I just read it a few months ago, and was freaked out that I wouldn't understand it. When I wrapped it up, I realized that there was no way I could have appreciated it as well as I did, had I not spent the last year really diving into real literature, slowly becoming more comfortable and more experienced.

>>7120945

>Fun adventure story--no wait, revenge story--no wait, lame whaling compendium--no wait revenge story again--no, definitely lame whaling compendium--oh, this is getting too long,

I'll bite at the purpose of that part (not the fun adventure story/revenge story though, that one's obvious as it is the difference between men's motivations):

It's about trying to understand the indifference and majesty of nature as a human being. He attempts this in numerous ways - cetology, art, history of whaling, etc. He comes no closer to an answer. It basically showcases how every attempt that humanity has made to understand nature in any objective capacity fails. This is just one of the many, many ways Melville tries to showcase the human condition. Couple that with the fact that the whale is white (and I think it is even explicitly mentioned) that this causes the whalers to project their own interpretations onto it. Basic Nietzsche. Again, das ding an sich eludes classification.

I agree the survival of the protagonist seems contrived in the fact that he is the only one that survives, but there's a definite symbolism in it - surviving in a coffin, drifting about in the great undifferentiated for a while, then picked up by the ship that lost her sons earlier, rebirth yadda yadda you know the drill.

>>7123150
I think it's perfectly fair to try and consider the "point" of a book, as surely, at least somewhere along the way, every book has one. Even vaguely. I think Moby Dick stands on a masterpiece on the leg of its aesthetic qualities alone, so to require a peg-leg in the form of a "point" to justify liking it is silly, but I do think you're being a little harsh. Not all books have thesis statements cooked into them. All have 'points'.

>>7120945
philistine tbh

>>7120960
agree

>Beautiful prose
>Allegory
>Risky empathetic theme that undermines religion as divisive dogma

i like it because it's basically the most enthusiastic guy ever telling me all about his favourite thing, and he's very witty and imaginative and engaging. i love that it's all over the place and many things at once; it's like he's trying to describe something and everything from every possible angle. it's so charming. and i love when he goes off on random flights of fancy based on the everyday whaling lore. the cetalogy chapters are scarcely dry, they're hilarious and thought-provoking
i just found it really fucking fun

>>7123229
>>Allegory
Go back to fucking elementary school and learn what the fucking word 'allegory' actually means.

Also this being a fucking elementary school, I hope you get assraped by a smelly old creepy guy.

"[A]n ill-compounded mixture of romance and matter-of-fact. The idea of a connected and collected story has obviously visited and abandoned its writer again and again in the course of composition. The style of his tale is in places disfigured by mad (rather than bad) English; and its catastrophe is hastily, weakly, and obscurely managed"

So, basically, after reading through all the comments in this thread, It looks like most people like the book either because they were told they should or they'd be labeled plebs, or because they just actually like it and can't put their finger on why. Either way, saying the book is good because "hurr durr human nature", or "It's just so good cause it is lol you can't understand because you're a pleb" are both extremely unconvincing arguments. If no one in this thread has been able to get close to articulating why the book is so flawless, then either it's amazing beyond human capacity of explanation, or it's not that great. I'm inclined to think the latter more likely.

>>7123601
lots of people said lots of things they like about the book

Can we just have a meme tetralogy already?

>>7123601
People like the book because it can be read many different ways and the events in the book are representative of the larger struggles of mankind.

As an example, one way of interpreting Moby Dick is that it is a cautionary tale about the dangers of obsessions, and the fact that knowing that something you desire is wrong and self-destructive will not necessarily be enough to prevent you from going after it anyway. By the end of the book Ahab knows that his obsession is harmful, wrong, and will likely result in everyone's death, but that isn't enough to stop him. Likewise, people in life generally commit this same blunder. In our society today we have a preoccupation that an individual should "know themselves," and yet we don't acknowledge that identifying your own problems won't necessarily save you from yourself. Ahab displays—perhaps more than any other literary character—what Freud would refer to as the 'death drive,' which is to say humanity's proclivity for self-destruction.

Of course, this is just one way of reading Moby Dick, and there are many other ways of doing so. Alternatively, you can take the Harold Bloom line of thinking and say that Moby Dick is actually another version of the story of Job. It could also be argued that the Whale is actually just fate, and that Ahab is a fool for attempting to fight against fate—or you could say that the Whale is God (or God's will) and that Ahab is a fool for attempting to impose his own will on God. These are just a few interpretations, and the fact that you didn't seem to find any of them proves you're just a lazy reader.

As for the cetology chapters: the entire point of those chapters is to give the reader an understanding of just how powerful Moby Dick is. For hundreds of pages Ahab & ensemble wander the ocean and we are treated to numerous dialogues explaining both Ahab's obsession and the multiple attempts of his crew members to reason with him, and yet despite all of this Moby Dick destroys Ahab, the ship, and the crew in just a few pages. Just like with a regular human life—which may entail decades of personal education, struggle, and experiences—all effort can be suddenly and swiftly rendered pointless, as people frequently die in stupidly swift and simple ways, and sometimes it seems pathetic to even try to fight against the inevitable or against things that are more powerful than we are, or that which we do not comprehend, just like what Ahab did.

At any rate, read more and maybe try Moby Dick again in a few years when you grow up.

>>7123601

>hurr durr human nature

You're pretty dumb, dude. And everyone is explaining perfectly well why the book is good.

>OMG! I hated it, they like jerk off a whale! XDDD Gross!

Are you one of those?

Once I finish Moby Dick, what's another passionately-written intellectually-driven/informative novel I can read next? Or is Moby Dick on a different level entirely?

>>7121145
No.

>>7123601
>hurr durr human nature

considering this is one of the reasons most people read fiction, it's a pretty standard way to assert the quality of something