Of Ott Paradoxes

I voiced in class on monday the idea that Ott was speaking, at most, of mere contradictions and, at least, unimportant tensions. As such, I was contending that the use of the term 'paradox' was incorrect. We settled the issue by claiming that ascribing contradictory discriptors to a single entity would constitute a paradox. What we missed was a line on page 28, a line that should have been articulated on page 1: "Melville's important contribution to both the novel's theme and structure is this counterbalancing of opposing tensions - what I have called paradoxes" (28). So a paradox, stipulated by Ott is merely an opposing tension. This is an understanding of this essay and of Melville that is more satisfactory to me. Properly, again, she ought to have mentioned this from the start and not more than half way through her paper, but it is revealing nonetheless.