Chapter 9

I found while rereading Moby Dick this last time, a new fascination with Chapter Nine: The Sermon. I wonder what role the preacher and, more importantly, the sermon plays in the narrative. Two lines in particular stuck out to me.

The first was the last lesson the sermon was supposed to teach: "To preach the truth to the face of Falsehood." This echos somewhat one of the things Melville bemoaned in a letter to Hawthorne: that writers cannot tell the truth to their readers and expect success. One possibility was that this was Melville injecting some of his preference into the story through this sermon.

The second was the idea that Jonah thought his punishment just and was grateful for it. The idea of being grateful for punishment is rather alien, but on further reflection, punishment, when effectively employed can serve as an educational tool. The punishee may not be grateful at the time but they may be in the future. Jonah understood his actions were wrong and thus the punishment did not anger him. It is a lesson we all could learn and be better for.

I'm interested; what role do you think the sermon played in the narrative?

Ishmael as Reformed

Sarah Ott describes Ishmael as a conservative puritan. While Ishmael does identify himself as a puritan, I think there are numerous textual references that stand as significant evidence against his conservatism.

Ismael once prays, with Queequeg, to an Idol. This is a charitable interpretation of the bible, not a hallmark of a conservative christian.

In reference to Queequeg, Ishmael, on page 57 says: "I'll try a pagan friend, thought I, since Christian kindness has proved but hollow courtesy." Not only does he willingly befriend a pagan, but the self critical view of Christianity is almost exclusively not a quality found in a conservative.

Again, near the beginning of chapter seventeen, Ismael decides not to interrupt Queequeg's Ramadan because Christians ought not disturb anyone's manner of worship and that Christians ought not feel religiously superior to any others. Such religious superiority is certainly often the viewpoint of conservative Christians.

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.