One of the most interesting aspects of this book is the ever changing relationship between man and the whale. In my last post, I discussed Queequeg as being symbolic of the whale because of how he’s described with animalistic qualities. However, this statement goes both ways, meaning that the whale has humanistic qualities. It’s hard to hate something for simply being, especially if there is an innate relatability, connection, or understanding towards the creature. So far in the narrative, the whale has been depicted as a fearsome foe, a monstrous beast, but in the later chapters, this notion is challenged. Instead of viewing the whale as a malicious beast, the main character calls to question the innocent nature of the animal. This point is emphasis when he is talking to the ship’s captain, who retells the story of how he lost his leg, and in response he says;

“What you say is no doubt true enough sir; but how could I know there was any peculiar ferocity in that particular whale, though indeed I might have inferred as much from the simple fact of the accident” (80).  

 This vocalized plea of the whale’s innocence shifts the whale’s actions from being the perpetrator of evil to a victim of self-defense against capitalistic ventures. The whale did not attack without provocation, it was being hunted by whalers and responded accordingly to its survival. It’s in all our nature to have self-preservation. By having Ishmeal point this out to the captain shows that he doesn’t share these same opinions about the whale. He is recognizing that this is a living being, much like himself. Ishmeal’s ability to empathize with the whale humanizes the creature. Expanding our precious preconceived notions about the whale. Whereas in the previous chapters he’s a leviathan, in this particular moment, the whale is just an innocent animal trying to survive.