I’m going to be honest and say that it probably wasn’t the best to be trying to write about this at around 10:30 PM, but I’m going to go ahead and do my best to break down what I understand and what I’m gathering from both. I’ll start with King purely because it is shorter. Reading about the tale that inspired Melville’s book in the first place doesn’t strike me as entirely horrifying. While it is a scary and unfortunate circumstance that occurred many many years ago, I do not find myself surprised by what has occurred. Human nature is often driven to limits and a breaking point, and it is only “natural” for dire circumstances to occur. Cannibalism thanks to extreme starvation from a lack of available/nutritious food? Yikes! I find the sort of questions that are phrased in a “Would you do this if you had to?” when it comes to scenarios like this are a little unreliable. I personally would obviously never condone or commit the act itself, but in a desperate attempt, I wouldn’t really know how my mind would justify it. If Moby Dick is actually based off of this retelling that includes the horrific nature of whaling back in the day, color me intrigued as boring as I thought the book would be based off of its initial length.
In terms of Emerson’s essay, I like how he puts this specific quote into perspective. “Man is thus metamorphosed into a thing, into many things.” The word thing seems entirely impersonal, a thing could be anything, as repetitive as that sounds. Man itself has evolved, made many advancements, and continues to strive for greater things to this day (at least I hope.) It is no surprise that it makes me think about the intriguing way he frames the way someone thinks about themselves. What purpose does someone have unless it is shaped by the very “things” around them? Ultimately, I do think his essay is something that strives to tell someone to move into action. There are a lot of phrases around there that say the world does not revolve around oneself, but even if it doesn’t, why not take knowledgeable advantages?
Moby-Dick
ECL 522: Fall 2025. Professor Pressman
Hi Dianna. I talked about the extent of human limits a bit in my post; there really is no way to tell or classify the extent a person would go to stay alive. Given the educational history of the characters involved, I would like to assume that societal standards or class standards plays into the morals or actions of the characters; they are working class, they would do practically anything their body could handle to stay alive and support themselves or their family. That being said, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that the instances of cannibalism in Moby Dick are “horrific”, but natural (not to say that cannibalism should be normalized).
Hi Dianna!
Your comment about the openness of “thing” made me think about Emerson’s discussion of Man as a “thing” and his expansive dedication to nature. This is a bit of a reach (but we’re English majors so it’s nothing new), but the sense of introspection in his reflection on Man as an open, sweeping thing reminds me of his same point later on about how vast and critical the natural world is to thinking. In several ways, nature is a collection of millions of things, just as, according to Emerson, Man is a similar collection of millions of valuable contributions and things. It also connects back to his point on how “Man is not a farmer, or a professor, or an engineer, but he is all” (para. 5).
Hi Dianna!
This is a thoughtful and nuanced reflection so thanks for sharing it! You bring up some important points about human nature and the limits people can be pushed to, especially in extreme situations like starvation and survival cannibalism. I agree that those “Would you do this if you had to?” questions are tricky because it’s so hard to predict how anyone would actually respond when faced with unimaginable circumstances. It’s one thing to intellectually understand a desperate act, and another to actually be the one to live it.
Your curiosity about Moby Dick being linked to these harsh realities of whaling adds a fresh perspective. It’s interesting how sometimes a classic book’s reputation for being “boring” can change once you know the gritty, real-life context behind it. That definitely makes me want to keep that in mind when I start the book.
On Emerson, your take on the word “thing” being impersonal but deeply symbolic is sharp. It captures how he’s pointing to how people can lose their individuality or humanity by becoming defined solely by external roles or pressures. And your idea that the essay encourages action while recognizing that the world isn’t centered on the self is a powerful balance. Kind of like take what you can from the world, but don’t assume it’s all about you.
Are you finding yourself more interested in exploring classic literature now, or is this more about connecting the ideas to real human experiences?