Hey everyone,
I wasn’t sure if I was the only one struggling to read Emoji-Dick in black and white, but I found a complete PDF in color for your viewing pleasure. I double checked and made sure that y’all should be able to access the link.
I hope it helps!
-Kit Jackson
In “The Anatomy of Melville’s Fame,” O.W. Riegel presents the facts around the reception of Melville’s Moby Dick by the world of literary critics, these figures that hold so much power in their relatively anonymous positions simply with their opinions. A section of the article I found particularly interesting was in page 3, where Reigel is specifically discussing the reception of the British critics when the novel was first published. He writes, “They tested Moby Dick by the canons of unity, coherence and emphasis and found it wanting…Ill feeling, national pride, and a patronizing attitude toward America help to explain the severe condemnation by the English of Melville’s ‘Yankeeisms’ and ‘Go-ahead method.'” This discussion of the so called “canon”, an ever-elusive concept and yet the thing we use to judge the value of every work of art, captured my attention. This book is a prime example of the fact that the goal posts are always changing, however gradually, on what is “valuable” or “good” art, and that the standard is dependent on the subjective perceptions of a small but powerful group of people. This is true not only of art, but of societal structures and norms throughout history. In this case, the British held the power of determining the standard in western literature, and we can see that their judgement stemmed from a sort of prejudice against Americans. This simple ill feeling caused them to discredit the rich work of art we now recognize Moby Dick to be. It was also the fact that the novel was experimental that added to their reasons to devalue it. The “canons of unity, coherence and emphasis” were simply aspects that at the time people had decided represented a “good” novel, and they are all aspects that notably favor a type of consistency in narrative. It is the novel going against this pre-established order and Melville daring to do something new and different that rubbed critics the wrong way. It is not uncommon for things that challenge the status quo or are considered different to produce a negative reaction from the powers that be, a reaction that stems from a type of fear. It reminds me of Emerson’s quote in his essay “Self Reliance,” where he comments that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” It is this stubborn way of clinging to consistency that kept society from recognizing the value in Melville’s Moby Dick for a long time, but ironically, it is now what keeps it a part of the so-called canon of literature, and where I expect it will stay for many decades to come.
The criticism that was given towards Melville’s works differed by country, with English critics focusing on Melville’s stylistic choices while American critics rejected much more aspects of his works. I thought this was so interesting in relation to the hype Moby Dick gets as being the ‘Great American Novel’. There is definitely pride nowadays in Moby Dick and the fact it centers America, even if it is a critique on the events happening during Melville’s time.
It was also interesting to think about why certain works are popular and valued during certain time periods, obviously Melville was critiquing much of the way the United States functioned, e.g. slavery, amongst his critiques against capitalism and tyranny. It makes sense that people did not like it at this time because it was not something most people were willing to see about their own society and taking accountability for their roles in perpetuating everything Melville critiques. In reading this week’s readings, I definitely got the impression that literature is reflective of people and it’s important to ask ourselves what types of literature, or in a modern sense media, is being popularized and valued. More importantly, it’s important to ask ourselves what types of works are being ignored or hated, is it because people cannot admit that they see themselves in the things being called out? It’s not an easy ask for people to do, but after taking this class and learning about the journey of Moby Dick going from an ignored novel to a masterpiece I think it’s essential to question what we see when we consume popular literature/media today and what we see when we come across ignored works.
Reading the article “Melville Reborn, Again and Again,” nothing particularly stood out to me. I read the entire piece, reflected on the points that Wills made, and then moved on. However, the end made me curious:
“…O.W. Riegel (1903-1997) was renowned as an expert on propaganda who amassed a world-class collection of propaganda posters over his long life.”
Why was a renowned expert on propaganda focused on Moby Dick? Was there any aspect of the novel that leaned into propaganda or served as a vessel in some way?
The novel was written as a response to Emerson’s call for American national identity. Melville writes, in significant detail, about the dying art of the whaling industry. It is through Melville’s work that the American whaling industry and its success are encapsulated in time and can be meticulously recreated through his meticulous detailing. While propaganda experts obviously have other interests and topics they focus on, this made me wonder about the connections between Melville’s depiction of American identity and propaganda. As members of this course and students who closely read every single critique and subtle sociopolitical commentary, we understand the many radical positions that Melville took throughout the 624 pages of Moby Dick, but to others, who take this novel at face value or entirely miss the not-so-subtle jabs at the American political system, could the novel be taken as American propaganda?
Personally, I started by saying, “No way, it is not American propaganda,” but then I thought about it a little more. The Pequod represents American identity, with a strict hierarchy of order and authority. While one could argue that the hierarchy of the Pequod represents a democracy focused on diversity, propaganda doesn’t have to be accurate in any sense. Still, it does have to portray the primary focus in a positive light. This is a fantasy realm that stars a fake sense of American unity, both politically and socially. Additionally, Ahab’s complex character could portray the ideal American identity, one that prioritizes individuality and ambition over reason, almost a romanticization of transcendence and vision. He’s mythocal, he’s so unbelievable and mysterious that he seems made up, yet he exists entirely as himself.
Even after these reflections, I was still doubtful that it could function as American propaganda until I considered what propaganda truly is. Propaganda doesn’t have to end with a win for the intended country, but it’s based on the myth of the cultural ideals and suggestions. Moby Dick could be argued to be a piece of cultural propaganda just as much as someone could say that it isn’t. While I was initially quick to shut the idea down, the more I think about it, the more it grows.
What struck me from this week’s reading was from The Anatomy of Melville’s Fame. Riegel mentions on page 200 that the recent revival of Moby Dick has been in the context of modern psychology and philosophy. He goes on to discuss debates over whether Melville is a conscious or unconscious writer, which I think is an interesting topic. This is something I’ve considered a lot; how much of creative work is conscious effort toward an idea/motif/lesson etc, versus how much is a projection of the subconscious. These ideas of the conscious and subconscious are popular in psychology (partially why this part interests me so, since psychology is my major), and are often discussed in many other classes in regards to biology, philosophy etc. However, none of these ideas were strongly present when Melville wrote this book, and I always wonder how much of books are purposefully written in a historical context. It seems Melville did write with intention in some chapters (like Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish), yet others are just abstract ideas of the ocean. Yet, from these chapters too, we can glean insight into Melville, or the political state of the U.S. at the time. This also makes me wonder how Melville wanted this book to be read. Did he write this as a political commentary? Did he write it as a love letter? This type of context would influence the conscious versus unconscious debate; if written as political commentary then perhaps all about Hawthorne is irrelevant. But if written as a love letter (since it is dedicated to Hawthorne), then what is the context of all the political commentary? Even then, is all of this analysis necessary? I think most writers don’t write to have their own lives analyzed, it is the book they want read, not themselves. Yet who a person is makes a book all the more interesting. So should we read this novel as a conscious, intentional novel? Or as a subconscious, projective novel? Does it matter, if we are just projecting our own selves onto the writing?
While reading through “Melville Reborn, Again and Again” by Matthew Wills, I was fascinated to learn of the perspectives and opinions between British and American criticism of Melville. Throughout the semester, one of the main ideas that has stuck with me is why this book was a failure when it was first released, but after many years it has become a staple in American literature. The idea of powerful works being ignored is something that has always fascinated me, the idea of Melville “dying unknown, forgotten, and ignored” (Wills). After reading through this novel and seeing how beautifully it was written and how strong Melville’s push of multiple cultural issues it is hard to think of him passing without knowing the worth of his work.
As I read through “The Anatomy of Melville’s Fame” by O. W. Riegel, the reason for this failure became a little more clear. While we read Moby-Dick my understanding of its failure felt like it was based on American society not being able to accept their own wrongs and ignoring things that would call out their ways. This is clearly a current issue we have, therefore it was easy to think of this being the reason people ignored the novel. However, one aspect that interested me was the influence of British criticism on American thought. Riegel states that there was an “unwillingness of British critics to see in Moby Dick anything more than a poorly constructed whaling story” (196). This is a novel that is certainly difficult at times and some British critics thought of it as a simply badly written whaling adventure story because they would not embrace or “recognized the possibility of a philosophical interpretation” (196). With this in mind it becomes clear why the book would fail in their eyes, Melville wrote a powerful critique and this novel is deeply rooted in the philosophical, therefore to ignore it makes this exactly what they implied. As for American criticism, it was said that “Had Americans felt more cultural pride and less inclination to grovel before British oracles, Melville might have become then, as he is now, a great hero of American national consciousness” (196). This quote is one that is referred to multiple times and it has stuck with me through the reading, the British idea of literature was held at such a high standard that American critics conformed to their ideas instead of creating their own opinions. From my understanding, this quote shows the inability for American critics to create a separation in literature from Britain and with this Melville’s novel failed. This was such a wonderful essay to read through and I am excited to hear what everyone has to say about this in class!
Finally, we have some insight into why Moby Dick, may not have been as popular as Melville had hoped. The British hated it, or as O.W. Riegel puts it, “were unable to see it as “anything more than a poorly constructed whaling story(196).” His novel was “tested against the canons of unity, coherence, and emphasis (196),” and within this lens could not have had any hope of succeeding.
These criticisism’s definitely make sense, Melville tested us in class, with his ability to weave this story in every possible direction, enlightening us and then leaving us grasping through water, and debris from the deconstruction of the Pequod. We can apreciate this novel now for what it was, an intentionally experiemental novel, of which now many abound, and can point to this great American novel, as its forefather, the most experimental of all experimental novels.
Riegel’s reconstruction of how it was received by the literary community provided the context for what Melville was going up against, and why it was unappreciated: it was going against the English literary canon “tested against the canons of unity, coherence, and emphasis. (196).” However, instead of attempting to measure up to the great literary creations of authors past, Melville resisted and created something entirely new, not just a book about whaling (action), but about whaling (industry), completely reliant on the labor it gently coaxed and roughly extorted from free, enslaved, and ostracized people. He commented on the most important issues of his time, and even of ours, so many years in the future, using the novel to reflect the people he was speaking to, Americans.
As was discussed numerous times during the semester, a big reason for Moby Dick “flopping” during its initial publication was because slavery alongside many of the topics that Herman Melville argues against were key factors that contributed to the social and economic aspects of the United States during that time. Moby Dick as a whole single-handedly dismantles the ideologies that the United States was built and founded upon and argues for more thoughts against these ideologies than for them, which is understandably a difficult thing for people (let alone an entire country) to grasp and work towards. Even now, with some readers of Moby Dick either not enjoying or arguing against the themes and topics that Melville incorporates into his novel, we can still see the difficulty in grasping how the United States “democracy” is not a democracy, and the overzealous and monomaniacal thinking of our president(s) contributes to a sheep-like mindset amongst the greater public, thus creating an institution that works against the United States and its people rather than for them. While reading the articles, the mention of the “American phenomenon” (Riegel, 7) made me realize how detrimental the single mindset and communal way of thinking has become for American people. We have already constructed a history that still impacts us to this day, and yet we continue to make some of the most subtle mistakes that were made in the past in present day that could lead us down a path of joint destruction just as Ahab and the crew aboard the Pequod lead themselves down.
Steve Mentz’s poem “The Chart” uses mapmaking as a metaphor to show that the ocean cannot be easily simplified, measured, or controlled. The poem starts by calling the act of representing the sea “an impossible project” (Mentz, ln 1). Instead of blaming mapmakers, Mentz questions why people want to make the world easier to manage. The sea is not only huge, but also complex to understand, constantly moving and changing in ways that charts cannot capture. The central tension in the poem comes from the gap between the ocean’s wild complexity and our wish to fit it on paper.
Mentz explains that charts make us think the world is more stable than it really is. They suggest that everything can be shown with straight lines and fixed points. However, the poem points out that the places we mark are never as “stable or singular” as they look on the chart. While a chart can help someone find their way, it also limits what they notice. It encourages people to focus on control rather than openness, on predicting rather than experiencing, and on mastering rather than being curious. The poem quietly criticizes this narrow way of seeing, which has shaped many ocean stories, from whalers to explorers to anyone who mistakes a map for the real world.
The poem suggests a different way to move through the ocean, one that relies more on paying attention than on being certain. Sailing “without” the chart does not mean rejecting knowledge, but recognizing its limits. It means staying open to the sea’s “comingling and flow” and letting experience lead, instead of forcing things to fit a set plan. In the end, when the chart is said to “emulate” the world only “in parts,” the poem makes its main point: our attempts to represent the world are always incomplete, but that is not a failure. Instead, it shows the world’s richness. “The Chart” encourages us to value what we cannot fully capture and to approach the ocean, and any complex reality, with humility instead of control.
I am proposing an essay analyzing how Melville’s Moby Dick is in conversation with Emersons transcendentalist American Scholar. I believe that Melville intends to use his novel to teach us how to be analytical readers and he does so through the character of Ishmael whilst at the same time showing us his polar opposite through Captain Ahab. I am not entirely sure what second scholarly source will be but I am reading through some journals touching on the topics of the pedagogy of the book, art as a way to stimulate creation of the mind, and classification of animal intelligence compared to human intelligence. I am citing below the articles I am currently looking through.
Swails, Elizabeth Heinz. “Melville’s Thinking Animal and the Classification Conundrum.” ESQ: A Journal of Nineteenth-Century American Literature and Culture, vol. 66 no. 2, 2020, p. 325-363. Project MUSE
Assif, Adeena. “”The Dialogue of the Mind with Itself”: Freud, Cavell, and Company.” Common Knowledge, vol. 26 no. 1, 2020, p. 12-38. Project MUSE, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/749019.
Ross, M. L. (1974). Moby-Dick as an Education. Studies in the Novel, 6, 62–75.