Tag Archives: final essay

Moby-Dick: The Novel That Teaches How to Read It

Posted on by
Reply

Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick is a unique novel in that summaries are ineffective to really understand what it is that the novel is saying—to read the novel is to fully experience it. It is certainly a dense novel, one overflowing with experimental and moving prose, prose that can be hard to decipher or make any sense of. However, this is no ordinary novel, no, this is the ‘Great American Novel’! A novel so great that within its pages is the enchiridion for whaling, for American Literature, and for itself.

The earliest example of the novel hinting at its enchiridion can be found in at the arrival of Ishmael at the Spouter-Inn; in the second sentence of the chapter, an oil-painting is seen at the entrance of the inn and catches the eye of Ishmael. The oil-painting is in complete disrepair, covered over by the smoke and years passing it by. Ishmael, however, sees something within the oil-painting, “…it was only by diligent study and a series of systematic visits to it… that you could any way arrive at an understanding of its purpose” (Melville 13). Upon first glance, the painting is nothing more than a preview of the Spouter-Inn, and yet, there is something captivating within it, so much so that Ishmael continued to go back and look at the painting further. The novel has a similar draw to it, being incomprehensible at times only to make sense two-or-three-hundred pages later—some moments even call for a reread entirely! Of course, it is never obvious, but rather something that sneaks up upon the reader, surprising them with a sudden understanding and realisation that leaves them pondering it for days, weeks, months, perhaps even years! In this reading, one would be remiss to ignore the usage of the second person, you, used by Ishmael as he describes the painting’s strange allure, doubling as a reading of the novel itself: “Such unaccountable masses of shades and shadows, that at first you almost thought some ambitious young artist… had endeavored to delineate chaos bewitched. But by dint of much and earnest contemplation, and oft repeated ponderings… you at last come to the conclusion that such an idea, however wild, might not be altogether unwarranted.” (Melville 13). By using the second person ‘you’, Ishmael is putting directly in front of the audience the attention of his language, and yet it goes almost unnoticed on a cursory read. Not until one analyses the language closely does the audience figure this out, that they are being put into the shoes of Ishmael, that it had become a self-insert adventure novel for just a moment’s breath.

As one notices this use of language, one reads that much closer, finding every situation of which this can be found; the words lose all preconceived notions; the words no longer lay there to be read, but they become intentionally placed there by the author himself. This becomes the basis for the novel’s self-written enchiridion in that the closer the audience reads, the more they will experience, the further they will find themselves untangling the mess of ropes, whencever it is they come or hail from, that is Melville’s whale of a novel, Moby-Dick. John Bryant has stated in Moby-Dick: Reading, Rewriting, and Editing, “Melville was a writer’s writer for whom writing was itself the projection of his being” (Bryant 89). Bryant speaks on editing and the different versions of the beloved novel, bringing about the conversation on how the author’s words can create such vast meanings from such simple changes. By adding the word “doubloon” in Chapter 36 of the British version of the famed novel, not only is he hinting at what is to come and having the audience understand the importance of Chapter 99, The Doubloon from the name only, but it also “reveals the degree to which Melville’s intentions shifted and how an artist evolves”, just as the novel continues to do as it continues being read (Bryant 93). The edits made to the British version of Moby-Dick, those of Melville’s, show his evolution as an artist, even within that small amount of time between American and British publishing. If the author and artist of the work can evolve and change so much in so little, then what of the work itself? Imagine how quickly the novel might change to acclimate to the current day, to ensure all readers are able to glean what it is that Melville set forth in front of Americans in 1850.

Chapter 15, Chowder. The audience is introduced to a wonderful bowl of chowder; inside the chowder are not only a couple of clams or a chopped up cod, but a new understanding and acceptance of who Ishmael is: as the other. It is here that Ishmael is confronted with a perceived threat outside the Try Pots establishment. Despite knowing exactly what it is he is looking at, Ishmael can’t help but see the gallows within the trees and hanging rope. “…[T]wo of them,” he writes, “…one for Queequeg, and one for me. It’s ominous…” (Melville 73). Ishmael is now visibly queer as he and Queequeg walk through town. Two men, a Christian and a Pagan, walking together. Ishmael is being perceived and is fully aware of it, completely uncomfortable with the fact. For the first time, he is being othered and walking in Queequeg’s steps—both metaphorically and physically in this instance. Ishmael seeing the gallows among the trees illustrates his anxiety with being considered the other. As someone who has othered Queequeg not that long ago, Ishmael is now fully understanding what that feels like, what it is he did to Queequeg, how he made him feel.

When they arrive at the Try Pots, they are asked what they’d like to eat: clam or cod chowder? Ishmael answers with a question completely rattled by the ‘gallows’ outside. Upon eating the clam chowder—and asking and eating cod seconds—Ishmael regains his confidence. When asked which he’d like for breakfast tomorrow, he boldly replies, “Both…” (Melville 75). At this moment, Ishmael is fully accepting his queerness, even going so far as to argue on behalf of Queequeg, arguing that Queequeg should keep his harpoon—a concern Ishmael had that first night they met. Ishmael realises that the harpoon is a part of his partner, and as such, does all he can to fight for Queequeg’s right to have his harpoon overnight. Through his saying “Both…”, Ishmael’s mind is open for new experiences; no longer is he the closed-minded man who was fearful of Queequeg, but now a man who sees his partner for who he is, not what he is (Melville 75). When othered, Ishmael is fearful initially, but with his partner by his side, he realises that being the other, while initially devastating, allows one to live freely, to love openly—whether it be a Pagan harpooner or a damn good cod chowder.

The word choice given to Ishmael and Queequeg upon their arrival is extremely interesting, something is certainly being insinuated as they walk in together; “Clam or Cod?” (Melville 73). Both being a euphemism for body parts upon one’s body, clam for women and cod for men, feels as though the novel is telling the audience something about preferences. As they arrive, Ishmael is forced into clam chowder as he understands nothing of her initial question. Ishmael eats with Queequeg and after having the clam, Ishmael sheepishly asks for cod. As they go to sleep, Ishmael now proudly says both, leaving behind his perceived preference for either, now fully embracing his want for both clam and cod.

It is here Benjamin Doty claims, in Digesting Moby-Dick, that through digestion is the key to existence and that both he and Melville are “…[grounding] philosophical speculation in the body” (Doty 92). Through Chowder, the audience better understands Ishmael and even Queequeg as they eat and how it is they react afterwards. Doty argues that “…food’s vibrancy in “Chowder,” which figures food’s power to transform whatever ingests it” and it is through Ishmael eating the chowder day in and day out, he “…[literalizes] the mantra that “you are what you eat.”” (Doty 93). He continues by writing, “because food’s psychological effects begin with its effects on the eater’s body, Ishmael’s question of whether the chowder has affected his head is bound to the question of whether it has changed his body” (Doty 93). Through the act of simply eating clam and cod chowder, Ishmael is beginning to wonder if the chowder will be affecting his body as much as it has already been affecting his mind. Ishmael is ground in the constant state of being, much like the novel itself, it is a liquid and living work. Applying this lens to Ishmael, the audience is shown a new person, one that is able to change and adapt through living, almost the ultimate chameleon. Through eating and digesting, Ishmael is able to grow into his queerness, changing his life philosophy with just a seemingly simple bowl of clam chowder, as Doty posits. If the splitting of tobacco, melding into one another’s skin, and sleeping with one another has not bonded Queequeg and Ishmael, then it is here and now that the two truly become each other’s through the act of digesting new experiences and food together. Bryant, too, speaks on the living state of the novel as a whole, stating “we think there is one and only one print version of Moby-Dick” (Bryant 90). There is a constantly evolving novel within the pages, not only from every publisher who releases their own version of Moby-Dick, but from the written words to the audience, with every new set of eyes is a new adaptation of the novel, a new evolution, as it were.

This novel, like Ishmael, is one of complete change and evolution on every new read through, with each new reader, with every moment that passes. It is a novel that, within its very pages, has the key, the enchiridion to follow along and understand the novel; through close observation and readings, the novel opens itself up to readers, allowing them to use the novel itself as a road map of sorts to dig deeper into the novel. With time, meanings change, but so do people. The brilliant prose upon the pages of Melville’s Moby-Dick allows the novel to change with the reader. As people change, so does the text, and though the meaning of the novel will not change, the novel and its enchiridion will to accommodate the changing times, the change in its viewer, all to lead to the Whale that is Moby-Dick.

Works Cited

Bryant, John. “Moby-Dick: Reading, Rewriting, and Editing.” Leviathan, vol. 9 no. 2, 2007, p. 87-100. Project MUSE, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/492804.

Doty, Benjamin. “Digesting Moby-Dick.” Leviathan, vol. 19 no. 1, 2017, p. 85-101. Project MUSE,https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lvn.2017.0006.

Melville, Herman, et al. “Moby-Dick; Or, The Whale.” Penguin Classics, 2003.

Moby-Dick Final EssayDownload

Final Essay – Melville on the “Drunken Christian” vs the “Sober Cannibal”

Posted on by
Reply

Moby Dick Final Essay

One of the most provocative lines within Moby Dick is “Better to sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunk Christian”. Through this line, Melville’s comparison of a “sober cannibal” and a “drunk Christian” causes shock, which destabilizes conventional moral hierarchies, suggesting that outward religious affiliation is meaningless without moral discipline and exposing the novel’s concern with hypocrisy rather than belief itself.

When Melville writes that it is better to sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunk Christian, the line immediately unsettles the reader. At first glance, it appears intentionally offensive, especially within a nineteenth-century context where Christianity was widely assumed to be the moral standard by which all other belief systems were judged. The reason the line stands out so strongly is that it disrupts that assumption without hesitation. Instead of carefully qualifying his claim, Melville presents it bluntly, forcing the reader to confront an uncomfortable possibility: that moral superiority cannot be assumed simply because someone claims religious affiliation. In doing so, Melville destabilizes the moral hierarchy his audience would have taken for granted, exposing the fragility of identity-based righteousness.

This destabilization is not an attack on morality itself, but rather an insistence that morality must be grounded in behavior rather than belief alone. Melville suggests that no one is perfect, and that declaring oneself a Christian does not automatically mean one lives as one. Melville may have been influenced in this ideal by Emerson, who said in “American Scholar” that “Character is a accumulation of deeds, the will of the soul is the infallible hour, and the external action is the faithful perennial”. This idea would have been especially provocative in a culture where Christianity functioned as both a spiritual and social identity. To question the moral authority of Christians was to question the foundation of American moral life. Yet Melville does exactly that, using shock as a tool to peel back complacency and force reflection. The comparison between the sober cannibal and the drunk Christian is not meant to elevate cannibalism, but to condemn hypocrisy, particularly when it hides behind the language of faith.

Ironically, Melville’s critique aligns closely with biblical teachings themselves. The Fruit of the Spirit described in Galatians 5 stresses qualities such as love, patience, gentleness, and self-control, traits that require continual discipline rather than simple profession. These virtues are inwardly cultivated and outwardly demonstrated, not inherited through labels. The Bible also clearly condemns drunkenness (Proverbs 20:1; 23:20-21), portraying it as a loss of control that clouds judgment and distances individuals from moral clarity. Drunkenness represents excess, indulgence, and a surrender to impulse, all of which contradict the discipline Christianity claims to value. By invoking a drunk Christian, Melville stresses the contradiction between professed belief and lived behavior.

Despite the clarity of these teachings, many people in Melville’s time failed to live by the values they publicly embraced. This failure was especially visible in maritime culture, where sailors often carried Christian identities but engaged in violence, excess, and cruelty. Melville does not invent this contradiction; he merely exposes it. The drunk Christian becomes a symbol of moral negligence, someone who relies on identity as a shield rather than practicing the discipline that identity demands. In contrast, the sober cannibal, though a cultural pariah, shows restraint and awareness. In the quote, sobriety becomes a moral standard, not because the abstinence of alcohol itself is sacred, but because it reflects self-control, one of the “fruits of the spirit” Christianity upholds.

This contrast grows even more significant through the character of Queequeg. Although he is repeatedly labeled a pagan and a cannibal, Queequeg consistently behaves with dignity, loyalty, and care for others. From the moment Ishmael meets him, Queequeg defies expectation. He is calm, generous, and disciplined, showing none of the chaos or moral recklessness one might associate with the word cannibal. While other sailors rely on culturally accepted Christianity to justify their prejudice or indulgence, Queequeg lives according to his internal moral code. His behavior shows how morality is not exclusive to Christianity, but is human instincts expressed through action rather than words.

Ishmael’s evolving relationship with Queequeg bolsters this claim. Initially, Ishmael is hesitant and fearful, shaped by cultural assumptions about savagery and civilization. However, as he spends time with Queequeg, those assumptions begin to erode. Ishmael recognizes that Queequeg’s actions speak louder than the labels attached to him. Sharing a bed with  Queequeg becomes a symbolic act, namely one that prioritizes trust and character over the prejudices of American society during Melville’s time. And when Ishmael eventually concludes that it is better to sleep with a “sober cannibal” than a “drunk Christian”, he is expressing a moral code born from life experience rather than cultural norms.

The ship itself intensifies this realization. Life aboard the Pequod strips away many of the social structures that govern life on land. At sea, there are no churches, courts, or stable communities to reinforce moral identity through appearance alone. Shared labor, close quarters, and dependence on others are all that remain, leading to an environment where hypocrisy is almost impossible. Everyone knows everyone so well that it is incredibly difficult to hide behind a mask. A person’s character is revealed through daily interaction, through how they work, rest, and respond to danger. The ocean forces morality to become visible. This aligns closely with the perspective of the Blue Humanities, which highlights how oceanic spaces disrupt rigid hierarchies and demand relational ethics.

The sea, at its core, functions as a moral equalizer. It does not recognize race, nationality, or creed, and it offers no special protection to those who claim moral authority. Gillis writes in “The Blue Humanities” that “The flood tide was a reminder of childhood and youth, the ebb tide old age, while the horizon “tells of a steadfast future, an immutable eternity.” Everyone was a child once, and everyone wants a future for the next generation. The sea mirrors the most basic of human motivations – leaving a legacy. Like humans, the ocean has and will shape human history. From the whaling industry to the sinking of the Titanic, it has left its mark.

Instead of said special protection, it demands humility, cooperation, and restraint. On the open water, survival depends on mutual reliance, not moral posturing. In this sense, the ocean exposes the emptiness of performative righteousness. A drunk Christian who endangers himself or others cannot rely on his identity to protect him. His actions have consequences, just as they would for anyone else. Meanwhile, a sober cannibal who exercises discipline contributes to the collective survival of the ship.

Queequeg embodies this oceanic ethic. He does not seek moral validation through language or affiliation. Instead, his morality is enacted through care, reliability, and self-control. He participates fully in the life of the ship, forming bonds that transcend cultural boundaries. His presence challenges the idea that morality flows from civilization outward. Instead, Melville suggests that morality emerges through relationship and responsibility, especially in environments where survival is shared. The ocean, in this sense, becomes a testing ground where ethical substance matters more than ethical symbolism.

Melville’s focus on hypocrisy rather than belief itself becomes increasingly clear through this contrast. He does not dismiss faith as meaningless, nor does he argue that Christianity lacks moral value. Instead, he critiques the way belief can be hollowed out when it is reduced to identity alone. This concern was not unique to Melville. In later periods, such as the Romantic, writers worried that virtue had become performative, that moral language was being used to mask injustice rather than confront it. Melville’s work was an inspiration to these writers, as it reflects the broader cultural anxiety that they felt.

By exposing hypocrisy within so-called “Christians”, Melville aligns himself with a tradition of moral critique rather than moral rejection. His comparison shocks because it inverts expectations, but the inversion serves a purpose. It forces readers to ask whether belief without discipline is meaningful at all. The drunk “Christian” becomes more dangerous than the sober cannibal not because Christianity is flawed, but because hypocrisy corrodes trust and accountability. When moral authority is claimed without moral effort, it becomes a tool of self-excuse rather than self-transformation.

The oceanic setting intensifies this critique by removing the illusion of moral distance. On land, hypocrisy can hide behind institutions, rituals, and reputation. At sea, these protections dissolve. The ocean is indifferent, vast, and unforgiving. It does not reward belief, only preparedness and cooperation. Within this environment, failure is immediately consequential. While they can be small, such as losing the trail of a single whale, they can be life and death, like we see at the end of the novel, with Ishmael being the only survivor of the Pequod.  In this way, Melville suggests that morality, like seamanship, must be practiced, not proclaimed. 

But where do we get our morality? Some would say religion, but most would say it comes from our life experiences, and the people surrounding us, and Queequeg perfectly embodies this.  His moral steadiness stands in quiet opposition to the instability of the drunk Christian. Despite living in a culture that does something seen as despicable – the eating of humans, he does not preach, condemn, or justify himself. He simply acts with consistency. This consistency becomes a form of moral authority more compelling than any religious label, Christian or Pagan. Ishmael’s recognition of this authority marks a turning point in his understanding of humanity. He learns that goodness is not confined to familiar categories, and that moral truth often appears where society least expects it.

Like Queequeg, the ocean reveals the limits of human categorization. It exposes how artificial lines are destroyed under the pressure of communal living and proximity, leaving only relationships and responsibilities – not prejudices. Melville uses this setting to question not only religious hierarchy, but the broader systems humans use to assign value. By placing a pagan and a Christian side by side in a shared space of vulnerability, he forces the reader to reconsider how moral worth is determined.

In the world of Moby Dick, the ocean strips humanity down to its essentials. It does not ask what one believes, only how one acts. Through this lens, Melville’s concern with hypocrisy becomes a concern with survival, integrity, and shared humanity. This comparison, which initially shocks the reader, ultimately clarifies. It reveals how morality, similar to life at sea, demands vigilance, humility, and continual growth. By destabilizing moral hierarchies and exposing the emptiness of performative belief, Melville urges readers to seek depth over display, substance over symbol, and discipline over declaration.

References

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “The American Scholar.” American Transcendentalism Web, 31 Aug. 1837, archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/essays/amscholar.html.

Gillis, John R. “The Blue Humanities.” National Endowment for the Humanities, 2013, www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/mayjune/feature/the-blue-humanities. 

 ​​“Holy Bible.” English Standard Version (ESV) , Crossway, www.biblegateway.com/versions/English-Standard-Version-ESV-Bible/. Accessed 17 Dec. 2025. 

Final Essay: The Price of Illumination

Posted on by
Reply

            In Chapter 97 of Moby-Dick titled “The Lamp,” Ishmael writes, “But the whaleman, as he seeks the food of light, so he lives in light.” (Melville 466) The sentence appears simple, even poetic, as if merely describing the sailor’s surroundings: a man whose work deals literally with oil and flame, dwelling in brightness amid his dangerous and lonely life at sea. Yet, like much of Moby-Dick, this moment contains a deeper, unsettling paradox. What begins as a factual observation about whale oil, which just so happens to be the literal “food of light,” expands into a moral and metaphysical reflection on the cost of illumination for humanity itself. Melville’s language transforms physical light into a spiritual metaphor, complicating the whaleman’s apparent purity by revealing the barbarism and destruction that make such light possible. Through this sentence, Melville explores enlightenment as a morally compromised condition, one sustained by violence, ecological destruction, and the illusion of human mastery, suggesting that the pursuit of knowledge and progress always casts shadows. To “live in light,” in this sense, then, is not a state of purity but actually one of contradiction: a human condition sustained by the very darkness it seeks to overcome.

            At its surface level, Ishmael’s statement describes the basic reality of the whaling industry. The “food of light” refers to whale and the oil their bodies contain, which is the material substance that, once extracted, refined, and burned, illuminates all homes, streets, and cities across the world. The whaleman literally harvests the world’s light, working amid hot furnaces, boiling blubber, and lamps that glow through the ship’s night. In this sense, he really does indeed “live in light.” Yet even within this literal interpretation, Melville’s phrasing evokes something much more mythic to the reader. The whaleman becomes not merely a manual laborer but more of a Promethean figure, the one who actually brings fire to humanity at great personal and moral cost. The “food of light” recalls both nourishment and sacrifice, suggesting that illumination must be fed and sustained by something perishable, in this case, even living. That food, of course, is the whale itself, whose body becomes the actual physical foundation that civilization’s brightness comes from. Melville’s specific word choice collapses any of the boundaries between consumption, destruction, and enlightenment. The world’s ability to “see” depends on an ongoing act of death, on the rendering of life into death and then into fuel. In that transformation, the whaleman stands as both the agent and the witness of light’s very creation. The one who participates in an enterprise that actually makes human vision possible, even as it stains that very same vision red with blood.

            This moral and ecological tension resonates with John Gillis’s argument in “The Blue Humanities,” where he emphasizes how human societies have long been entangled with oceans and water bodies not only materially but symbolically: “In studying the sea, we are returning to our beginnings” (Gillis 1). Just as Ishmael observes the whaleman’s labor producing civilization’s light, Gillis reminds us that human history and culture are inseparable from the watery spaces that sustain and give life to them. The whaleman’s extraction of oil mirrors humanity’s broader patterns of constantly exploiting the natural world for our own illumination, both literal and metaphorical. Water, like whale oil, is simultaneously a source of life and a medium of danger, a reminder that human progress depends on and often threatens the ecosystems we inhabit. By connecting Melville’s imagery in Moby-Dick to Gillis’s broader reflections, it becomes clear that the whaleman’s “light” is emblematic of a planetary dynamic: human advancement and environmental cost are inseparable, and the pursuit of clarity or knowledge is not innocent.

            Melville’s syntax deepens this tension through its balance and rhythm. The clause “as he seeks the food of light” establishes a more causal, almost moral equivalence between the two: we are supposed to believe that the whaleman’s purpose actually aligns with his environment, his labor is mirrored by his world. But then the symmetry between “seeks” and “lives” suggests more than coincidence; it implies justification, possibly even sanctification for the whaleman’s actions and livelihood. If he “lives in light,” then perhaps his violent work is redeemed by its very luminous result for the world. Melville seems to toy with this logic, allowing the sentence to hover between affirmation and irony. The actual structure of the line reads like a moral proverb to the audience, neat and almost comforting in style, but the context within and around it undercuts that simplicity. Ishmael’s narrative at this point describes the grisly processes of rendering blubber into oil, how the ship is transformed into a floating factory, and the men laboring in smoke and heat. The “light” that surrounds them comes from the fires of their own making. What appears as divine illumination is in fact industrial glow, born from the destruction of the very creatures they hunt. Melville’s juxtaposition of the spiritual and the mechanical turns the whaleman’s work into a representation for human progress itself: every light we kindle must depend on something we extinguish. Death in exchange for life and vice versa.

            Steve Mentz’s discussion of the blue humanities in his article “The Blue Humanities after John Gillis” underscores this very dynamic, emphasizing the ethical and poetic stakes of human engagement with water and marine life: “Aristotle’s claim that poetics combines pleasure and pain seems especially noteworthy for a blue humanities focus on the watery parts of the world that both allure and threaten human bodies.” (Mentz 139) The whaleman’s labor is therefore not only a technical process but an ethical and moral encounter with the sea as an active force. By harvesting whales, humans seem to attempt to try and impose their own order on the ocean, extracting utility and light from it, yet the ocean still is able to retain all of its agency in shaping consequences, both material and moral. Melville’s sentence encapsulates this tension: to “live in light” is to participate in a dialogue with the natural world that illuminates the very real human desire for knowledge while simultaneously revealing the costs of mastery.

            This irony reveals Melville’s larger philosophical concern with the relationship between knowledge and violence. The pursuit of enlightenment, whether scientific, intellectual, or spiritual, requires dissection, penetration, and the laying bare of what was once whole or known. In this sense, the whaleman’s rendering of the whale parallels Ishmael’s own rendering of meaning. To “seek the food of light” is to participate in an endless process of finding and then breaking down the world in order to understand it. Melville’s language often blurs this line between the physical and the epistemological: the same curiosity that drives men to cut open whales also drives them to dissect nature, God, and in turn, themselves. The “light” they seek is both literal and figurative, an emblem of reason, discovery, and power for them to constantly reach for. Yet, this light is often accompanied by a terrifying glare that threatens to consume those who labor within and around it. When Ishmael writes that they “live in light,” the statement becomes disturbingly double-edged. The same light that signifies enlightenment may also suggest a possible damnation. In Melville’s moral universe, illumination is never innocent.

            The phrase “lives in light” also carries theological resonance. Light has long been a symbol of divinity, purity, and truth, from the opening words of Genesis, “Let there be light,” to the Christian notion of spiritual illumination. To “live in light,” then, evokes an almost saintly image, as if the whalemen are chosen vessels through whom divine radiance is allowed to enter the world. Yet at the same time, Melville destabilizes and destroys this association by placing such holiness in the hands of those engaged in such an act of violent slaughter against seemingly innocent creatures. The whalemen are both creators and destroyers; their light is a paradoxical mixture of grace and guilt. This inversion echoes throughout Moby-Dick: the line between sanctity and sin is perpetually blurred. Melville suggests that human beings cannot separate their search for truth from their capacity for destruction. The whaleman’s “light” thus becomes a microcosm of civilization’s moral compromise: with every advancement, every brightening of the world, there is a hidden darkness that always lies just beneath the surface.

            Furthermore, the communal aspect of this illumination adds another layer to the complexity. The whaleman’s labor produces the oil that fuels lamps across nations, so his private suffering on the ocean enables a collective vision on land. Melville uses this image to question the ethics of progress built on invisible toil. Those who may “live in light” aboard the Pequod do so through much peril and deprivation, while the consumers of that light on land remain untouched by its very violent origins. This disconnect mirrors the broader human tendency to enjoy the benefits of knowledge or comfort without ever thinking about or confronting their cost. The “light” of modern civilization, such as in its science, industry, and expansion, rests directly upon the bodies of those rendered invisible by the glow. Ishmael’s phrasing exposes that blindness even as it still embodies it: the sentence itself glimmers with poetic beauty, concealing the blood and violent labor it describes. Melville thus implicates language, and maybe even literature itself, in this economy of light, where aesthetic pleasure risks masking any moral awareness. To read Moby-Dick attentively is to recognize the shadow that every illumination casts.

            In this way, the passage encapsulates Melville’s broader meditation on the limits of human vision. To “live in light” may seem to promise clarity at first, but in Moby-Dick, light often blinds as much as it reveals. The whalemen’s proximity to the flame makes them less capable of being able to see beyond it; the brightness becomes overwhelming, distorting any sense of perception. The lesson to the reader is clear: illumination, when pursued without humility, leads to madness. Ahab, too, “lives in light” of his own making. A constant fiery, obsessive glow that consumes him. His monomaniacal vision is a different form of enlightenment, a search for ultimate truth that obliterates everything else in its way. In this sense, the whaleman’s “light” is both the beginning and the very end of human aspiration. It represents the desire to know, to see, to master, and then the inevitable self-destruction that such strong desire and mastery entail.

             Mentz’s argument sharpens this problem of vision by situating the whaleman’s labor within what he calls the novel’s recurring “salt water refrains,” which emphasize the “masterless ocean” as a force that “overrun[s] all boundaries.” (Mentz 139) If light is supposed to promise clarity, the ocean persistently undermines that promise by refusing any type of stable divisions between mastery and submission, knowledge and ignorance, or human intention and natural response. The whaleman may believe that extracting oil allows him to impose order on the sea, transforming its creatures into fuel for illumination, but Mentz reminds us that the ocean itself exceeds and destabilizes any form of claims of control. Its boundary-overrunning nature reveals how human enlightenment is always provisional, enacted within an environment that will always resist being fully known or mastered. In this context, the whaleman’s “light” becomes not a triumph over nature, but rather a fragile assertion made within a space that constantly dissolves any of the distinctions light is meant to secure. The sea does not clarify; it overwhelms, exposing the limits of vision and the arrogance of believing that illumination can ever be total or final.

            Ishmael’s brief but poignant reflection in Chapter 97 shows Moby-Dick’s entire philosophical tension in a single sentence. The whaleman’s life of light is both his glory and his doom, a very real figure for humanity’s contradictory condition. We are creatures who quite literally burn for understanding, who turn the world and its animals into fuel for our enlightenment, yet in doing so, we run the very real risk of extinguishing ourselves along the way. Melville’s imagery reminds us that every light depends on its opposite, that there can be no illumination without shadow, no knowledge without a cost. The “food of light” that sustains civilization is inseparable from the death that feeds it and allows it to grow. Through this paradox, Melville exposes the moral and metaphysical price of human illumination. To “live in light” is to live with that awareness, to recognize the darkness within the glow, and to be able to see, even in the brightest of flames, the trace of what it consumes. By reading Melville through the frameworks offered by Mentz and Gillis, readers can understand that illumination is never solely human or abstract; it is inseparably ecological, historical, and moral.

Works Cited

Gillis, John R., et al. “The Blue Humanities.” National Endowment for the Humanities, 2013, www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/mayjune/feature/the-blue-humanities.

Melville, Herman. Moby Dick. Penguin Books, 2003.

Mentz, Steve. “A poetics of planetary water: The blue humanities after John Gillis.” Coastal Studies & Society, vol. 2, no. 1, 13 Oct. 2022, pp. 137–152, https://doi.org/10.1177/26349817221133199.

Final Essay

Posted on by
Reply

Darian Murillo

ECL 522

Professor Pressman

December 10, 2025

Psychological, obsession and depression

In Melville’s Moby Dick, madness is not a distant presentation, but mostly a storm that’s brewing in their mind. Herman Melville demonstrates the characters in the Pequod who are fighting their inner demons during their time sailing at sea they start to reveal their obsession, grief and isolation can wrap someone’s brain in a turmoil. Herman Melville uses Ahab’s obsessive monomania, Pip’s traumatic experience psychological break, and Ishmael’s existential crisis to explore how unaddressed mental health struggles not only shape that person’s inner conflict. Melville illustrates three different psychological responses to suffering, eventually suggesting that psychological struggles form the moral and narrative course of Moby Dick. 

In Chapter 1, “Loomings”, Ishmael reveals the emotional crisis he’s going through, that pushes him into joining the sailing crew and Melville uses vivid imagery for his depression. In the quote, “ Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street…”(4), when Ishamel describes a “damp, drizzly November” in his soul, the cold weather becomes a metaphor for his inner life, such as cold and heavy clouded. What I noticed was the repetition of the word “whenever” creates a rhythm that mirrors the nature of his depressive state and how it returns during these random episodes of despair like a cycle over and over again. One thing I found noticeable in the quotes was Ishmael’s fascination with death: the coffin warehouses, follows funerals, saying his mind goes into the darkness even when he doesn’t want to. Melville mentions the word “hypo” defining down which meant how Ishamel had his moments of despair and downfall that was taking such control of him that “it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street..” (4) its almost like a reference to suicidal thoughts. The whole paragraph of the chapter, not only shows us Ishmael, the protagonist, but the whole theme of the story just by hearing the first couple of sentences and Melville demonstrating us Ishmael’s journey as a task to survival from the storm inside his head.

In chapter 44, Ishmael explains how obsessed Captain Ahab has become on planning his hunt for Moby Dick. Melville writes,” God help thee, old man, thy thoughts have created a creature in thee; and whose intense thinking thus makes him a Prometheus; a vulture feeds upon that heart for ever; that vulture the very creature he creates”,(220), in this passage Melville explores how obsession can transform the human mind into its own tormentor and how easy it is to lose yourself to madness when the thoughts come too deeply to torment the human mind. He transforms Ahab as a victim and the creator of his own madness. The phrase,” God help thee” is recognizing that Ahab is suffering and no one can save him, but Him. When he says the “creature” it represents the madness being born inside of him from his obsession with Moby Dick, while comparing him to Prometheus due to both being defiant and both being punished for not fulfilling their duties. Melville uses imagery to warn us, the audience, about the conception of madness of the human mind, becoming too much of a delusion of something we can’t let go.

I recently read in my rhetoric writing class Terry Eagleton’s, “Literary Theory: An Introduction,” one of his chapter, psychoanalysis, in this quote, “ Every human being has to undergo this repression of what Freud named the ‘pleasure principle’ by the ‘reality principle’, but for some of us, and arguably for whole societies, the repression may become excessive and make us ill,” (Eagleton, 131) ,Eagleton discusses that psychoanalysis views that humans are driven by unconscious desires and compulsions that they don’t comprehend, which comes as a clear example: Ahab’s obsession with Moby Dick. 

In chapter 93 of Moby Dick, Ishmael reflects, ” So man’s insanity is heaven’s sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weak or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God,”(454) the quote transforms the idea of madness from being known as weak into a form of divine understanding. We see Pip, a young cabin boy who is left adrift in the vast ocean, who experiences trauma so badly, he loses touch with humanity itself. I think Melville often uses and questions the human definitions of sanity and reason, like in this chapter, he demonstrates in a tragic and spiritual way. Melville shows, in Pip’s point of view, explores how the moments of extreme isolation and suffering can lead to a person’s beyond reasoning of humanity. What’s the whole obsession with the sanity of the human mind that peaks Melville’s interest towards it?

Pip’s experience reminds me of Annie Cresta from The Hunger Games. Just like Pip, Annie endures the overwhelming trauma from not just witnessing her tribute member being decapitated in front of her, but also from drowning after the whole arena malfunctioned. Her being from District Four (known to be a district of water and fishing) she knew how to swim and was the only survivor hence made her the winner. But at what cost though? She’s considered unstable by the Capitol due to her losing her mind and going insane after her traumatic experience; she was found basically useless, but that also shows her fragility and how cruel the world can be. Both of these characters embody how innocence collides with inhumanity, such as sensitivity, being mistaken for madness, and is their true response to their suffering. Both Pip and Annie challenge society’s discrimination of sanity being called mad for no good reason at all. Both characters are gentle souls who have endured enough trauma that it transforms their sanity into understanding.

In conclusion, Melville presents psychological suffering as an inescapable condition of human existence. In my opinion, I think the book is mostly about survival both physically and mentally. Throughout the book, Melville demonstrates psychological problems in power, obsessions and control with his characters, especially with Ahab slowly becoming consumed by the darkness and self-destruction.  Psychological or now, in the modern era, mental health struggles is an unavoidable part of human existence, even in such a time where it wasn’t recognized properly. Melville uses survival as a coping mechanism for his characters in order for them to recognize their inner darkness which can be the only way to endure it.

Work Cited

Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing, 1983.

‌ Melville , Herman, et al. Or, the Whale. Or, the Whale. London, Penguin Classics, 2003.

‌