Shark-Man, Man-Shark?

The language in Moby Dick is absolutely gorgeous. Herman Melville employs intricate metaphors and analogies in order to paint a vivid image in the mind of the reader. Melville makes excellent use out of them when he is berating institutional fallacies, like those found in religion, describing the gory capture of a whale, and even when comparing God to the sea. The ocean and all the life within are constantly being personified. One particular focus of Melville’s beautiful rhetoric is concerning sharks.

When comparing land creatures to sea creatures, Ishmael can only say that “the accursed shark alone can in any generic respect be said to bear comparative analogy to [the dog]” (Melville, 224). Dogs are often amiable servants to humans; domesticated pets. But at the same time a feral dog can be voracious and food bowl aggressive just like a shark. The association between the two alludes to their connection with humankind.

While the whale that was caught by Stubb is suspended next to the ship, a scene is illustrated to describe the aforementioned voracity of sharks. Looking down over the edge of the ship, “amid all the smoking horror and diabolism of a sea-fight, sharks will be seen longingly gazing up to the ship’s decks, like hungry dogs round a table where red meat is being carved, ready to bolt down every killed man that is tossed to them” (Melville, 237). This unforgiving nature of the sharks sets them up as hungry animals ready to devour anything thrown to them.

Melville compares the carving up of the whale as “a shocking shark business enough for all parties” (Melville, 237). Now this play on words likens the whalers to sharks as they are both tearing pieces from the dead whale. The characteristics between sharks and humans are directly linked by this passage and connotes an animalistic, violent tone to the whaler’s occupation.

Another interesting scene was when Stubb is eating his whale steak and orders the cook to give a sermon to the sharks. In the sermon the cook reasons that “you is sharks, sartin; but if you gobern de shark in you, why den you be angel; for all angel is not’ing more dan de shark well goberned” (Melville, 238). In the pages previous, man has been metaphorically compared to sharks by their nature. The cook’s statement while literally reprimanding the sharks, is saying the same thing about humans. All humans that are well governed and civil are comparative to angels or may even have the opportunity to become one. This direct comparison is further proven when the cook makes an inaudible stab at Stubb when he says, “I’m bressed if he ain’t more of shark dan Mass Shark hisself” (Melville, 240). Melville clearly believes there is an intricate tie between the nature of man and shark.

All this brings into question whether man is more of a shark than sharks themselves. And if sharks are evil and bloodthirsty, then what does that make man?

A Christian, a Cannibal, and a Whale...

            Herman Melville’s novel Moby Dick is littered with satirical elements. His humorous rants constantly deride many different institutions, especially religious institutions, and invite the rebuke of critics everywhere.

The relationship between Ishmael and Queequeg is a fine example of the irony Melville utilizes to mock Christianity and those who are single-minded in their cultural studies. “Chapter 10: A Bosom Friend” is one instance of many where the contrast between a pagan cannibal and a white Christian is used to create controversy. Ishmael in this chapter uses a series of questions and circular logic to arrive at the decision that it is alright to worship Queequeg’s pagan idol. This blasphemous logic as the footnote brings out, “stirred up the wrath of Presbyterians and other evangelistic Protestants” (Melville, 57). It is interesting that Melville included this symbolic belittlement most likely knowing full well how it would be received by one of the most powerful corporations in the world, religion. The footnote recognized that more than anything else the conflict with the religious press is what tainted his writing career.

Even though it does not include the relationship between Ishamel and Queequeg, “Chapter 32: Cetology” also contains satirical humor that rejects the common scientific grounds for defining and categorizing whales. He purposefully ignores the obvious characteristics of whales and imagines up a categorical system that is similar to organizing books. This attempt at humor is just another example of Melville making a crack at an institution of the day.

            The scene where Ishmael and Queequeg first meet is very comical. The first interaction between the two is in bed where Ishmael panics, being afraid that the cannibal would do him harm. He then proceeds to say that it is “better sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian” (Melville, 36). This is a fairly ironic thing to say as he is contemplating getting back into bed with Queequeg and he himself claims to be a Christian.

            Besides Melville’s comment on religion I find it particularly hilarious that he included such intimate metaphors to describe the relationship between the odd pair. Queequeg and Ishmael lay in bed together, “a cosy, loving pair” (Melville, 57). This also might further taunt the Christian readers due to the fact that homosexuality was strictly taboo in American culture and religion, more so in that time than now.

            As the friendship between them becomes stronger, the critics seem to become a little more agitated with Melville’s work. With only part of the book read, there seems to be a good chance that Melville will choose to continue his ridicule of religion and other institutions.

Behind a Mask

Sometimes life feels like a performance. Not necessarily a Shakespearean tragedy, but every day we test our own roles in relation to our peers. We might want to impress someone, create solidarity within a group, or even make someone fall in love. Everything we do is in some way a performance. People act out scenes in their real life to invoke an emotional response from others. Like in a theatrical performance, people will put on figurative costumes or masks to hide their true identity, make a point, or to distract their audience. When someone changes the way they act, talk, and carry themselves around others, like with all our actions, there is motivation. There are countless reasons we act in front of others; to glean information, to convince your friends, to create an advantage. The stage and theatrical performance is a reoccurring theme within Behind a Mask by Luisa May Alcott.

The novella consistently alludes to elements of theater, especially when Jean Muir is involved. Even when she is supposedly alone or unawares she seems to always be acting out a scene for someone who is watching her. The tableaux in chapter 5 captured the idea that acting can intermingle between real life and the stage. Coventry is taken with Jean Muir and his face employs legitimate passionate emotion. He does not have the practice or prowess to control his expressions as well as Jean. However, at this point in the book we only read the perspective of Coventry and do not know if Jean is truthful in her expressions or if she is only acting. This line becomes very difficult to distinguish on a day to day basis. Later on the reader finds out that Jean was manipulating her persona with the motivation to create an advantage. People in general when placed in a given situation will attempt to act their way to achieve their motives. Some are more proficient at this social acting than others. Jean happens to be an excellent social actor. She even managed to turn two brothers against each other to the point of physical harm. By the end of the novella, Jean achieves the satisfaction of accomplishing her motives using the skills of her performance.

Our motives and the motives of others shape the play we all live from day to day. Motives define our play, our script, our scenery. In the end, the reasons we do the things we do are what matter most.