Talk:Moby-Dick/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hyphenation of Moby-Dick

Bless you for properly hyphenating Moby-Dick. Dpbsmith 02:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My copy of Moby Dick has no hyphens in the title, or in any reference to the whale. I can't find a text that does. Does this relate to the original or something? Someone please explain.

Arcturus 19:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/as/Literature/Moby-Dick/amlit.sightings.html, the whale is Moby Dick and the book Moby-Dick. My copy (Penguin Classics) gets it right. A facsimile of the title page of the first edition (New York, 1851) shows a hyphen. -- Heron 19:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (a British book, of course) says that the title Moby-Dick should have a hyphen. (Somebody recently disputed this by reverting my edit.) I would be interested to know if there is an equivalent book for USian editors, and what it says on the subject. -- Heron 16:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My edition of Moby-Dick has a hyphen in both the title and the name. Ionesco 13:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The title is hyphenated - the whale is not.

Edition online at Google Books [1] shows the whale's name hyphenated throughout, so I have hyphenated here and removed unsourced statement stating otherwise. --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed that seems so. However, my copy of the book does not contain the hyphen in the whale's name, but does in the title. Why? Because that's how Melville originally wrote it. To change it just because Google Books has the hyphen makes little sense to me, since we know Melville wrote it without a hyphen for the whale's name.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2909/md1ou1.jpg

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9720/md2lu0.jpg Kyouraku-taichou (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Critique of article

Was this article written by someone who read the annotated version of the novel? It is incredibly simplistic and its critical theory is high school quality. JimmyjimJam 12:19 22 Feb 2005

Then put your money where your mouth is and write something yourself.Ionesco 17:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Once having been forced to read it in high school, no one is likely to ever want to wade through it again, so if the writeup is at the high school level, it stands to reason. Wahkeenah 22:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey now, don't be dissing us.Cameron Nedland 14:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the themes section needs work, particularly the paragraphs that begin "The white whale has also been seen as a symbol for many things, including nature and those elements of life that are out of human control," and "The Pequod's quest to hunt down Moby Dick itself is also widely viewed as allegorical." In the first, I don't see any evidence that the whale is a symbol for nature or any other "elements" other than deities. The second paragraph sounds like it came straight out of a high-school essay. The flow of ideas seems disjointed, and some stylistic changes need to be made--how about changing "Melville may be implying that people in general need something to reach for in life, or that such a goal can destroy one if allowed to overtake all other concerns" to "Melville addresses the basic human need for a central life goal, warning in particular against the destructive capacity of such a goal if allowed to overtake all other concerns"?˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murcielaguito (talk • contribs) 09:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

From unpopular to "canonical"- how?

"Although its initial reception was unfavorable, Moby-Dick is now considered to be one of the canonical novels in the English language, and has secured Melville's reputation in the first rank of American writers." A description of the chain of events that led to this reappraisal would be very nice. 84.58.42.189 23:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically, a bunch of colleges decided to make a criteria of books to be required to be read, and Moby-Dick had the qualities they were looking for, despite what a horrible story it is.

If you weren't completely wrong, I would be inclined to agree with you. In any case, that's hardly a wiki-worthy explanation.

Moby-Dick was unpopular because it did not fit the sterotypical demands of sea adventure novels of the 19th century (which the first few Melville novels did). It's popularity increased when it was "discovered" in the early 20th century by the modernists who were attracted to disjointed, digressive, fragmentary narratives whose meaning cannot be precisely pinned down; unlike, for example, the novels of Dickens whose overt didactism they found purile.

On the "Learning Channel" series on Great books, (narrated by Donald Sutherland), part of the "discovery" of Moby-Dick in the 20th century can be attributed to Hollywood, namely the 1926 film: "The Sea Beast" and the 1930 movie: "Moby-Dick". While the movies take liberties with the book, (they have Ahab returning to the woman he loves after he kills the whale), films can help people to rediscover a forgotten book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.80.61.10 (talk • contribs) .204.80.61.10 19:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Good point. Dracula was the same way - fairly unknown until the first movie. -- Stbalbach 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

One way to measure when Moby Dick became popular is to search for used copies of the book (abebooks.com, etc..). Anything 1919 or later can be found fairly cheap, $20 or less. Anything before 1919 is about $40,000.00 .. 1919 is the date people really started reading Moby Dick, prior to that there were about 1500 copies in circulation, many of which were never even read in private collections (attics, etc..). -- Stbalbach 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Moby-Dick was discovered anew in 1921, on the reissue of the work seventy years after its first publication, by a noted English critic who thereafter pronounced, "...Having done so, I hereby declare that since letters began there never was such a book, and that the mind of man is not constructed so as to produce such another. I put its author with Rabelais, Swift, Shakespeare." (The World's Best Reading, Reader's Digest 1989 edition) As for the book itself, those who don't like it often don't think much of the Shakespearean format the book is written in, as well; lazy readers, that way. Ahab is all professional revolutionaries who've ever taken power over a country and tried to conquer a city, a state, a region or the whole world, and he is one of the greatest triumphs in literary history. Period. --Chr.K. 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Selected adaptations and references

Not having watched the movie in question, after having read the plot summary of Run Silent, Run Deep I get a feeling it has similarities with Moby-Dick:

"A World War II submarine captain ... has an obsession with the Japanese destroyer that sank his previous boat. He is single-mindedly training the crew of his new boat to sink that destroyer. The executive officer ... is worried about the safety of his boat and his crew."

Could someone familiar with this movie please verify (and subsequently add it to the list of 'Selected adaptions and references') or deny this? --x-Flare-x 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have seen Run Silent, Run Deep and it has no similarities with Moby-Dick whatsoever, nor is it inspired by Melville's story in any way. The movie is about the real-life adventures Edward L. "Ned" Beach had on a WWII sub. Minaker 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I removed the link allegedly leading to an article on Moby-Dick in popular culture. It was instead a link to adaptations of the novel, which is related, but certainly not the same thing; it was therefore a misleading link. Minaker 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed the Mad Magazine reference -- it's "Call me Fishmeal", not "Call me Fish-smell!" and is easily verified in a copy of the Dec. 1956 Mad (#30).

Religion and Symbolism in Moby Dick

This appeared to be sincere, not just vandalism, but violated WP:NOR. In any event, discussion related to 20th c. Church of Satan and symbolism developed by its founder Anton LeVay and could not possibly be a relevant interpretation of symbolism in the book. See WP:CB --JChap 13:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'll agree with WP:NOR, however I disagree that its not a relevant interpretation, given the widespread view of the white whale symbolizing God. Just my two cents :) Instead I put a short line about Ahab's struggle against fate. Marty Donakowski 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll agree that the whale is widely seen as symbolizing God. However, the deleted discussion was about LaVay's philosophy (not that there's anything wrong with that ...), which did not develop until after the book was published. --JChap 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Aha, I understand, my intent wasn't to connect LaVay's theories in particular but rather Satanism in general. I'll accept the current revision. Cheers Marty Donakowski 02:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The article includes two assertions reflecting the statement above that the whale is seen as "symbolizing God," but there are no citations for that. Given the differences between the text and the two screen adaptations, I suspect such statements may reflect 20th century misinterpretations rather than Melville's 19th century intent. Melville signed aboard a whaler at the same time that naturalists were likewise taking to the sea, and he wrote Moby Dick at the same time that Darwin and other naturalists were developing the theory of evolution. The text extols the dynamism of the early American republic, which had recently been founded as perhaps the first country without an official religion. The text does not appear to respect the biblical god over Queequeg's idol, for example. It seems unlikely that Melville intended the book's title character to symbolize any particular god. More likely, the sin of Ahab was to attribute excessively human characteristics to a dumb animal, in violation of both biblical religion and natural law. (Remember that when Mickey Mouse debuted, religious groups protested that a talking mouse was sinful, and of course in nature mice don't drive boats and whistle and sing.) Assigning divine characteristics to the whale would go even further in the wrong direction. Unless someone can provide citations to credible sources, the probably inaccurate claims should be removed.TVC 15 09:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons discussed above, I've removed an unsourced and contradictory statement claiming that the whale symbolizes (among other things) divine providence. Perhaps, in some people's minds, they choose to imagine it that way, but they should comply with WP:OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVC 15 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why was my Jed McKenna comment removed?

Hello, I've only dabbled on Wikipedia in the past - in fact I haven't even created an account yet, so bear with me. User Stbalbach removed my comment (below) about Jed McKenna's book citing a reason of "not literary criticism but pop spiritualism". First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "pop spiritualism" but I sense it may be derogatory - can you explain further please? Secondly, how did you make your decision as to whether or not McKenna's book may or may not be literary criticism? Thirdly, why does a comment on this page have to be one of "literary criticism"? I found McKenna's take on Moby-Dick very interesting and feel other Wikipedia readers may find it like-wise. Should I instead add my comment to the References section?

thank you. Brian--62.231.39.150 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In his book Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, Jed McKenna argues that Moby-Dick is actually Melville's description of his spiritual awakening, and that the novel only makes sense when seen from the perspective of spiritual enlightenment. He also claims to have identified what happens to Ahab at the end of the story, that in fact Ahab doesn't die in the destruction of the Pequod.

I'm reverting as you haven't replied (either here or on your Talk page). Brian 83.71.171.217 08:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've just created a user. This is me. :-) --Brian Fenton 11:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brian, sorry I took a while to respond. The reason is we are supposed to use scholarly sources on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, in particular when it comes to literary analysis. Based on what I could tell, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment is not scholarly or peer reviewed. I called it "pop spirituality" because it's like "pop psychology", not associated with mainstream religion or a school of thought, it is targeted to a POPular audience. For example what is a "Spiritual Autolysis journal". I'm not saying he's wrong, but it's not a great source for Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stbalbach, thanks for replying. That makes sense, I'm still finding my feet here on Wikipedia.

The reason I objected to your "pop spiritualism" remark is that McKenna is far from a mainstream thinker, but I can understand now what you mean. Thanks for clearing that up.

I appreciate the Jed McKenna is certainly not an academic or peer-reviewed author - I understood from Wikipedia:Reliable sources that articles discussing art or fiction didn't necessarily need to have academic sources, only "reliable" sources. More than half of McKenna's book is devoted to the subject of Moby-Dick (in fact, the opening line of the book is "Call me Ahab"), so I could argue that by setting the right context (which I see you have already started to do in your recent edit), that it is "reliable". Obviously that context is meta-physical, which can be problematic I accept. However, I'd argue that anyone interested in the deeper symbolism of Moby-Dick would find McKenna's book fascinating (especially his claim to have identified what happens Ahab (I don't want to spoil it by giving it away here!)), irrespective of it's meta-physical context.

I completely appreciate the need to avoid meta-physical discussion on an encylopedia, but I feel there is a gray area when it comes to symbolism in literature, and I genuinely feel that McKenna's book sheds some fascinating light on Melville's intent and on understanding Ahab's madness.

If you'd prefer, I'm happy to move my paragraph to the Reference section. Or is the context you added in the Symbolism section enough for you?

After all, it's just some guy's opinion on a book about a fish! ;-)

Also, you made a good point about reliable sources; do you know if any of the other paragraphs in the Symbolism section come from reliable sources? Maybe they need to cite their sources too.

Many thanks,

Brian --Brian Fenton 11:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To user 86.135.245.174 - stop deleting the Jed McKenna section without discussion! If you have a problem with please talk about it here. Brian Fenton 09:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Same goes to user 81.129.112.217 - please discuss your objections before deleting! I'm starting to think I wouldn't have bothered in the first place if I thought my comment was going to upset so many people! Let's hear your arguments though. I'm not in the Wikipedia that long as a user myself, so I'm open to discussing anything but I don't think deletes in this manner are acceptable Wikipedia behaviour. If anybody else thinks I'm guilty of too many reverts please let me know, but to be honest, this is getting a bit depressing. Brian Fenton 13:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your going to have this problem. As I said before, this is an academic topic, and we are supposed to use academic sources - spiritual enlightenment guru POV's are not really what you would expect to find in an encyclopedia article. I mean, why not add the Jewish Orthodox view, or the Roman Catholic view? We generally try to stay away from religious polemics and stick with academic literary sources. -- Stbalbach 15:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stbalbach, did you not see my earlier answer to these issues (3 paragraphs above)? Looking forward to your replies. Brian Fenton 07:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to drop the question of Mr. McKenna's "reliability" or "scholarliness," because Brian Fenton rightly points out that those characteristics are vague. However, to be blunt, I think he exhibits several signs of crankdom. First, notice that he espouses an unorthodox theology, presumably of his own making. Second, notice that his interpretation of Moby-Dick seems to run counter to the accepted lines of literary criticism, and that he uncovers hidden meanings in the book that run counter to the apparent plot and meaning. As such, he deserves little more attention than I would, if I were to publish a book claiming that The Lord of the Rings (to choose a widely known example) does not actually end with the downfall of Sauron. --Smack (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Smack

I want to be clear here - I'm not claiming that Jed McKenna is correct or that I agree with or condone his view. I simply thought the book contained enough merit to be of interest to readers of Moby-Dick who may be open to a meta-physical interpretation. There's no other agenda here. Considering the article already mentions that the dog in the X-Files is named Queequeg, I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. (I have my theories, but I'd prefer some honest debate rather than wasting my time speculating).

I'm not quite sure I see your points here - what does McKenna's "theology" have to do with anything? The reason I added the McKenna reference was that it was something new and different from "accepted lines of literary criticism" - after all, should an encyclopedia article not contain many points of view?

Within a certain context, McKenna's book is certainly a valid take on the symbolism or meaning of Moby-Dick. I have already tried to establish that context (see my comments above at 11:07, 24 August 2006).

I don't want to get into defending McKenna's thesis but I will say this in reply to your "hidden meanings" comment: all McKenna does is point out that nowhere in Moby-Dick does it say that Ahab dies, simply that "he was shot out of the boat" into the water by a rope. McKenna proposes the theory that possibly Ahab is the sole survivor of the Pequod, and that Ishmael is, in fact, Ahab (this is the spoiler piece of information I didn't want to reveal in my comments above). This, McKenna claims, explains the mysterious opening line of the book "Call me Ishmael". What reasons would the narrator have for not giving the reader his real name? In the context of McKenna's explanation of Ahab's "madness", this makes sense; outside of the context of McKenna's book, I can understand how it sounds like outlandish claims. He builds a case which I'm not going to reproduce here. All I wanted to do was point it out to other interested readers of Moby-Dick. (It's just a theory, like lots of other theories on novels. I'm certainly not suggesting we put the whole of McKenna's thesis in the article, simply a reference to it.) I claim the topic has merit to be included in this article. If you have a problem with the wording, I am totally open to hearing your suggestions on that.

Your point about crankdom would be a valid one within a purely scientific context - I maintain that we are in a very different context here with McKenna (that of a metaphysical discussion of the symbolism of a novel). I'm sorry but your Lord of the Rings analogy sounds like a Straw man argument to me.

I suspect much of the difficulties people here are having with the McKenna reference is its metaphysical basis, but I'd like to remind everyone of the very obvious mystical elements to the book, and the already widely accepted "spiritual" theme. I submit that if McKenna were a meteorologist writing a book about Moby-Dick from a meteorology perspective, there wouldn't be this much controversy about it (or is that me making a Straw man argument? :-)).

Let me repeat: help me re-write the comment to your satisfaction if you so wish, but I've yet to hear a reason not to include a reference to McKenna's book. --Brian Fenton 10:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brian,

You seem to have addressed your entire comment to me, even though you reply to comments that I did not make. (For instance, I said nothing about theology; that was Stbalbach.)

Any encyclopedia needs a set of standards by which it can decide what content it must include, and what content it should not. You propose Wikipedia should include everything that is valid in some context, such as its own. Note that every argument is valid in its own context, unless it's composed by a raving lunatic who can't string an argument together without contradicting himself. In effect, you propose a policy of "no lunacy."

I find this criterion unsatisfactory. I propose to demonstrate this by way of the Lord of the Rings example. Let's say I were to compose an argument, internally consistent but specious nonetheless, that Sauron survives. I hope that we can agree that this argument has no place on the wiki. Now, as far as I can tell, your standard claims that it should be included.

If we reject your standard, we need another. In fact, Wikipedia has one. See Wikipedia:No original research. I think that sections 1, 3, 4, 8, and 11 apply particularly well to our discussion here. --Smack (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Smack,

Thanks for taking the effort to reply - I appreciate your willingness to stick in there and help resolve this.

In fact, my last reply was directed to you in its entirety (Stbalbach never responded to my earlier comments to him, so I assumed he was happy with them). Also, unless my eyes deceive me, it was indeed yourself who made the comment about theology.

In your replies, I think you have focussed too much on the minor issue (McKenna's interpretation of Ahab's death) and not enough on the major issue (whether a spiritually-themed book about Moby-Dick deserves a mention in this article). I'm interested in hearing your comments on this major issue. I think you make some valid points on the minor issue, but I also feel it's distracting from the major issue.

In the interest of resolution, what can we do to resolve your issues: remove the comment entirely? Move it to the References section? If it would help, I'm happy to remove the last sentence (McKenna's interpretation of Ahab's death) as it seems to have created undesired confusion. Please tell me what you would like.

many thanks

Brian

PS As an aside, I'm still curious about your (and other people's) motivation for focussing on this one comment. There are as many other equally troublesome (by your criteria) comments in the article. For example, the very first reference in the Adaptations section describes the 1930 movie "in which Ahab kills the whale and returns home to the woman he loves" - a movie with an entire alternate ending! Surely this fits into your "Sauron survives" analogy? Just curiosity... Brian Fenton 08:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I missed this discussion, overloaded watchlist :) You would never see his views mentioned in Encyclopedia Britannica, or in a scholarly commentary - it's just some guys views who has no review process or professional reputation among peers. I just don't think it is appropriate for this article, and at least 2 other people seem to agree (at some level). That's 3 to one. If we made a straw poll I'm sure it would continue to trend in that direction over time. Given the context I added, it makes it clear, but I think because of the context, this will be a problem for future editors who come across it. IMO it should be moved to an article about Jed McKenna and/or his book and expanded upon within the context of spiritualism - afterall he is really writing about spiritualism, not Moby Dick. -- Stbalbach 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian: Now I see that I did comment on McKenna's theology. However, I don't want to defend that statement. Neither am I interested in Ahab's death for its own sake; I'm just using it as an example to demonstrate how unprecedented McKenna's claims are. I agree that it's a minor issue, but I also think that McKenna's spiritual motivation is a minor issue. The only major issue here, as far as I'm concerned, is McKenna's reputability.

You shouldn't compare films and books based on Moby-Dick to McKenna's book. The movie where Ahab survives is an independent work of fiction that was based on Melville's book. McKenna's book is a work of literary criticism. They need to satisfy different criteria to be included. I think McKenna clearly fails his, and I believe that he should be removed from the article.

Stbalbach: I would rather explain to Brian why his view doesn't work, before we try to squash him with a straw poll. --Smack (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree McKenna does not qualify as a literary critic and should not be in this particular article. But he does qualify as something (published author and well known commentator on spiritualism) that would allow him to be mentioned in Wikipedia - as a compromise I suggest this discussion be moved to another article about McKenna, his work and his books and re-phrased to focus on McKenna's overall views of spiritualism, perhaps using the Moby Dick stuff as an example in explaining McKenna's views. -- Stbalbach 05:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys, you win. I'm going to remove the paragraph from Symbolism and put in a simple entry in the References section based on the Philip Roth one. Hope this is ok:

A 2004 book, Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, by American author Jed McKenna begins with the line "Call me Ahab," and refers to Moby-Dick several times throughout its length. --Brian Fenton 14:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

PS Stbalbach, spiritualism is something entirely different from spirituality. Just so you know :-) --Brian Fenton 14:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I don't know which one is the right one for the book I did "spirituality", hope that is correct. -- Stbalbach 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Characters

Dear readers,

Would it be proper to include the Filipino whalers Captain Ahab smuggled aboard in the "Characters" section? Or would that be on the same scale as the other named whales? Elijha too plays a significant, if not lengthy, role in the beginning of the book, would he be considered for inclusion as well? Indeed, there is quite a large cast of characters which never so much as set foot on the Pequod; are they eligible? Cheers!

Sincerely,

Mbrutus 01:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should have a section on minor characters. Fedallah's companions deserve mention, but only as Fedallah's companions. Speaking of Fedallah, I don't like the way he's filed away with the other harpooneers, becasue he has a very different plot function and bears imagery that they do not. --Smack (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(This is Ionesco...alas, not logged in...)

Each of the harpooners (and in fact virtually all of the named characters in the novel) bears his own unique imagery. If we are looking at plot function, I would argue that Quequeg would be the first to be separated from the group, since he is a much more significant character than any of the other three harpooners. On my list of things that need to be changed on this article, that is pretty low tho. --Ionesco64.108.68.195 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Brian. Jed McKenna's take on Moby Dick is compelling and worth listing. --AR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.177.103 (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Split the article?

We have a slight problem differentiating between the book (Moby-Dick) and the character (Moby Dick). The problem appears conspicuously in the long list of categories to which this article belongs. The categories refer sometimes to the book (ex. "1851 novels," "Massachusetts in fiction") and sometimes to the whale (ex. "Cetaceans," "Fictional albinos"). I'm not sure whether or not the whale deserves an article of its own, but note that we have one on Ishmael (Moby-Dick). --Smack (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The category confusion aside – and I'm about to remove 'Fictional albinos' as it's inappropriate – I don't see a need to split off an article about Moby Dick (the whale/character). The character Ishmael is somewhat more extended than that of the whale, I think stemming from the fact that there are a lot of Ishmaels out there and there's a need to distinguish between them. Moby Dick, however complicated a role he plays in it, is intrinsically linked to the book – how many times have you run across the idea of Moby Dick the whale without Moby-Dick the novel being involved? In addition, the Ishmael article isn't really a good example of a split-off article, as it doesn't give more information than is now on this page (except for the actors portraying the character in film adaptations, which would be inappropriate here).

As to the length of this article, well, Moby-Dick is considered one of the most important American novels and has been very influential on a lot of literature following it. I'd say, if anything, the article should be longer.--Andymussell 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC

I pointed out the confused categorization just because it reveals the problem; it is not the entire problem. People reading an article about whales in literature might click on a link that says "Moby Dick is a famous character..." and wind up in this article, which begins, "Moby-Dick is an 1851 novel..."

I agree with you that we should have more information on this important book, but I see no reason why we need to keep it all in one page. For instance, the "Selected adaptations" section could be split off for brevity's sake. --Smack (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The only split I can see being useful would be to create seperate entries for the book and the for each of the various film adaptations, or all together if they're not notable enough to have entries on their own. Like was stated above, I see no situation where one would mention Moby Dick (character) and not have it reference the novel. Same thing for Ishmael, merge him back in to this page. Ionesco 20:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate Word Choice

It is written: "...Ishmael sees his shipmates as avatars of human nature and society,..." This use of the word "avatar" is most inappropriate and should be changed. What the writer meant is "types" or "exemplars". "Avatar" is trendy; that's all. --User:Writtenright

I agree and changed this to 'archetypes'. Which might have a whole new set of problems, but I still think it's better in this situation than 'avatar' is.-BlackAndy 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt seem right either. Although I dont know what is right 10max01 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you say that avatar is "trendy"? Not challenging your statement, just legitimately curious. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

With so much dedicated to the historical background, the symbolism and to other works making allusion to the novel. A few paragraphs dedicated to what actually happens in the story could help make this article seem more complete. Dr. Lobotomy 01:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Alias?

Dear readers,

Could we have a passage or two backing up the implication that Ishmael is an alias? Having read the book, I can't really say that I wholeheartedly agree with the claim.

Sincerely,

75.34.209.36 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand either how one can make such a claim. I've changed the article to say that it's unclear. --Smack (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In literary and artistic circles, the name "Ishmael" can be an alias assumed by an outcast and/or wanderer, in a nod to the original Ishmael, who was both. Given some additional information, for example that the character Ishmael has no surname, and that he announces himself with the phrase "Call me Ishmael" rather than "My name is Ishmael" or "I was born Ishmael", it's seems likely that Melville meant to suggest that Ishmael is, in fact, not the character's given name, though this is never overtly stated. --BlackAndy 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you claim that the context in which "Ishmael" says this leads the reader to suspect that it's an alias. I don't see anything wrong with including an interpretation like that one in the article, so long as we don't claim that the alias-ness is self-evident without knowing the context. --Smack (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Addiction to oranges?

"However this has yet to be proven, it is rumored that Melville lived in Manhattan and had a strange addiction to oranges while writing this novel." This seems a bit fishy(if you will excuse the pun) to me... any source? Seems like the kind of thing someone would throw in as a test... Schuyler s. 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed this and one other apparently bogus comment. They were both added by 68.84.48.89 (talk · contribs) on November 29 (see page history). --Smack (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember hearing that Melville once came down with scurvy and thus had to eat loads of oranges as a sort of treatment for it. While this is not exactly an addiction, it would substantiate that information. Mary Karr (Carr?) said this at a writers' conference in Pittsburgh, and she's friends with some famous person who wrote a Melville biography, which is where she claimed to get her information. BobCinnamon 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

New Page: Allusions to Moby-Dick in Popular Culture

The allusions to Moby-Dick section of this article has gotten much to big. I would like to get people's input on spinning off a new page which would be a listing of these allusions (a real page-turner, I know.) I think it would make the article much more manageable...

Ionesco 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. I say go for it. if you need help, tell me on my talk page, I'd be more than willing to. --DurinsBane87 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Then take bets on how long it will be before someone proposes merging them. Wahkeenah 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Very Likely, but I think the fact that it is such a large and varied list will allow it to stand on its own. It could even be split up in to categories such as television, movie adaptations, music, etc.Ionesco 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Moby-Dick in Popular Culture has been created. I will reduce the current listing to just the direct film and television adaptations. lets see how long this lasts...--Ionesco 16:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove all the references to Moby Dick in Popular Culture. That is not the same as Direct Film and Television adaptations. I think that was a great loss of some of the most interesting information in article and I miss it alot. Ewgalloway (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Savage?

The word "savage" for the harpooners seems a bit non-NPOV. While certainly Melville uses the word "savage" to describe the harpooners, it doesn't feel right for Wikipedia to do so as there's nothing at all "savage" about them, save for being non-white. Anyone have any problems with deleting it? Melvillean 05:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Put it in quotes. Wahkeenah 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of them were canibals after all. Savage is used not specifically to refer to them as black (even though it was assumed) but to their differently cultured nature and that many of their practices seemed different to normal acceptable society. I think that the savage reference should stay as it is, as this is how they are refered in the book and increases their presence in the text rather than the little cabin boy Pip who is also black but not described as a savage due to his unbrutal and unimposing appearance being both young and thin. Hex ten 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the harpooners called "savages" in the article are so named in the book. I originally put quotes around the word when I created that portion of the article, but I now think they should be left as is without removal or quotes. Ionesco 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I added something to the section about Queequeg (the bit about the boots) that I hope gives some insight on this concern. Melville seems to use 'savage' to contrast a character to someone who is 'civilized' (mostly meaning 'a member of Western/Christian civilization'), which I think is pretty much what the word 'savage' means. Of course, the view that there exist individuals who are 'uncivilized' (i.e. that is not a member of some civilization) is no longer seriously considered by most (except maybe Kaspar Hauser for example would have been fairly savage in this sense), which is where the tension nowadays comes from. I've heard that Melville is considered by a lot of commentators to have a more enlightened viewpoint than most of his contemporaries, and this is bourne out by the quoting of Queequeg's description of his tribe's wedding feast and the gaffe by the ship captain, but the fact remains that he's a white male from the mid-19th century and is likely writing this book for an audience that he considers will be substantially similar.

Maybe it would be a good idea to add a section describing how the usage of the word 'savage' in the book is similar to the Ancient Greek usage of the word that became 'barbarian', which from what I've heard is basically a term that meant 'non-Greek-speaking person'. Of course, for me that's all hearsay, so I'd have to do some research to first of all back up the claim about the word barbarian (for all I know it's on the barbarian page, I haven't checked), and second to back up the claim that the usage of 'savage' in Moby-Dick is similar.--BlackAndy 00:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that important but... why not?

Why no put Ambroise Louis Garneray's Pêche de la Baleine that Melville talks about in chapter 56? That would make the article, compared to a continuous whiteness, more comfortable to read. The image is available on the internet. -- 213.6.22.218 12:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Major revert

I was looking over the article today and noticed that many paragraphs, links, and quotations were mangled. Breaks were inserted into links, breaks were removed from indented quotes, and the article was pretty seriously messed up. After going through the history I found the original edit was by 69.143.228.193 on September 5, 2007 at 16:06. Unfortunately some intervening edits made it impossible to undo that edit, so the only option that I know of was to revert back to the last clean version. I looked over the intervening edits and most of them appeared to be attempting to clean up the garbled text, so I think they are all taken care of. Apologies are due, however, if I inadvertently reverted over a positive edit. -Taranah 06:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

i think this article needs a revision. there is some good stuff, but could use some reworking. willing to help. Platypusjones 04:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

certainly agree. on the whole, the information is good, but the prose is often very poor. Ionlyamescapedalone 12:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

incorrect- plot summary

in Plot Summary, the following sentence: "The two quickly become fast friends; Ishmael even humorously calls the relationship a "marriage", and he joins Queequeg in worshipping his idol god." It's not Ishmael, but Queequeg: "He seemed to take to me quite as naturally and unbiddenly as I to him; and when our smoke was over, he pressed his forehead against mine, clasped me round the waist, and said that henceforth we were married; meaning, in his country's phrase, that we were bosom friends; he would gladly die for me, if need should be" (p. 51). Will change.Platypusjones 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Ahab quote

The Ahab quote, "God hath struck a chord on this here coin!" doesn't seem to exist in any edition I've looked at. See, for example, the text at Project Gutenberg. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I suggest that it's removed. Timohannay 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error. I've corrected it along with two other probable errors as noted above in the discussion on religion and symbolism. I suspect that all three originate with the 20th-century movie versions.TVC 15 22:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

symbolism section

after reading it again, the symbolism section is in dire need of references. outside of those, it borders on "original research" since the interpretations could be construed as idiosyncratic.Platypusjones 03:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

An observation about luck and some related subjects

According to the article the narrator is saved "by pure luck". Luck? In Melville's words the devious-cruising RACHEL is there, because it is forever looking for her missing children. If one calls this luck, then one would have to call everything else in the book also luck. Everything, that happens to the PEQUOD and its crew. For example the meetings with all the other ships, the ROSEBUD, the VIRGIN, the DELIGHT, and so on. But maybe this is only, because the autors of the article have not had yet enough time to think about this problem. That would also explain, why in the article none of these ships are mentioned, although in the book they form a framing.

Another thing that gives me a riddle: The book begins with the ETYMOLOGY supplied by the pale Usher - "threadbare in coat, heart, body, and brain". And it is this, and not the opening words of Chapter One, which sets the tone of the book. Could it be, that the autors of the article are basing their writings on some badly shortened version of Melville's work? -- Hanno Kuntze (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• these are melville's words: "It was the devious-cruising Rachel, that in her retracing search after her missing children, only found another orphan". But yours is a question of motivation or intention. of course in M-D there is a strong theme of whatever you would like to call it: personal will, personal choice, self-direction, agency, single-mindedness, monomania, goal-oriented behavior. the distinction between choice and chance, or luck, is one of those metaphysical questions for which there is no good answer. indeed, the rachel was as stuck on its course to find its missing children as much as the pequod was on its course to find moby-dick. (the pequod's encounter with the rachel invites us to explore values and what we find important: does one help find a missing person (the captain's son) over and above a whale? can one allow oneself to let go of one's goal to help another achieve theirs? nevertheless, that is beside the point.) that said, there is a strong element of "luck" or "chance" evident in the epilogue, which led up to his discovery. Ishmael says the following: "it so chanced, that after the Parsee's disappearance, I was he whom the Fates ordained to take the place of Ahab's bowsman." He is also surrounded by sharks that do not bite and sea-hawks whose beaks are sheated. there appears to be a sense of providence evident in this scene (that even the coffin bubbled up to the surface and provided safety). true, the rachel was there looking for the missing children, but in a wide sea to come across a small speck could be luck. so, maybe "pure luck" might be overstating, i don't think there is a case for predetermination of predestination either.

• as far as the second point, i cannot speculate about the intentions of other authors. traditionally, the etymology and and excerpts sections are considered to be prepatory materials; prefaces of sorts, as the article suggests. i disagree that the etymology preface sets the tone of the book, simply because it appears first. in the consequent section, extracts, melville asks us not to take the extracts too seriously: " As touching the ancient authors generally, as well as the poets here appearing, these extracts are solely valuable or entertaining, as affording a glancing bird's eye view of what has been promiscuously said, thought, fancied, and sung of Leviathan, by many nations and generations, including our own." granted extracts is a different section, but melville is setting us up for something different, which begins with chapter 1, loomings. that aside, the first line of chapter one is considered by some schoalrs and most lay readers to be one of the most famous in (american) literature. Platypusjones (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for going to so much trouble. Unfortunately I am in no position to argue about the finer points of the English language with a native speaker of this beautiful idiom. All I can say, is that in reading good novels in English, my feeling has always been, that the word "chance" as a verb implicated coincidence, and if it was to implicate "luck", the writers would make this explicatedly clear. But even if Melville had done so, it still would not have been a statement about his fictional figure's luck, but about his real reader's luck. Namely to get the story, which would not be, if there would be nobody to tell it. Melville makes this very clear with a quote in the epilogue: "And I only am escaped alone to tell thee." So it still remains, that "by pure luck..." is not fitting. And also, that the other ships are missing in the article.

About the opening words of Chapter One you are of course absolutely right. They are justifiedly famous and define the main narrator and the whole narrative. But not the tone of the book. This is set by the voice of the autor. The ETYMOLOGY does not just chance to be at the beginning instead of at the end of the book. But - and I'm sure, you will agree with me on this point - what really counts, is how the article gets built. So if you want to know, how the pale Usher could be handled, you might want to take a look at an article, that gets another tonesetting beginning of a book exactly right: the "notice" that starts off the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. -- Hanno Kuntze (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• No worries about going to trouble. after all, that is what the discussion pages are for: to think through thoughtful queries and comments. i agree with you that building the article is important. on that note, i can make two suggestions pertaining your concerns. the first is that the phrase "pure luck" appears in the context of the plot summary. Perhaps that phrase can be removed and a sentence can simply describe the rachel finding Ishamel in the water. The question of luck or chance can be discussed in another section (major themes) or an "analysis" section can be created. as far as whose "luck" it might be, Ishamel's or the reader's, I'm sure reader response theory can be used to interpret the text, but that too would be better served in the context of an analysis section. second, on tone: with Huckleberry Finn, Twain's admonitions to the reader are important, just as are Melville's (see again extracts where has asks us not to take things too seriously). I also agree that Melville placed the etymology section at the beginning instead of at the end for a purpose. perhaps to set a tone, as you argue. the question that would require exploring then, would be what tone is set by this section? and perhaps an exploration of the significance of this section could be added to an analysis section. hope this clarifies somewhat. be well and thank you. Platypusjones (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahab ill?

This article states "For several days, though, an ill Ahab stays below decks..." I don't remember anything in the novel that actually says Ahab is ill. Can someone please clarify or explain? Kingturtle (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

True. There is no mention of illness. Even Ishmael comments that he appeared to show no sign of illness or recovery from one. Platypusjones (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of Ishmael quote v/v bible

"when God granted her a son, Isaac, Ishmael and his mother were turned out of Abraham's household"
I'm not going to edit the page, not having read Moby-Dick, but the above seems to imply that Ishmael was turned out as soon as, and as a result of, Issac's birth. This is not accurate - see Ishmael and Ishmael for more detail.

Moreso, neither the King James Version nor the New International Version list the messenger who informed Job of his children's death as Ishmael. In both, he's referred to simply as a messenger. I'm not going to edit this, since there may be translation issues and I'm far from a biblical scholar, but I'd like some verification. -zenostortoise

Actually, no, I think I'm going to remove that reference after all. I'd never heard it before and it sent me on a half-hour search for something to back it up, and I'd rather save others the trouble. -zenostortoise

Author of the Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex

The text states, "The story was recounted by the survivor Thomas Nickerson in his Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex."

The account mentioned was penned by Owen Chase. Nickerson's account was not published until after Moby-Dick was written (see Nathaniel Philbrick's "In the Heart of the Sea" or the Wikipedia link for the whaleship Essex).

Mark

Additional themes

I haven't finished the book quite yet, but I'm about 95% through it. Anyway I saw a few complaints that the themes and symbolism was a bit sparse. Maybe someone can come along and wiki them up.

I've got a few in mind just off the top of my head. Early on in the novel (about 30% through I think) Starbuck (or maybe it was Stubbs) has a conversation with Ahab about whether he would chase Moby Dick if it caused them to not catch as many whales and make less money. This could be seen as a question about utalitarianism in a way, since Ahab is making a decision for his personal gain rather than what is good for his crew.

Also a more literal theme is that of revenge. Although several times in the novel (specifically when Ahab spoke with the British captain who lost his arm to Moby Dick) Moby Dick is described as not doing anything he(it?) did out of malice, Ahab wants to get revenge on him(it). This offers the question of just how far does revenge go? Should you get revenge on nature itself? It seems like Ahab wants to revenge.

Critical reception---current

This subsection needs at least one citation, probably more. The first sentence is not particularly controversial, but it is a very strong statement, begging for a source, and the quotation should definitely be sourced. As to the second sentence, I am not at all sure if it is true that Moby-Dick is "studied in most schools in the United States". My impression is that other, shorter Melville works are preferred to the rather intimidating Moby-Dick. So a citation supporting that claim is necessary. I'm not in a great position to add these citations myself. -- Spireguy (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

trivia

I find that information interesting, and entertaining. I wish we could find a way to keep it. Kingturtle (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING and, of course, WP:TRIVIA. I'd suggest the most important or relevant bits of information be sourced (i.e. just because a work mentions a white whale or a character named Ahab doesn't mean it's a reference to this book) and incorporated into the rest of the article. Leaving in the "Trivia" header just invites cruft. Perhaps some kind of "Legacy" heading is a place to start? --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In 1926 John Barrymore made a silent film, THE SEA BEAST, which he re-made with a somewhat longer script as a talkie in 1930 as MOBY DICK, in which he appeared as "Capt. Ahab Ceely". The plot pretended to be from Melville but there was no Ishmael, no Pequod (the ship was called The Shanghai Lady), and no drowning of Ahab but in the end Ahab personally harpoons Moby Dick to death and thereby survives, cured of his obsessive hatred. I have not the slightest idea where Barrymore got the name Ceely as the Capt's last name. In the novel we are not even clear if Ahab is his first or his last name. 173.79.234.183 (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Harpooners vs. Harpooneers?

Section 4.6 of the page is entitled, "Harpooners", but the men are referred to in that section as "harpooneers" (note the double E). Which is the correct term? Robert (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe harpooneers is the old spelling, every current reference spells it with one "e". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.230.202 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moby-Dick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Although this article is better than most novel articles, it has a ways to go before GA. Several sections are uncited and disorganized. The Major themes section could use a lot more sources and expansion, for example. I would put the Plot summary before anything else in the article except possibly the historical background. No sense in talking about themes in a plot you haven't described yet. The entire characters section seems to violate WP:OR since it cites almost nothing but the primary source. The adaptations section needs to be prosified and the [citation needed] tags in other sections fixed.

Other parts of the article, such as the first part of the Critical section and many parts of the Historical background sections, are very good, though.

Wrad (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Elijah

I've restored the short paragraph comparing Elijah in the novel to the movie adaptations. It had been deleted as "irrelevant," but other parts of the article refer several times to the movie adaptations, and the number of people who have seen at least one of the movies probably exceeds by an order of magnitude the number of people who have read the novel. As such, it is relevant in describing the character Elijah to point out a significant difference between how most people have seen him compared to how Melville originally wrote him. Previously, the paragraph contained a concluding sentence on the cultural significance of the change (i.e., Melville's 19th century uncertainty about religion had been replaced with 20th century certainty), but someone deleted that because it was unsourced; fair enough, let WP provide the facts and leave them for the reader to interpret. Also, anonymous URLs seem to replace the second reference to Gregory Peck (which is correct) with Orson Welles (incorrect). The fact that the anonymous replacements recur, and frequently misspell "Welles" as "Wells," leads me to suspect vandalism in some instances. Gregory Peck played Captain Ahab in the 1956 screen adaptation, and Father Mapple in the 1998 version. (Orson Welles played Father Mapple in the 1956 version, and died in 1985.) The article acknowledges religion as a major theme of the novel, but provides comparatively little discussion; the paragraph on Elijah provides the contrast between Melville's skepticism (equating Christianity with Queequeg's idol) and 20th century popular reverence.TVC 15 (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about the book. There are separate pages for the films. If this page was about the character Elijah then it would be relevant to discuss the different interpretations - but this is just a character summary to give information about characters in the novel. Daisyabigael (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the place for movie comparisons belong on the movie articles. Kingturtle (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you propose to delete all reference to the movie adaptations from this article (and from Gone With the Wind, and all other articles on novels that were later adapted for screen)? Why would a contrast between the novel and two movies belong solely in the articles on the movies, and be banned from the article on the novel? Also, how do you propose the article should address what it describes as the "major theme" of religion, or do you propose to delete religion from the list of major themes? Why else is Elijah even in the article if his relevance to the theme is deleted? Although Elijah has only a few lines in a thousand-page book, they reflect an American school of thought (including probably Melville's) on 'the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.' His importance as a character, and the cultural contrast, are demonstrated by the fact that both movies included him but changed him.TVC 15 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The wider discussion of Elijah may warrant a separate page - many characters from major novels have one. But here, the references to the film portrayals of Elijah were clumsy and out of place. There is space for a discussion of film adaptations on any page about a work of fiction - but in its own section and not interspersed willy-nilly throughout the article as you please. This section is a rundown of the key characters IN THE NOVEL - not a section about differences between the novel and its adaptations. If you want a section like this - gfo ahead and start one. It just seems clumsy to me to stick a paragraph about various film portrayals in the middle of a section which should be exclusively about the book. As to the discussion of the religious themes: I don't even know what you're on about! If you want a section on religious themes that sounds very valid and should be in its own section under "themes" - again not just stuck in under an outline of one character - the religious themes in MB surely go beyond merely Elijah? - but he would be discussed in a section of that kind. My objection is that the film stuff and the discussion of religion in the novel has just been stuck in to a character summary for no really good reason. Daisyabigael (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else wrote the paragraph, I added to it, someone else took out a sentence, many others made minor edits, but in one form or another it's been there for more than a year. If you "don't know" what everyone else is "on about," why not read it instead of deleting what is clear to others but not to you? Do you burn books that you don't understand? Your comments above are organizational rather than substantive, yet your edit deleted substance rather than reorganizing. Personally, I thought the paragraph belonged where I found it and where everyone else had kept it, but if you think it belongs in a different part of the article, you could simply move it rather than deleting what others wrote.TVC 15 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't belong on this page and I've said why. Start a page for the character and you can discuss the varying portrayals to your heart's content. My objection is organisational - but also substantive. It doesn't belong here.Daisyabigael (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We have each stated our opinions, but WP is a collaborative effort where no one person's opinions are definitive or privileged above all others. If you want to reorganize the article, I have no objection. However, looking back at the countless editors who shared my opinion that the paragraph belonged where it was, and looking ahead to the objections they might raise to moving it, I see no reason for me to select and defend a different location. People always think they are right, and some people sometimes are, but there is usually more than one right answer. WP builds on collaboration and compromise, not tearing down the work of others. I will restore the paragraph as it was, and invite you to move it if you wish, and hopefully we can all move on.TVC 15 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your paragraph is not lost and as I have said you are welcome to move it to a section where it will be relevant. None of the other character summaries mention film depictions. There is a section on film adaptations - discussion of the diferences would be better there - you put it there if you want. I think discussion of the religious themes is important enough to have iots own section and I would support its inclusion. But, please, why do you think a tangetial discussion of different movie versions is in any way suitable for a charcter summary entry in a page about the novel? That previous editors left you material in place may have been oversight - but you will notice that the only third party in this debate so far has supported my position and not yours. I suggest you move your material (after rewriting it) to a suitable section/s. Daisyabigael (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Long story short, the paragraph on Elijah's movie adaptations was moved from the Elijah section to the adaptations section, by Daisyabigael. I have no objection, and no one else has objected either. In fact, the relocated paragraph is now being edited in its new location, including most recently by an anonymous address that changed Gregory Peck to Orson Welles in the 1998 movie yet again. I reverted that because, as stated in the linked source, Gregory Peck played Captain Ahab in the 1956 movie and Father Mapple in the 1998 movie. Orson Welles appeared in the 1956 movie and died in 1985. Please, whoever is re-inserting Welles into the 1998 movie, give the guy some peace and stop trying to cast his corpse in speaking roles.TVC 15 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The section on Elijah is misplaced. If you like the material, move it to the relevant films. This is an article about the novel. Why is it people insist stuff like this be in an inappropriate article where it is more likely to be seen, rather than in the appropriate article(s) which are less looked at I wonder....Ekwos (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, the issue has been discussed already, and I think a reasonable compromise was reached. It's currently part of the selected adaptations section, which lists several films; by your logic, that whole section is "inappropriate" and everyone who ever put anything into it is was wrong. Particularly with regard to relevance, as stated above Elijah's relevance to the story is illustrated by how he is changed in the films. If you think it belongs elsewhere instead, you might try moving it there and see how that goes. However, it refers to two different films, so you would have to put part of the paragraph into each of those articles, or else duplicate. If you split up the paragraph, you lose the contrast, and if you duplicate, you risk relevance attacks on two fronts. BTW, why is it that people who have never contributed anything to this article somehow feel compelled to delete from it? Your assertion regarding relative traffic is interesting but unsubstantiated; is there any page-rank function showing traffic statistics for Wikipedia?TVC 15 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

All I have to say is - so what? What exactly do the changes people make in adapting the book to other media have to do with the book itself? I mean, it isn't like Melville took later movies into account in how he decided to write the book. On the other hand the details of changes made in adapting the book to the movie do in fact tell me something about the movie.

To repeat this information tells me zero about the book (because of course none of it mattered to Melville when he was writing the thing), but something about the various movies (since of course the people had to make a conscious change in the material). So why exactly should the info be in the book article rather than the movie article? In fact the mere issue that people making the movies thought the character was important does not tell me if the character is in fact important in the book (especially one of this length).

For example, Olivier's "Hamlet" leaves Rosencrantz and Guildenstern out entirely. Now, given that he is reducing a 4 hour play to a 2 hour movie, this fact tells me nothing about the importance of the characters in the play.Ekwos (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to invoke Shakespeare, a better example might be "Much Ado About Nothing." Everything you have written above is simply to delete a paragraph from an article that you never even contributed to. Each of your arguments applies equally to the entire "selected adaptations" section. Perhaps you would like to move everything from that section to the separate article on adaptations, although you might encounter objections from the many people who have edited the material where it is currently. As Wikipedia continues to grow and evolve, articles constantly get split or combined, and material is moved from one place to another. If you find something you think belongs somewhere else, you might try moving it there instead of just deleting it. That might be productive rather than simply destructive. First though, you might contribute something to the article, e.g. to develop the article's coverage of the themes that make Elijah important.TVC 15 (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You've talked about everything under the Sun except the actual topic to hand. How does the piece in question actually contribute to the reader's understanding of the novel. I read it and felt it contributed zero to that.Ekwos (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to the adaptations article as it is really about adaptations of the work and not the work itself.Ekwos (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to your moving the information to the article on adaptations, although I will defer to others on that since so many had edited the material where it was. Your question about the reader's understanding seems rhetorical (in fact you didn't even use a question mark), but I will answer anyway. To some extent, the answer depends on the reader, and especially the cultural context. Each reader arrives with some combination of understanding and misunderstanding, based on information already received elsewhere and the contemporary cultural context. To the extent that specific misconceptions are particularly widespread, addressing them contributes significantly to readers' understanding. Otherwise, leaving the misconceptions intact would leave the reader misinformed. Contrary to your statement above, if you look at this talk/discussion page you will see that I have in fact talked about this specific issue. (Perhaps you missed that, or perhaps you were determined that it should contribute "zero" to your understanding of the novel.) You will also see much discussion of religion and symbolism, including quotes that people had put into the article and incorrectly attributed to the novel - apparently the quotes were from the screen adaptations. The screen adaptations reached a much wider audience than the novel, and created some specific misconceptions. Obviously the novel contains many Biblical references, including the character Elijah, named for the prophet Elijah/Elias. However, that did not originally imply an endorsement of any particular religion, or even of religion in general. The American cultural context changed dramatically in the 20th century, and the changes to Elijah reflect that. In the 18th and 19th centuries, America's first three Presidents (who disagreed on much else, and represented different political parties) all agreed that America was not a "Christian country," yet by 2008 all major Republican candidates felt the need to declare the opposite. It is literally an article of faith among tens of millions of Americans that America is and must be an expressly Christian country and that the founders always intended it to be so. That misunderstanding is bound up with the related misunderstanding of the iconic American novel Moby-Dick. If you see the whale as a symbol for Jehovah, then Ahab and the crew are all punished for Ahab's sin of fighting Jehovah's will; the lesson of Moby-Dick becomes, 'follow the example of Job and accept whatever Jehovah decides to do to you.' On screen, Elijah's original doubts are censored and replaced with certainty. As discussed further above, that symbolism runs contrary to Melville's statements and the cultural context in which he wrote. Perhaps you never saw either of the screen adaptations, and thus never shared the widespread misunderstanding that drove incorrect quotes to be added to the article. That might explain your removal of all adaptations. However, it still would not explain how you gained "zero" from it, since we live in a world and learning about a widespread misunderstanding of a subject adds to our own understanding of it.TVC 15 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The top of this discussion page says this article "was a Language and literature good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake." If you look at the review page, you may observe the following:

"The Major themes section could use a lot more sources and expansion, for example... The entire characters section seems to violate WP:OR since it cites almost nothing but the primary source. The adaptations section needs to be prosified.... Other parts of the article, such as the first part of the Critical section and many parts of the Historical background sections, are very good, though."

Obviously, your argument against adaptations applies equally against most of the Critical Reception section (everything other than Melville's expectations). Perhaps you will now delete those too. Meanwhile, you have weakened the discussion of Elijah by removing most of the sources. Before you take your hatchet to other articles, e.g. Gone with the Wind, please consider that certain novels become part of the larger cultural fabric, like threads in a tapestry. If you chop away the tapestry, you diminish the understanding of the thread. Or, to borrow a phrase, you can't see the forest for the trees. Perhaps if Moby-Dick had sunk without a trace, it would make sense for the article to limit itself to the novel. What makes Moby-Dick notable is that it resurfaced, including in adaptations that reflected a changing culture.TVC 15 (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Moby Dick in Remixes

Would it be appropriate to add links to remixes including, working with or based on Moby Dick? xcaptaincrash (talk) 12:12, 17, Feburary 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added on 17:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC).

Size of the Beast

Was it ever said exactly how large Moby Dick is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.210.65 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Starbuck and Battlestar Galactica

Was the Starbuck character also inspirationial for the Battlestar Galactica series? Chris (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that's where the name came from. But nether the 1970s Starbuck nor the 2000s Starbuck bear any resemblance to the novel's Starbuck whatsoever, either in appearance, personality, character, action, or significance in the plot, so I wouldn't say the original was in any way "inspirational" to BG. 71.56.239.22 (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Publication history?

A section on the publication history of the novel would be most welcome. Currently there are only a couple of unclear hints. -- 77.7.159.141 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why hyphenation?

I wondered whether Moby-Dick should be hyphenated, but fortunately found the explanation in Talk Archive. But does anyone know why Melville hyphenated the book's title but not the name of the whale? There doesn't seem to be a grammatical reason, and an article on the origin of the name (http://www.melville.org/mobyname.htm) doesn't discuss or even notice it. Maybe it was done by his publisher, maybe even in error. PhilUK (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

May I add to this section, as a general reader of Wikipedia? Regarding the TITLE, that this novel is *not* also known as "The Whale", as is stated in the current article. The title page indicates that this is the subtitle, and subtitles are a common feature of many novels as well as works for the stage dating back into the 17th century, at least. The opening of this article should just state that the novel is entitled _Moby-Dick: or The Whale_, as stated on the title page. It is known as Moby-Dick, and it is not also known as The Whale: the subtitle is not widely known at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.8.71 (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The novel was published in England under the title: The Whale. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

real ship found

US marine archaeologists have found the sunken whaling ship belonging to the captain who inspired Herman Melville's classic 19th Century novel, Moby Dick.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12439656

--LeedsKing (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

stage directions

"...along with Shakespearean literary devices such as stage directions," Is the link to "Stage direction" [Stage_directions#Stage_directions] correct?

The linked page talk about the "stage" not in the sense of literary device. Also the linked page about "literary devices" does not mention "stage" there

Thanks Umbeebmu (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a chapter in the novel written in the style of a dramatic script, with bare-bones stage directions reminiscant of Shakespeare. The sense of stage as a physical stage is intentional, as this section of the novel (Chapter 40: "Midnight, Forecastle"; and also the title of Chapter 29: "Enter Ahab; to him, Stubb", and the opening line of Chapter 36: "Enter Ahab; then, all". ) treats the ship as such.Additionally, chapters 37-39 are delivered as stage soliloquays, further adding to this sense of stage drama. GRAPPLE X 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry on Moby-Dick

I have read many excellent items in Wikipedia, but the entry on Moby-Dick is one of the worst such items I have encountered. Please assign someone to rewrite and improve it. [I am a literature professor, but I'm not a specialist in Melville. Otherwise I would rewrite the entry myself.] cupstid123184.34.6.151 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it the worst but I do agree it needs improvement. It would help, though, if you could be more specific in your critique. That would furnish editors some constructive guidelines for future improvement. Thanks for your input. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Time (Moby-Dick playing in the future)

From the wikipedia article: "and the narrator deliberately avoids specifying the exact time of the events". Well that's not 100% true. From chapter 85 The Fountain: "...to this blessed minute (fifteen and a quarter minutes past one o'clock p.m. of this sixteenth day of December, A.D. 1851)...". The context doesn't make it clear whether it is the time of the events or if it is written some time after the story of Moby-Dick happened. As chapter 85 is one of the behind-the-scenes chapters, in which the author ponders about whales, whaling and stuff. However in my eyes, the author who does that is always Ishmael, and not Melville. The latter would also be impossible, because the book was published October 18, 1851 (three volumes) and November 14, 1851 (one volume). Before December 16, 1851!
It is unfortunately never said by Ishmael, but I have the impression while reading it, that this book is kind of a diary. That means, all the events are written down a few hours or days after they happened. Even the behind-the-scenes. I imagine Ishmael has a lot of leisure time, like all sailors. And he uses the time to write this book. And if there is nothing spectacular going on, instead of writing nothing, he inserts the behind-the-scenes chapters.
So I think the time Moby-Dick is happening is December 16, 1851 plus minus X. X being months or years, I can't really say that. But I am convinced that Ishmael didn't write Moby-Dick years later. I think it is noteworthy that Melville set the time into the future (after publication), but not far, hardly 2 months.
However, a chapter which doesn't really fit into is 54 The Town-Ho's Story (As told at the Golden Inn). If Moby-Dick is kind of a diary, it wouldn't be possible to tell a story like you told later, long after the last events of the book. A possibility is that the Pequod did visit any land and Ishmael goes off board to have a drink with some Spanish, but he didn't tell us about it. And this (the telling at the Golden Inn) happened before the sinking of the Pequod (before the end of the book).
Another possibility is that Ishmael later rewrote some Chapters of his book. Especially The Town-Ho's Story and Chapter 40 Midnight, Forecastle. Both written in an unusual style. Maybe some of the behind-the-scenes are also (thought to be) later added. To sum it up: Melville writes a book which is written by Ishmael as a kind of diary in the first place, but in parts rewritten by Ishmael and souped up with behind-the-scenes material. It is unknown whether the story takes place in the near future or just the rewriting.
Any other ideas? Do you think it is solid enough to go into the article?--TeakHoken91.47.71.196 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Cetacean is a Grandiloquent Morpheme Designation

"The cetacean also attacked the Rachel and killed the captain's son."

cetacean is a needlessly florid word, and a poor word choice. A whale is a whale, and that's what Moby Dick of the story is. A cetacean is a porpoise, dolphin or a whale.

Cetacean (over whale) simultaneously renders the text:

1. Less accessible.
2. Longer and less efficient.
3. Less meaningful.
4. More pretentious (IMO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.174.223 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"[H]arpooners...all non-Christians...."

"The harpooneers of the Pequod are all non-Christians from various parts of the world. Each serves on a mate's boat."

Tashtego is an American Indian from Gay Head, Massachusetts. I find it hard to believe that a 19th-century Native American, born and raised in Martha's Vineyard, would be anything but Christian (unless he were an atheist, but that's a long-shot second choice). Is there any confirmation, in Moby-Dick itself, to support the "non-Christian" status of Tash? Kejo13 (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking now. Tashtego is introduced in chapter 26, and although the language is very much a portrayal of the old "noble savage" archetype, there's no mention of religion. I couldn't find mention of it elsewhere, either, though I was only specifically searching for "Christian" or "Christ". GRAPPLE X 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ahoy, there! Tashtego, Queequeg, Daggoo! What say ye, pagans!" Chapter 113 - Page 484 - http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Mel2Mob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=113&division=div1 Bill Freese (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 November 2011

The publishing date is wrong according to two other sites: History Channel and History Orb. You have no citations for publications. Cody.king.3 (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done I have checked History Orb and it says "1851 - 'Moby Dick,' by Herman Melville, published.". Some other sources I have checked agree on 1851 as publishing year. If you refer to the day and month of publication, then yes, History Orb shows a different date, but that is only because they report the United States publishing date, not the United Kingdom's one (see also Encyclopedia Britannica about this: "novel by Herman Melville, published in London in October 1851 and a month later in the United States.") Furthermore the article states both dates (see lead section: "It was first published by Richard Bentley in London on October 18, 1851, [...] and weeks later [...] by New York City publisher Harper and Brothers [...] on November 14, 1851." Zidanie5 (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Film "2010: Moby Dick"

This film doesn't appear in the list of movie adaptations (IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1694508/). It's more "adapted" than others, being set in 2010, with Ahab as a submarine captain, but the story is (AFAICT) pretty much intact, with (again, AFAICT) all the major characters from the book appearing. I might have added it myself, but the page is protected. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK - forget this. I've watched the film and it's a waste of time. The basic plot and characters from the book are kept, but the "submarine" issues are nonsensical. It's mentioned in the separate "Adaptations of Moby-Dick" page, so it's best just left there. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahab

Shouldn't Ahab have his own entry as Ishmael and Queequeg have separate entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.39.161 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Moby-Dick#Ahab. If you mean his own article, then feel free to start one, but be sure to source it, and maintain an out-of-universe viewpoint. GRAPPLE X 03:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

if "or the whale" isn't a subtitle, should it be included in the article title, with a redirect from "Moby-Dick"?

as i understand it, assuming consistent font size in the first-edition title page means anything, "the whale" is not just a subtitle, but rather "moby dick; or, the whale" is the actual title. am i mistaken? if not, shouldn't this be the article title? it's what we have in boldface at the article's beginning anyhow. 68.193.166.17 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's standard practice simply to use the common title. See, for instance, Twelfth Night or The Scarlet Letter. My impression is that the novel is usually referred to simply as Moby-Dick by most commentators and publishers. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Our Hamlet article uses the common title, as that work is almost never referred to by its full title The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Likewise, Moby-Dick is very rarely called by its full title. GRAPPLE X 13:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Everyone who revised the entry "Moby-Dick"

Congratulations to the people who revised the entry in question. Your work has greatly improved it. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for the Revisions

I agree with MacLennan: Whoever revised the entry has greatly improved it. cupstid123Maclennan123 (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bedford Incident

Please discuss the relevance of The Bedford Incident in {{Moby-Dick}} at Template_talk:Moby-Dick#The Bedford Incident.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyphenation (yet again)

The article as it currently stands is inconsistent - there are several points where the whale (NOT the book) is referred to as "Moby-Dick". I would have fixed this, but the article is protected. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the protection template has been removed, I've gone ahead and fixed these. Hope I got them all. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I inserted the hyphen in the title and italicized it in the "non-fictional content" section. Danchall (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request -- clarification

In "Moby Dick is ruthless in attacking the sailors who attempt to hunt and kill him, but it is Ahab who invests Moby Dick's natural instincts with malignant and evil intentions. In fact, it is not the whale but the crippled Ahab who alone possesses this characteristic.", what single "characteristic" is referred to? Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

that mystery book

"Eurocyclydon says an old write- of whose works I posses the only copy extant" Is this real book?117.199.10.188 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Honey

The Section "Background" is unfocused

The part of the article now called Background exists of three topics:

• The opening about the literary scene of the time, say American Renaissance. This kind of information is better left out of articles on individual works.
• Another topic is Sources, about Mocha Dick, Owen Chase and the Essex, and what not.
• Yet another is the writing of the book, with quotes of Melville saying he is halfway through the work.

Methinks the organization of the article should aim for more clarity, and also fuller treatment of both Sources and Composition. If I find the time, I will get on it with Walter Bezanson's chapter on MD in A Companion to Melville Studies, which essay is still an excellent guide to reshape this article with.MackyBeth (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Characters & Character section: Spinoff?

Again, much kudos to MackyBeth, along with a couple of questions.

First, shouldn't the Ishmael section return to the section "Characters" (even though it would mean moving "Character and Narrator" from the section title to the opening sentence of the (sub) section)?

Next, and more policy: should the Characters section be spun off as an independent article -- perhaps "Characters of Moby Dick"? This main article is getting loooong! For policy see WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:SPINOFF.

The general policy on character sections is in WP:NOVSTY#Article body 2.3 Characters, which says that a character section is not generally needed, but

If appropriate, a character section would consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story. Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader.

I would agree that MD does need one, but that it is not Wikipolicy to turn each character description into a critical essay. Perhaps independent articles for those characters who have an independent place in the literary world, such as Ahab and Ishmael.

It might help to look at articles for other bulky novels, such as Gone with the Wind or War and Peace.

Cheers ch (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the position of Ishmael as a character, and I have undone my moving of him as a character. The narrator of any novel deserves a section of his own, and since Ishmael is also the narrator, his two roles are accordingly divided over two different sections of the article.

You are also right about the "Characters" section in general, which makes up the bulk of this article and probably has been here for years now in its current state. I have only been active here since this month, and if I have not overlooked anything in the History of this article, then the latest substantial (meaning more than 1,000 keyboard punches) addition was made in October 2012. So this article has mostly been "asleep" for a long time, which means that your advice to look at the Wikipedia articles for other lengthy novels for a model of character treatment is directed at people who edited this page years ago, probably when they had to read the book in school. Anyway, the advice should be modified in two ways:

• Don't just look randomly at the articles for famous books, but start with checking such articles that have a "Featured Content" rating: they will give you an idea of the level Wikipedia aspires to.
• Since literary masterpieces differ in both form and content, there is no fixed format or blueprint to cast an article. For instance, an excellent article on a Henry James novel will have an elaborate discussion on perspective or point of view, and an article on a Melville work will have a section on his use of sources.

To get back to the Characters section, even the outline needs improvement: the most important figures, Ishmael and Ahab, should come first and be separated from the others.MackyBeth (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Lead needs more editing

The Lead of an article should be an Extract, oops, I mean Abstract of the article, and prepare the reader for what is to come. Therefore, the lead should preferably have no footnotes, because everything that is said in the Lead should be expanded upon in the article itself and sourced there. The current Lead:

• has three footnotes, none of them absolutely essential, at least not in that place;
• a) the first of those footnotes, numbered 2, contains information also covered at the end of the Lead;
• b)though the article should provide the exact date of publication, this information is too much of a detail for inclusion in the Lead: the year is enough there. So the information at the end of the Lead is better deleted.

I am now proposing this because the exact date(s) of publication are presently covered in the article itself: see section "Last-Minute Change of Title." The information may move in the near future to another section yet to be added, but it is present.MackyBeth (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Major Revisions Not in Accord with Manual of Style/Novels

Let's take a deep breath! Again, I have the highest respect and admiration for the energy and ideals of the recent additions, but this much precipitous addition and revision is not prudent.

The major revisions recently introduced are not in compliance with Manual of Style/Novels in structure or content. The structure of the article is to be:

• Lead section
• Plot
• Characters
• Major themes
• Style
• Background
• Publication history
• Reception
• Adaptations
• Footnotes and references

In addition, much of the new material goes beyond our remit as editors; there are judgments about controversies rather than reporting them; judgements which amount to ORIGINAL RESEARCH; and critical observations which, however striking and intelligent, inflate the article.

It's longstanding and good policy: Be Bold.

But this is also quickly followed by Be Careful, which suggests that it is good policy to make a test page in your namespace where such bold changes can be discussed.

In that spirit, I will put the sections in the MOS order, and remove the WP:OR sections for the time being, until we can discuss them. My suggestion is that they would make a wonderful article of their own, perhaps "Critical Insights into Moby Dick."

All in the understanding that the changes were made in the spirit of wanting to do the best for HM and Wikipedia! ch (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish I had noticed before there was a Manual of Style for Novels! This article would have been closer to going into a higher category than it is now. Thanks for supplying the manual, I made a print which I will study. As for now, it might be useful to point out that:

• the manual, section "Major themes," points to "The Cambridge Companion" series as a useful source. The Melville volume appeared in 1998, but for Melville such a guidebook was published in 1986: John Bryant's (ed.) Companion to Melville Studies (1986). This book, with chapters written by leading Melville scholars, is still the superior one for most (but not all) of Melville's works. The essay on Moby-Dick, written by Bezanson, is quoted in the note 28 of the MD article on Wikipedia, though that number might be changed any minute of course.
• Since Moby-Dick is available in numerous editions and the chapters are mostly no longer than a few pages, I propose this article adopts as standard reference not the page numbers, but the chapter titles only, so that this article is handy for all readers regardless which edition they own. And, of course, there will be no problem with different Wikipedia editors using different editions to quote from;
• the section "Characters" state that most articles will not need a separate section, because the Characters might be introduced in the Plot. MD is a work for which a separate section "Characters" is probably worth retaining, but it is now very long and can be tightened by simply shortening the references of page numbers: it is not necessary to state every time that the quotation is from Moby-Dick.MackyBeth (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

On April 5, 1849, Melville wrote to Evert Duyckinck that he intended to sleep "with the Phaedon in one hand & Tom Brown in the other." I might do the same with the Wikipedia Manuals of Style for Novels and for Biographis.MackyBeth (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Accomodation of daughter pages on Pequod and Cetology; proposed deletion of Ishmael page

My limited internet access forces me to make some additions to the "to do"-list for this article, instead of immediately carrying them out myself: I read somewhere, don't remeber where, that Wkipedia guidelines for daughter pages state that the main page should cover the content of daughter pages by supplying a summarizing paragraph. Between the Heading and the paragraph itself should be inserted the link to the main page of the subject. See, for instance, the sections here on Ishmael and Queeqeg. I created the section on ships and linked to the main page of Pequod. To do:

• The paragraph covering the content of the Pequod-page on the MD main page has yet to be written.
• The Section "See also" has a link to the Cetology-page, probably the best of the MD daughter pages as they now stand. This link has yet be placed and covered in the text.
• Before my discussion of Ishmael was removed from the MD page, I proposed the deletion of the Ishmael-page, which is not much more than one paragraph. That page has two banners on it marking it as unreferenced (since May 2011) and original research (since June 2012). The long-standing banners may indicate that it is not realistic to have a special page for the narrator. Since my information on Ishmael has now been removed, it may be wise to check if really everything important about Ishmael in his page is still available on the MD page.MackyBeth (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

On the Lead once more

One user just annotated the Lead with three "citation needed" marks. No citation is needed in any Lead, as the Lead should provide a short summary or abstract of the article itself and therefore everything will be sourced there. The Lead should start with a statement of the impact the subject of the article has had. See for example the Lead on Elvis Presley, which is a Featured Article and also begins with a statement of his impact that is not and need not be sourced at that point. The Lead on MD should indicate that this work is regarded not as a highlight in the literature of the USA, for it ranks a category higher than that: this belongs to world literature, the highest category. That is the reason it has Top-importance rank on Wikipedia. Discussion of its reputation in this article may need improvement, but the Lead should stand as it is. I am now going to undo these edits.MackyBeth (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

MackyBeth, I have the highest possible respect for your energy and ideals, but the comparison with Mozart is ... well, let's just say "unencyclopedic." See WP:PEACOCK. MD can speak for itself. ch (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the precise words of the opening of the lead will eventually be settled on, it must indicate that this book is ranked in the category World Literature, as the enormous amount of translations in many languages proves. As long as it only states that it is a classic of American literature, the opening is not an accurate description.MackyBeth (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've been watching the expansions here (and the reorg). Regarding the lead, whatever is written there in terms of comparative or superlative definition - it's really best to find a source (plenty exist) to attribute it to, and I would then cite it. I've done this for articles about books and short stories that are FA, such as Sun Also Rises. Victoria (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just checked some of your contributions and your suggestion is probably the wisest thing to do after all, since any objective description of the stature of the book is likely to be mistaken for the Wiki-editors's own praise.MackyBeth (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. It's best to pin it on a scholar and if possible on a very prominent Am. Lit scholar. I almost certainly have some information floating around about Moby Dick that we can use, but it's not something I'd worry about right now. Also, I should add this to the other thread, but I'd suggest not deleting Ishmael - or maybe wait. He is notable, and it's doubtful that consensus will be to delete (though one never knows!) That page simply needs to be developed imo. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of pursuing the deletion of the Ishmael page any further, but the nomination has already been made. Your previous message reminded me that I have book by Somerset Maugham, ten essays on what he finds the 10 best books ever written. Moby-Dick is there, along with Bovary, Dostoyevsky, Wuthering Heigths. For a more recent attribution we might keep track of the current series that London newspaper The Guardian runs of 100 Best Books, though that list is limited to English. But as you said, there are more pressing improvements to be thought of just now.MackyBeth (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Epilogue and Reception

Just changed the name of the section Composition back to Background, which term MOS Novels prescribes. I added some material there about Melville's reading of Shakespeare, a key element in his development toward MD. Whatever revisions others may carry out next, consider the reasons for citing some reviews in the section "American vs. English edition" instead of delegating that material to the "Reception" section: these citations illustrate--and even prove--the sourced claim in that section that the missing Epilogue in the English edition had led reviewers to critize the work's credibility, since Ishmael apparently does not survive to tell the tale.MackyBeth (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We have this article too: Herman Melville bibliography where the deletions are noted in the Moby Dick section. Not sure why that material isn't cited, but some good sources there. It is an important point. I typically place "Background" in front of the plot summary. I'd only say to keep an encyclopedic voice in mind and try to adhere to Wikipedia:Summary style so as to keep the article from growing too huge. Victoria (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

They have guidelines for everything here, don't they? I printed it and will read this. The thing with MD is that Melville was still finishing it while the publication was already underway, so that one phse seamlessly goes into the other. Separating the two sections would therefore need some extra careful consideration to decide where the cutting line should be, than it would for articles on most other works of literature.MackyBeth (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

On the new Characters Section

This article is presently transforming from containing mostly unsourced material to featuring sourced material exclusively, which inevitably means that in that course it is going through a mixed state, with sourced and unsourced sections simultaneously. Today I have begun adding sourced information on the allegorical roles of the characters, while discussions of the characters are already provided for. Wikipedia policy holds that new additions preferably be merged with the present material, but the unsourced nature of that material makes me reluctant to do that: before you know it, footnotes may be taken to include sentences that are actually not covered by them. So as to avoid confusion, I think it's best to have this material separated and wipe out the unsourced information on a character as soon as the sourced information on him is substantial enough to make this a reasonable step.MackyBeth (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Several thousand readers a day come to MD (click on "Page View Statistics" at the head of the "View History"/"Revision History" page), so in order not to confuse them, rather than making edits which we don't intend to last, let's first make a draft page in WP:USERSPACE of "New Characters" or other extensive new material for the editors to see and discuss, and then we can incorporate the parts on which we can reach consensus.

This would also give us a chance to point out signs of haste, such as not identifying "Bezanson" on first mention ("The theory has been harpooned in two ways by Bezanson...") or not giving a full citation ("Wright, 71"). Also, the word "harpooned" is POV. ch (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The full citation is restored, but its absence was no sign of haste on my part but the result of your reorganization of the page.MackyBeth (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Spin-off page: Crewmembers of the Pequod

Many first-time readers of the book will probably find it a valuable service if the MD page would provide a list of crewmembers, so that readers have something of a factsheet at hand while reading. Some characters disappear for many chapters and when they reappear, readers might not remember exactly who they were and what their rank aboard the ship is. Provided in the shape of a daughter page, readers can easily print that list without having to print the rest of the article as well.MackyBeth (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see Veronica is doing quite a bit of tightening up the Characters section, which has drawn my attention to the contents. I will check the factual accuracy of the descriptions, which seems necessary: for instance near the end of the section "Other notable characters," the Cook Fleece is among the group being highlighted "near the end of the book." Fleece's moment indeed occurs in "Stubb's Supper" as the description says, but it is chapter 64, not even halfway a book of 135 chapters. His funny "Sermon to the sharks" is also worth mentioning on the page.MackyBeth (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The order of the article

CH reorganized the page and moved the Background and Publication history to the place where it should be according to the MOS/Novels. However, Victoria suggests that articles on novels better begin with the Background and Publication history. Indeed, all the Featured-articles on novels, such as The Sun Also Rises, The Red Badge of Courage and I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings have this arrangement, so it looks like the Manual is out of date on this point. In any case, The actual application of the MOS in Featured articles should I believe have precedence over the MOS itself. So I propose to move these two sections back up front, but I am reluctant to carry that out right away without having reached consensus on this on the Talk page, lest repeated moving back and forth of sections might give followers of this page the impression of an ongoing edit war.MackyBeth (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a long way from being featured and it appears that you're only beginning to build up the page. It's a huge topic and a huge page, needs tons of research to be comprehensive, and usually the structure doesn't fall into place (in my experience) until later. I'd leave it for now and continue on slowly, as you have been. At some point, I'll probably sweep through myself and make some changes but I can't get to it in the immediate future. Victoria (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll go by your experience and start building on the next section then. My referring to featured content is just to say that I look at those pages as an example: there is no point in taking third-rate articles for a model, right? I am well aware that there is a whole lot of work to be done and that it will take a long time before the quality of this page as a whole is elevated.MackyBeth (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've shuffled things around a little but anything can be changed. Yes, I agree about looking at featured articles as examples but in my experience I've done an awful lot of rearranging in terms of structure until the ones I've brought to that level were satisfactory and in terms of MoS/Novels I believe they are the exception rather than the rule. It really does depend on the level of importance of the publication history - which in most cases is negligible. Here there's a good case for placing it earlier because the background and publication history are extremely important, but as you said above, because the page has been recently reorganized it's best to leave as is for the moment. Victoria (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the MOS order is not sacrosanct, as Victoria and MackyBeth clearly show. This can be covered by WP:COMMONSENSE etc.

But the MD 10 paragraph Background and 10 paragraph Publication History are much longer than in the comparable articles. Based on my experience as a college teacher, I worry that undergraduates (our typical audience) would find 20+ detailed and abstruse paragraphs a roadblock rather than an "on ramp." The article is now 79,000 bytes, which is already large, but some sections need to be reworked and augmented, especially Critical Response & Adaptations. So maybe move a boiled down and more pointed version of Background and leave Publication History where it is?

BTW, I also like the idea of spinning off or augmenting sister articles, such as Ishmael. This is standard practice for important articles and gives readers the choice of how much detail they want.

Cheers! ch (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right that the Background section (the part I just renamed Composition) is far from the shape that it needs to be in to open the article with. My summarizing skills are underdeveloped; improving them was one reason to join Wikipedia. Yet before it can be brought down, it will expand even more, because at the moment it depends largely on a single source (Bezanson), however well-argued that source may be. The 1988 NN edition of the book also has a section on the writing of the book, which should be taken aboard as well. And then the thing clearly needs to be cut down to size, so that the result is a concise section firmly rooted in enough sources so as to be an objective description of the subject. And especially the language is still too close to the sources at points. Specifically the style of the Publication history is clearly derivative of G. Thomas Tanselle for a reader who is familiar with his writings. That's what you get from writing with your sources open before you. In short, it has just started to develop rather than being almost finished. Cheers!MackyBeth (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mackybeth - one suggestion would be to create a sandbox (I believe that's now easily done by clicking the sandbox tab?) where you can keep notes which can then be summarized more easily and move the text over when it's closer to being formalized. I have many sandboxes - couldn't really function without them! Victoria (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion.MackyBeth (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a steep learning curve here and this isn't the easiest article to start with but don't worry too much. There's no hurry at all! This article has been in not-great shape for a long time so any attention it receives is nice to see. I've trimmed down and consolidated a few sections so you get a sense of how it's best done. I'll have to find sources about the characters because we don't use WP:Primary sources to cite claims; rather we look to what the scholars say. That's why I prefer to keep the character sections as short as possible or to do away with them altogether. As for the length, I've found that the most important sections are style and theme and since this is well, Moby Dick, I expect those will eat a lot of space. Another really well done FA about a book is To Kill a Mockingbird - worth a look in terms of structure. Victoria (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The (Dutch) Wikipedia once deleted an article of mine for using primary sources, so I was well aware of that, it being the reason I used all that interpretative material to describe Ahab with, and some other characters. Study guides usually provide descriptions that may be quoted. But as CWH|ch said, character descriptions may be items many readers find useful. The MOS also says that in many cases Characters need not be described, but for Moby-Dick the plot means absolutely nothing: ship goes on whale hunt, meets other ships, kills some whales, is sunk by a white one, one person survives. End of plot.MackyBeth (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking at some other language versions of this and the French Wikipedia puts the characters under themes, [2], which is interesting and might work. As you say, not much of a plot for such a big book. And the form has to be worked in as well given that half of the book is the cetology sections. Victoria (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Starbuck est très courageux!MackyBeth (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Developing the Ishmael page

Over the weekend I have read the various guidelines, and now have a better understanding of how to develop articles, especially the "Summary style" MOS was helpful. To verify with you that my comprehension is not flawed, it would be in accordance with Wiki policy to put the information by mistake added to the mainpage last week in a subpage called something like "Anhab's allegorical roles", right?

The first priority, however, is to develop the existing Ishmael-page, no longer proposed for deletion. My rationale is that Wikipedia readers should preferably not stumble upon any underdeveloped pages. Whether page visitors actually read a page or not, ideally they should always leave any page with at least the impression that the content is worth reading. And since I have the sources to develop the Ishmael page, that should take precedence over starting any new pages. Any messages on the progress will be posted on the Talk page over there.MackyBeth (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Melville's seafaring career/whaling years

I edited out some material about Melville's seafaring career, because background material should discuss the background of Moby-Dick exclusively, and not the background of Typee etc. Melville's whaling background is well-documented in Wilson Heflin's book Herman Melville's Whaling Years, and in the future I plan to use that book to give some account of Melville as a whaler. In the meantime, it is not correct to say that Moby-Dick is "wholly fictional" because it is only mostly fictional.MackyBeth (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That's reductionist and, frankly, simplistic. The whole of Melvilles seafaring career, less than five years, is what he drew upon... that is to say, all of it... whaling, bailing and all, for all of his books and the clearly semi-autobiographical nature of his earlier books provide a clear progression and obvious background for Moby Dick. Background is background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreebeardTheEnt (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Background to Typee should be discussed in the page for Typee and not here. The background section is quite long already, no need to include information not relevant to Moby-Dick.MackyBeth (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The genesis of Moby Dick, as well as the character of Queequeg, his knowledge of whales and sailors, all derive from direct experience in the south seas, either aboard whaling vessels or among the Typee and others. Melville spent Five years asea and then five years on shore writing about it. I see absolutely no issue with a short paragraph (and I tried to keep it a short as possible) that describes Melvilles seafaring career and how that bears upon Moby Dick. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's best if the background section to MD or any other book is as specific as possible to the book in question. If you look at the pages for Melville's other books, you will notice that almost every one of them has a section on the rediscovery of Melville, the so-called Melville revival. So the same information is included time and again. If any of Melville's non-whaling sea voyages has a specific bearing on Moby-Dick, then that is certainly worth adding to the MD page. But in case of general information on his voyages, the place for that would be the page for Melville's biography.MackyBeth (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. I don't even know what "It's best if the background section to MD [...] is as specific as possible to the book " even means. If the background is germane, it is specific and it is pertinent to the book in question. Otherwise, it wouldn't be background. You really can't have background that isn't specific to the book... as that's not background. Melville went whaling. He lived among natives. He shipped aboard several different vessels. He came home. He wrote about it. The culmination of his writing, which derived from his seafaring, was Moby Dick. I am absolutely mystified that there would be any objection to this at all.. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ships

The Ships section appears to have an error in the italicizing. Also, it seems like it might be a quote, in which case that should be made clear.192.249.47.181 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Y Done Thank you! Stephenb (Talk) 15:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Autobiographical elements

Noticing that the FA on To Kill a Mockingbird includes a section called Autobiographical Elements, I thought it would be justified to include that kind of material in the MD article as well. For the same reason, I also changed the title of Style to Structure. The presence of different genres in MD is remarkable enough to warrant a section on it. Which is not meant to be a substitute for a section Style, because there is enough to be said of Melville's allusive style in general, and the Shakespearean tone of MD in particular.MackyBeth (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: D.H. Lawrence quotation for the Lead

Awhile ago Victoria suggested we find a source for any superlative description of MD and then cite it in the lead. D.H. Lawrence's book Studies in Classic American Literature (1923), reprinted Penguin Books, London, ISBN 9780140183771, provides a good phrase: on page 168, MD is called "the greatest book of the sea ever written." It may be argued that a more recent quotation is preferable, but the lead now provides no qualifying quotation at all, so why not use this one?MackyBeth (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I added the quote, and one by Borges, to the lead.MackyBeth (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal of major deletions of Plot and Characters

The Wikipedia article for To Kill a Mockingbird has under plot a template referring to a page with a list of characters. I thought I'd make the same here, so that the main article may be relieved from the useful but lengthy discussion of characters. The other proposal pertains to the plot. I found a plot summary in the Companion to Melville Studies, which I can summarize and paraphrase, and then transfer from the sandbox to the MD page. Working that way makes it difficult to merge the new plot summary with the existing one, so my proposal is to replace the current one with the new plot summary this week or the next. Should no one respond to this, then I'll proceed as stated.MackyBeth (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

New sections begun on Structure, Style and Themes

Today and in the last days I have added new sections. These will flesh out in the next weeks, none is much more yet than a modest beginning. For a book like Moby-Dick, it is kind of scary to start a section called Themes, and I certainly am not pretending that I read everything there is to read. But the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Novels requires that such a section is provided for, and since nobody else has yet tried to supply it, I might as well try to get started.MackyBeth (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Autobiographical elements not included in Background

The passage on Melville's whaling years was edited out of the Background page, because that information is offered in the section "Autobiographical elements." I'm not yet sure if this is organization is going to hold up, though. Perhaps we will eventually conclude that the autobiographical experience underlying the book are best placed at the Background section after all. As for now, I thought it was worth the effort to offer the information on Melville's actual experience in whaling separately from his experience in reading about whaling. For one reason, his experience is from 1841, but his reading in whaling dates from 1850 when he was documenting himself for Moby-Dick and read all about whales that he could lay his hands on. So to represent the time lapse of almost ten years, it looked sensible to put it the way it is now.MackyBeth (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up the final sections

I just looked at some of the final sections of this article. The section "See also" mentions wikilinks, but we already have a Template for MD-related Wikipedia material. So I deleted that section. The Notes are now directly preceding the Footnotes. The External links have been cleaned up, and 3 links were rmoved: 1) one link to an online text of the book is enough; 2) the link to a pbs DVD on whaling is not directly about MD and also seems to be on the verge of being an advertisement (one has to BUY the DVD); 3) the short interview on The Whale and His Captors is about many other topics than MD and so far as it indeed touches on MD it violates the Wikipedia rule that External links should not duplicate information that would be supplied in a FA-level version of the article itself.MackyBeth (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new plot summary

Above I proposed to replace the current plot summary with a new one. Here is the draft of the new plot summary for review. If no objections or suggestions for improvements are made, I will replace the old plot summary and delete the list of characters which has already been transferred to a subpage.MackyBeth (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi MackyBeth, I haven't recently looked closely at the plot summary as written, but we have to adhere to WP:JUSTPLOT for the summary. In other words we can't give interpretations in that section or discuss style, etc. I'm not sure how I feel about mentioning the chapter numbers, it's something I'd have to give some thought to. Thanks, though for writing this out - it's been a long time since I read the book and I can't remember what happened when, so this is very helpful as a starting point. Victoria (tk) 21:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that was very useful, especially the further link to the guide "How to write a plot summary," which I printed. The kind of book that Moby-Dick is, leaves two ways to look at the plot summary as it now stands. The plot is very simple and does not cover the contents of the whole book as comprehensively as plot summaries usually do. So either:

• 1) employ another way of description so that an adequate impression comes into being, or;
• 2) simply stick by the Wikipedia plot summary guidelines, and accept that the result will be a reductionistic description of the book.

I believe this choice is the major question here. If editors prefer approach nr. 2, then the current plot summary may serve as the basis for a more condensed version. For instance, there now is a lengthy quotation from one chapter; even the mere identification of that quotation takes up one whole line. No hurry with this, though. There is plenty of other work for me to do on Melville here.MackyBeth (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just came across a book by Robert Gale consisting of plot summaries and character indexes for all of Melville's works. It does indeed not mention any chapter titles, but mentions all of the cetological material. It may be a good guide to improve the current plot summary. So forget the draft.MackyBeth (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Gale's work could be a guiding line to shape the Wikipedia plot summary for Moby-Dick. The Wikipedia Manual of Style for Novels states that the plot should be 3 or 4 paragraphs, though complex works may need "a bit" more. Moby-Dick can safely be said to fall in the category of a more lengthy and complex work. The idea is to work on this in my sandbox in the near future.MackyBeth (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft of a paragraph on Shakespeare's influence on Melville's style

The section on Style needs one or two paragraphs on the influence of Shakespeare on the language of Moby-Dick. The most important work on the topic is still F.O. Matthiessen's American Renaissance from 1941. I tried to paraphrase his analysis and would like to offer that paraphrase here for review and improvement before inserting it to the Moby-Dick page. First Matthiessen's words and then under the heading "Shakespearean language" my paraphrase.MackyBeth (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Had Melville been a man of less vigor, he would have been reduced to the dozens of stagey nineteenth-century imitators of Shakespeare's stylistic mannerisms. Actually, a man of thirty awakening to his own full strength through the challenge of the most abundant imagination in history. Fragments of his language are on almost every page. (Matth424) The most important effect of Shakespeare's use of language was to give Melville a range of vocabulary for expressing passion far beyond any that he had previously possessed. (Matth 425) Reading Shakespeare had been a catalytic agent, indispensable in releasing his work from limited reporting to the expression of profound natural forces. Melville came into full possession of his own idiom when he ended his description of his hero in language that suggests Shakespeare's but is not an imitation of it. "Oh, Ahab! what shall be grand in thee, it must needs be plucked from the skies and dived for in the deep, and featured in the unbodied air!" The final phrase seems particularly Shakespearean in its imaginative richness, but its two key words appear only once each in the plays, and to neither of these usages is Melville indebted for his fresh combination. (Matth 428)

Melville's practice of tragedy gained force from Shakespeare, but had real freedom; it did not base itself upon Shakespeare, but upon man and nature as Melville knew them. Therefore, he was able to handle a kind of diction that depended upon no source, and that could convey something "almost superhuman or inhuman, bigger than life." The progressions of Melville's prose are now based on a sense of speech rhythm, and not on anybody's else's verse. Melville learned three essential things:

• To depend upon verbs of action, which lend their dynamic pressure to both movement and meaning;
• He gained something from the Shakespearean energy of verbal compounds ("full-freighted");
• And something from the quickened sense of life that comes from making one part as speech act as another - for example, "earthquake" as an adjective, or the coining of "placeless," an adjective from a noun. (Matth 430)

Shakespearean language

Though fragments from Shakespeare are on almost every page, Shakespeare's major role was to supply Melville with a linguistic range of expression that far superseded his earlier capacities. According to Matthiessen, the way Melville took possession of his own idiom is demonstrated by the last words of his description of Ahab:"Oh, Ahab! what shall be grand in thee, it must needs be plucked from the skies and dived for in the deep, and featured in the unbodied air!" Though the imaginative richness of the final phrase seems particularly Shakespearean, Matthiessen points out that "its two key words appear only once each in the plays, and to neither of these usages is Melville indebted for his fresh combination."Melville assimilated Shakespeare to such extent that his diction can be said to depend on no source and that his prose was not based on anybody's verse but upon a sense of speech rhythm. According to Matthiessen, he learned "three essential things:

• To depend upon verbs of action, which lend their dynamic pressure to both movement and meaning;
• He gained something from the Shakespearean energy of verbal compounds ('full-freighted');
• And something from the quickened sense of life that comes from making one part as speech act as another - for example, 'earthquake' as an adjective, or the coining of 'placeless,' an adjective from a noun."

Section: Editions

I am not sure about the section Editions, which mainly is a random list of MD editions with some of the most important ones missing: the Hendricks House edition by Luther S. Mansfield and Howard P. Vincent and the first Norton Critical Edition (1967) by Hayford and Parker. Instead the list focuses on illustrated editions and claims that the text of the 1988 Northwestern-Newberry edition "is in the public domain." I doubt whether it is. The text is the first to include British variants into the American text and is no mere reprint of the 1851 text but a new text made in 1988. Therefore it seems to me that this text falls under copyright.MackyBeth (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the less important editions from the list but propose to delete the whole section because 1) all of the major editions will be cited from and therefore appear in Sources and 2) the article will no doubt become one of the longer Wikipedia articles on novels, so we should be careful to exclude any dead weight.MackyBeth (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Disproportionate length of Plot (7,500) and Characters (20,360)

In order to revise the plot summary, I copied the existing sections Plot and Characters unto one of my sandboxes. The size of that document is 27,888 of whatever unity edits are counted in. Then I decided to delete the section Characters from the sandbox and to my surprise, it turns out that the size of this section was 20,360. So the plot itself is a mere 7,500. An article with a list of characters almost three times the size of the plot summary is seriously out of balance. My proposal is to augment the plot in such a way that no list of characters is necessary in the article (and we always have that list in a subpage). This part of the article must have been written years ago, at least the bulk of it. I guess the article immediately looks a lot better once these issues have been solved.MackyBeth (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

New plot summary almost finished

Lately I have been working on the plot summary. I copied it to a sandbox and am expanding it. It is now developed enough for other editors to judge if it holds up against Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. See: User:MackyBeth/Moby-Dick_plot_summary_sandbox. Suggestions are welcome, but be aware that:

• Like James Joyce's Ulysses, Moby-Dick is a book of such length and canonical stature that it warrants a longer plot description than usual.
• Some famous quotations from the book are yet to be inserted in the summary.

Should no comments come, then I will replace the current plot summary with the new one when finished.MackyBeth (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Expanded plot summary

Months ago, a subpage was created for the List of characters. Now that the expanded plot summary is ready to be edited into the page as announced above, I finally removed the list of characters from the main page.MackyBeth (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed list of ships

Since the new plot summary describes the meetings with the other ships, I also deleted the section called "Ships".MackyBeth (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)