Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Liza Klaussmann: 'I Reread Moby-Dick and Thought: Where Was Your Editor?'
Guardian | Saturday 11 August 2012 | Gemma Kappala-Ramsamy

Posted on 08/11/2012 7:31:33 PM PDT by nickcarraway

Liza Klaussmann: 'I Reread Moby-Dick and Thought: Where Was Your Editor?'


TOPICS: Books/Literature; History
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

1 posted on 08/11/2012 7:31:38 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
It's such a sprawling novel but it definitely has touches of genius.

Feh. It sprawls from Nantucket all the way out to the Pacific on a whaling ship, where it meets the white whale. OK, sure there's some scenery along the way, but this is not a "sprawling novel". Good grief.

And "touches of genius" is way off, too. Its genius is the unity and focus of its conception. BTW, I "reread" it at the beach in my 40's. My constant thought was, "How can they expect high school kids to read this stuff?"

2 posted on 08/11/2012 7:52:38 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

2 words: Newspaper Serial. Back in the day, the main way for people to read well-known books was through newspapers serials. Most of Dickens’ books were read this way as was Moby Dick. And to sell more newspapers, Melville padded the novel to include all kinds of things that normally would have been left out of an unserialized book - for example the step-by-step instructions on how to cut up a whale.


3 posted on 08/11/2012 7:55:06 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

Exactly. Channels of distribution matter for what is a consumer product.


4 posted on 08/11/2012 7:58:50 PM PDT by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I found it tedious at times, too. However, Melville really did a greater justice for all readers in Bartelby the Scrivener.
5 posted on 08/11/2012 8:04:42 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (I'm for Churchill in 1940!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
instructions on how to cut up a whale ...
I suppose that's true, and Melville does have Ishmael decide that whales are fish. Editors aside though, it's still great story and leaves you with an idea of what life at sea was like. I have a feeling that long after Liza Klausmann is forgotten(maybe next week?) the book will still be read.
6 posted on 08/11/2012 8:06:19 PM PDT by Old North State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Old North State

And not just life at sea, a hotel putting strangers in the same bed? Oh my...


7 posted on 08/11/2012 8:11:30 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1300 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Heroes aren't made Frank, they're cornered...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Old North State
My favorite version of Moby Dick is The Wrath of Khan with Kirk playing the role of Moby Dick and Khan playing Ahab. Nicholas Meyer even has Khan quote Ahab at the end:

To the last I grapple with thee. From hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.

8 posted on 08/11/2012 8:11:57 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Moby Dick was an OK short story hidden in a rotten book.


9 posted on 08/11/2012 8:18:10 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
To the last I grapple with thee. From hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.

Now that right there is good writin'

Khans Last Breath...Youtube

10 posted on 08/11/2012 8:21:43 PM PDT by Tainan (Cogito, ergo conservatus sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The hollow sound of a book hitting a head isn’t always the book.

lol


11 posted on 08/11/2012 8:27:43 PM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

My constant thought was, “How can they expect high school kids to read this stuff?”

I’ve read it twice, planning on a third. Believe it or not it is an easy read, not a lot of “high dollar” words.

I would rather read MOBY DICK several times than that awful SILAS MARNER once.


12 posted on 08/11/2012 8:42:59 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Tyrannies demand immense sacrifices of their people to produce trifles.-Marquis de Custine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old North State
I suppose that's true, and Melville does have Ishmael decide that whales are fish.

What's the opposite of a plankton? Ans: a nekton . A whale is a nekton, that is a free swimmer, and in this sense it is a fish. It's just a matter of usage. Just a word. Similarly, among the plankton, which by definition are drifters, one finds many classes of organisms, including crustacean larvae.

13 posted on 08/11/2012 8:44:34 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: null and void

***a hotel putting strangers in the same bed? Oh my...***

Especially a tatoo’d man who is trying to sell a head.

Well, the bench was real hard to sleep on!

Question: When AHAB was killed what was his artificial leg made of?


14 posted on 08/11/2012 8:50:33 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Tyrannies demand immense sacrifices of their people to produce trifles.-Marquis de Custine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Moby Dick can be ponderous, but is still a masterpiece of the American novel. Other great works of literature can be similarly ponderous...Le Rouge et le Noir (the Red and the Black) by Stendhal, Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables and any thing by Tolstoy for example. However, nothing IMHO is more ponderous than the novels of George Elliot. I could hardly get through reading Silas Marner.


15 posted on 08/11/2012 8:50:52 PM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tainan

The next Star Trek is apparently going to have Ahab, I mean Khan, facing off against Kirk again - with Benedict Cumberbatch (of Sherlock fame) playing Khan.


16 posted on 08/11/2012 8:52:08 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tainan

I never made that connection before! WOK was just on the other night. Certainly was Ricardo M’s defining role, more so than Fantasy Island, IMO.


17 posted on 08/11/2012 8:55:33 PM PDT by bethelgrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
2 words: Newspaper Serial.

Where do you get this? I never heard of it, and I don't see it on a quick check, which indicates it was introduced as a completed book.

18 posted on 08/11/2012 8:55:33 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: null and void
And not just life at sea, a hotel putting strangers in the same bed? Oh my...

As in, "Politics makes strange bedfellows"?
19 posted on 08/11/2012 8:56:01 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew

I’ve always been amused at the way people who grew up attending modernist schools think historical people are “wrong” for calling a whale a fish. Whales are not Pisces, but “fish” was a term used for any sea creatures, historically.

The ancients and less-ancients were quite well aware that there were major biological differences between whales and Pisces; the name “dolphin” means “womb,” in Greek, for what the Greeks called them, translated into English, was “womb-fishes.” Also not Pisces are shellfish, crayfish, starfish, jellyfish, etc. Some eels are Pisces, some are not. And “Pisces,” as a phylogenic class has been discarded, anyway.

If sometime around the 1950s, elementary school teachers decided that they would only use “fish” to describe Pisces, that’s fine. But throughout the whole of English history up until that time, “fish” meant a category of creatures which included whales, polyphylitic as it was.

Will they someday call us wrong for calling both earthworms and pinworms “worms” even though they are not related?


20 posted on 08/11/2012 8:58:10 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson