Talk:Moby-Dick

The Rachel

The names of the characters are given extensive discussion in this article, as Melville clearly chose them for their associations. The name of the ship, Rachel, is also an allusion, and the image of Rachel crying for her children is taken from Jeremiah 31, along with the prophet's message of comfort. Shouldn't this allusion be included in the discussion as well?

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)

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)

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)

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)