Re: [Marxism] Are you​ a Moby-Dickhead?

2020-05-29 Thread Louis Proyect via Marxism

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On 5/29/20 8:31 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:


Vol. 42 No. 11 · 4 June 2020
The Last Whale
by Colin Burrow

Ahab’s Rolling Sea: A Natural History of Moby-Dick
by Richard J. King. > Chicago, 430 pp., £23, November 2019, 978 0 226 51496 3


This was from the London Review of Books.


_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com


[Marxism] Are you​ a Moby-Dickhead?

2020-05-29 Thread Louis Proyect via Marxism

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Vol. 42 No. 11 · 4 June 2020
The Last Whale
by Colin Burrow

Ahab’s Rolling Sea: A Natural History of Moby-Dick
by Richard J. King.
Chicago, 430 pp., £23, November 2019, 978 0 226 51496 3

Complete Poems
by Herman Melville, edited by Hershel Parker.
Library of America, 990 pp., £37.99, August 2019, 978 1 59853 618 8

Are you​ a Moby-Dickhead? If so, are you enough of a Moby-Dickhead to 
have visited the Phallological Museum in Iceland to inspect a sperm 
whale’s penis? This is one of the many intrepid expeditions undertaken 
by Richard King in the course of researching Ahab’s Rolling Sea. His 
book, like Moby-Dick itself, tells you everything you ever wanted to 
know about whales but were too ashamed to ask. The fact that the sperm 
whale’s penis, or ‘grandissimus’, is four and a half feet long is just 
one of its juicier details. All but the truly dedicated cetologist will 
learn the following from King’s book: that right whales can be 
identified by the shape of the callosities around their blowholes, which 
are infested with cyamids, or whale lice; that a whale’s spout or blow 
contains snot as well as seawater; that ‘belugas have an extraordinary 
range of sound out of their blowholes – think whoopee cushions and 
bagpipes’; that a giant squid’s eye can be 11 inches in diameter; that 
ambergris (which sells for $15,800 a pound) is found in the rectum of 
only about 1 per cent of sperm whales and is an accretion that builds up 
around indigestible material such as squid heads.


Herman Melville culled his knowledge of whales from his voyage aboard 
the whaler Acushnet in 1841-42 and from authoritative texts ranging from 
William Scoresby’s Account of the Arctic Regions (1820), through 
encyclopedia entries, to Frederick Bennett’s Narrative of a Whaling 
Voyage round the Globe (1840). King tests this information against 
up-to-the-minute data from modern marine science. It turns out that, 
with due allowance for the state of knowledge in the 1850s, Melville got 
a surprising amount right about whales: their size, their bone 
structure, their mass, even their emotional lives. Melville knew that 
the destruction of the Pequod by the white whale was physically 
possible, King argues, because in 1820 the Nantucket ship Essex was 
rammed by a sperm whale and sank. King even cautiously allows, after 
what one hopes was a carbon-neutral visit to the cetologist Marta Guerra 
Bobo in New Zealand, that a sperm whale could bear grudges against an 
Ahab, or can at least in theory recognise individual humans. Anyone who 
isn’t completely turned off by sea creatures will enjoy surfing the 
waves of information that roll genially from this book.


Ahab’s Rolling Sea also has a big thesis. King argues that Moby-Dick 
offers a ‘proto-Darwinian decentring of the human and the elevation of 
the whale’. Moby-Dick, King claims, is an ecological fiction that not 
only displays sympathy for whales but sets acquisitive human 
perspectives against the wide and impersonal horizon of the sea. 
Melville’s novel can offer ecological counsel for today since it 
encourages us to think about the violence mankind is doing to the 
natural world. The statistics support this argument: the global 
population of North Atlantic right whales, for instance, has dropped 
from an estimated twenty thousand before industrial-scale hunting in the 
19th century to 458 today.


It would be hard to fault either the motives or the facts underlying 
King’s ecological zeal. But it’s also hard to believe that Moby-Dick 
belongs near the top of any global list of ecological fictions. Melville 
does ask ‘whether Leviathan can long endure so wide a chase ... whether 
he must not at last be exterminated from the waters, and the last whale, 
like the last man, smoke his last pipe, and them himself evaporate in 
the final puff’. But he then contentedly concludes that whales aren’t 
actually being exterminated as a result of being hunted: they’re just 
changing their routes to avoid whalers, or are ingeniously hiding 
beneath the ice caps. ‘Hunted from the savannas and glades of the middle 
seas, the whale-bone whales can at last resort to their polar citadels, 
and diving under the ultimate glassy barriers and walls there, come up 
among icy fields and floes; and in a charmed circle of everlasting 
December, bid defiance to all pursuit from man.’ King says that 
‘Ishmael’s belief that whales can survive the pressure of American 
hunting in the 1850s reflected the mainstream knowledge of his day.’ 
Fair enough, but that does nothing to boost his ecowarrior credentials.


It’s possible to filter out the krill from the turbid mass of Moby-Dick 
and