Final Thoughts

Ishmael was an interesting read. It certainly read differently than most novels. This was primarily due to a lack of character importance. The characters within Ishmael didn't really matter. Aside from the Student acting as the reader and Ishmael acting as Daniel Quinn, the characters don't seem important. Which, I suppose makes sense as the novel's purpose is to attempt to tell society the truth of the world as Quinn sees it. However, then again it also makes the reader ultimately question why Quinn chose a washed up rebel/hippy (pretty much all we know about the Student) and a telepathic gorilla as the characters of his novel. I suppose that these characters established the scene Quinn wanted to set, but I feel that scene could have been set with different characters and it ultimately wouldn't matter. The reader cannot (or at least I cannot) connect with the Student in the way I believe Quinn envisioned. I think the reader can experience similar revelations or "huh," moments, but ultimately the Student is faceless. Not faceless in that he can represent anyone, faceless in that he can't really represent the audience. One of my main criticisms of the novel is that the characters lack substance. You can't empathize with a nobody or a gorilla, you just can't. This ultimately holds the message back, because it doesn't affect the reader as strongly as the reader is never absorbed by the novel. There was never a moment where I would glance at the clock and see it was already 1 AM, I held myself separate from the novel because of these flat characters.

That being said, the ideas within the novel itself were good. The ideas Quinn presents are definitely the strong point of the novel. The way he presents his ideas are often through allegories and metaphors. These devices themselves do a good job at getting the point across. For example, to show why our society doesn't recognize that it's failing, Ishmael introduces a metaphor/story about aviation. In this metaphor Ishmael essentially describes (and I'll make this brief), how a man who were to launch a 'primitive' biplane/glider would not necessarily realize he was falling, not flying, until he hit the ground. Through this, the reader comes to understand that our society might not realize it's not working (falling) until it experiences a bad end (hitting the ground).  These metaphors do a great job of allowing the reader to understand a vague concept/idea through something more concrete.

That said, there are so many of these little stories throughout the novel that it makes me wonder if it might have been a better idea to make Ishmael a collection of short stories. This isn't sarcastic in any way, I truly feel that with the characters being so lacking, it may have been better had Quinn simply compiled these allegories and metaphors into a collection and expanded upon them. Looking back, it actually feels as though Ishmael might have originally been something like that, and then Quinn decided to interconnect those allegories and metaphors by introducing a hippie and a gorilla to the mix.

Overall, the writing behind Ishmael is lacking. However, the ideas behind it are solid and cause the reader to think. I would have preferred the ideas to have been less spoon-fed to the reader though. I could easily see how someone, ahem, lacking intelligence or ability to think for them-self, might simply adhere to Quinn's ideas without question and not think past what Quinn preaches. I doubt that's a likely outcome for most readers, but it could be more common if Oprah's Book Club or some other obnoxious organization decided to promote it. That being said, it's still possible to come to your own conclusions on what is wrong with society and not necessarily completely agree with Quinn's points, so, while I don't like it, it's more of a minor criticism.

If I were to rate Ishmael, I'd give it about a 6/10. The writing's bland but the ideas are thought-provoking. It's about an average quality novel, overall, and even though the ideas are strong, they likely won't change your life and I feel that it wasn't particularly AP worthy. That said, if the premise interests you, give it a read. You'll probably regret it, but who knows!

C Thunder, signing off.

The War on....Life?

The overall argument and theme of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael is that current society has placed itself at odds with the rest of the planet. Current society does not see humanity as coexisting with the rest of the planet but as the owners of the planet. This core idea is completely and utterly true. You hear it all the time in one way another. However, most notably is the phrase "We are/I am/You are/He is/They are not an animal." Well, we are really. But it's a fact we often like to overlook. Why? Well it's hard to say. Daniel Quinn would have you believe it's because it's the only way for our culture to exist the way it does. Which, I would agree with. The animal kingdom must have a king, and humanity was destined to be crowned. Or so it seems.

But, why is the only way for our current culture to exist bound to our perception of humanity as the king of the kingdom? Well, it's because kings are not bound by rules. Kings bear great responsibility in return for this impunity. This impunity to nature has become intrinsic to humanity in it's recent rise. The average person on the average day, has no fear of nature. No fear of natural repercussions. No fear of global warming, over fishing, deforestation, and all the rest. I know I don't. But, I should. And so should the average person. But, that doesn't mean they will. Honestly, why would we? We're the king. A mismanaged kingdom is first felt by the peasantry and lastly by the king. In other words, the king may not realize he has completely failed his people until the very end, and, even then, he might not care. Will we care when our planet has revolted against us? When changing climates wreak havoc through extreme storms and flooding throughout the world?
Some kings sought the pleasure of material things in exchange for the well being of their people. Is it misguided to relate humanity to those sovereigns? I would say it seems to be the case. Humanity consumes and consumes and consumes. More and more everyday. More oil, more coal, more metals, more software, more technology, more food, more, more, more. Are we destined to become the aliens of science fiction masterpiece, Independence Day, starring Will Smith? A species that is equated to a swarm of locusts, moving from planet to planet simply taking and destroying? It's hard to say. Everyone the world over knows, from birth, humanity is destined for great things. Are we really? Or is our existence temporary? A fleeting infection, parasite, or virus from which the planet will have to recover? It's hard to say. Who are we? What are we? Why are we here? Why, why, why? It's hard to say.

One thing's for certain though. Currently, our society is at war with Earth. But it's a war we won't win. It's a war no one will win. It's a Cold War gone wrong, with both sides obliterated in the end. Ishmael's theme is a depressing one, but an important one. Say what you will about Daniel Quinn's writing (spoiler: it's not great) but I have to concede that the ideas he presents are important ones. Not just for the preservation of the human race but also for self-reflection. Quinn's Ishmael will leave you questioning. Whether that will have a positive impact on humanity? It's hard to say.

Enter the Noble Savage

"Is there a way to achieve settlement that is in accord with the law that we've been following since the beginning of time?"

A poignant question, first thought of (unconsciously) by the Leavers. That is to say, hunter and gatherer societies. However, upon seeing this question brought up within the text of the novel. A thought immediately popped into my head. That thought was, of course, "Oh God, he's going to bring up Native Americans isn't he." And so he did.

Native Americans. The Noble Savage. The people who lived in accord with nature as best they could. Never could have the Americas held the basis for civilization, no, only savages equipped with knowledge of their environment. People who saw themselves as part of the environment, not apart from it. Ever heard about the myth of the Noble Savage? No? Not surprising if you haven't. In fact, it's unlikely you would unless the native peoples of the Americas interest you. A failure among many within the American school system, Native Americans. Students are taught to recognize Native Americans only as a sob story and as a hurdle too low to impede the might of Europe. Never are they discussed aside from their role during that three hundred years or so where their societies came into conflict with ours. They lived in wood shacks, handled stone age weaponry, and were entirely too trusting of the devilish Europeans. Exploited without even knowing so until the very end, oh the tragedy! I could delve into the history and explain the inaccuracies of so much of what is said about Native Americans, but I'll spare you the lesson. Simply know this, Daniel Quinn doesn't know what he's talking about. But, of course, why should he? He's a philosopher for God's sake! What does a philosopher need to understand history for? Ishmael says that Native Americans lived peaceably and rarely resorted to violence. Based on what knowledge? The knowledge of the noble savages who caught turkey and feasted with each other as brothers at the end of the harvest? A feast to which the European settlers were so cordially invited to but the great Indian Squanto? That knowledge that one learns in the fourth grade? Humans are a bloody and vicious bunch, to think that living in a greater harmony with nature than your fellows across the pond changes that is downright preposterous. The whole of the Americas is stained in Native blood. No less so than Europe or Asia or Africa or Oceania.

For a man writing a book about questioning the society you live in, you would think he would at least question the knowledge of Native Americans he was spoon fed before he could do simple multiplication. Perhaps not a glaring flaw to those who might not have the same background knowledge and interest as I, but a flaw it is. One that annoys me and causes his credibility to crumble.

The Laws of Life

As I have been reading Ishmael, I have found myself more and more frustrated with the Student. I can not say exactly why. The general feeling is that I find myself frustrated because the Student is, or at least appears, somewhat dim. However, that by itself should not frustrate me. Characters can be less intelligent yet compelling. But, the Student isn't. The Student is nameless, back-groundless, with only a few, unimportant details about his life being given to the reader. This, I believe, is what frustrates me. The way I see it, Quinn wrote the Student as a faceless representation of the reader and the intelligence of the student reflects his opinion of the intelligence of the reader. This is what annoys me. If I think the Student is dumb, clearly he doesn't represent me, the reader, the way that Quinn thinks he should. It makes the writing feel condescending, and the Student's dimwittedness the reader's own. For whatever reason it just rubs me the wrong way. Now that that's off my chest, I would like to bring up an idea within this section that I found fascinating. That idea is the laws of life.

The idea of the laws of life is, I assume, an idea that will be critical to the novel. But, more importantly, it's an incredibly interesting idea. The premise is this, if there are laws that govern flight, gravity, thermodynamics, and all the rest; why would there not be laws that govern life? For example, take a look at Newton's laws of motion. One of those laws states that an object in motion stays in motion. This is undeniably true; when not being acted upon by an opposing force. Space allowed us to truly gain an understanding of this concept. Voyager One and Two, for example, do not propel themselves any longer. In fact, they stopped propelling themselves minutes after the broke through the Earth's atmosphere. However, they continue to travel at thousands of miles per hour. There is nothing to slow them down, no opposing forces strong enough to stop them. The sun's gravitational pull on them is so weak that they actually now orbit our galactic center, if you can believe that. If there is a law like this for motion, why would there be no law like this for life? What allows a species to continue for millennia and what causes a species to die? Well, we know that unfavorable conditions and competition can cause animals to die out. Is that not a law?

In the novel, Ishmael (or Quinn's persona, I suppose) says that laws are often unsurprising. When Newton stated the law of gravity no one looked at him as though he were crazy. Everyone understands that an object falls when unsupported, it's not revolutionary. However, Ishmael argues that by creating a law you are defining a phenomenon as something to be obeyed. Laws are meant to be obeyed. Thus a natural law is something everything must obey. Continuing along this line of reasoning, the laws of life are not particularly surprising to anyone. However, by calling them natural laws you invoke a sort of reverence for them. Currently, the problem with our society is that we like to take and destroy and ignore the future. Currently, we understand that humanity is causing species to die off, ice caps to melt, atmospheres to degrade, death through pollution, and all the rest. People understand this, it's not exactly something that can be swept under the rug anymore, much as people may try. Humanity, at it's core, does not look to the future. It's simply how we're wired. Humanity sees itself as king and Earth as its kingdom. Whether or not we continue to be a tyrant is up to us. If we choose to define the laws of life and acknowledge that they apply even to us, the wise and powerful king of 'noble' blood, then we take a step towards benevolence. It's a hard pill to swallow, but the 'king' must follow the same rules as the commoners. If we don't, we die.

We know that unfavorable conditions and competition can cause animals to die out. Humans don't compete with any other species. If life were a footrace and every species entered, it would be like humanity showed up in a car. We win every time. However, there is a second part to the first statement. Unfavorable conditions. What does global warming create? Unfavorable conditions. Pollution? Unfavorable conditions. Overfishing, draining aquifers too fast, dropping nukes, cutting down rain forest? Unfavorable conditions. Humanity is killing not just itself, but all life because we see ourselves above the laws of life.

"No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it." - Teddy Roosevelt

Introductions

The defining characteristic of mankind are not our opposable thumbs, nor our capacity for emotions, nor our ability to speak, write, read, or do mathematics. Humanity's truly defining characteristic is its self-awareness. No other recorded animal species has this attribute. Truly, at this point self-awareness is tantamount to sentience. And as humanity is the pinnacle of life on earth, as well as the sole sentient being, self-awareness is indisputably synonymous with humanity. However, what if there were a gorilla who was not only self-aware and sentient, but wiser than the majority of humanity. What becomes humanity's defining characteristic? What, then, makes us human? Are we the pinnacle of life, the end all be all, or are we just another animal floundering along? Daniel Quinn explores these concepts in his novel Ishmael, a book about a telepathic gorilla teaching a man how to think.

Despite the ludicrous premise, Ishmael sets out to change humanity's perception on the world. Ishmael's teachings thus far revolve around the story humanity tells itself and enacts every single second of every single day. Humanity has been enacting the same story for thousands of years, since the agricultural revolution to modern day. As with all stories, humanity's own story has a beginning, middle, and an end. Modern society's story, like all societies before it, begins with a creation myth.

This sparks an interesting thought, which is also brought up in the book. What is our creation myth? The main character (who I'll refer to as the Student) himself says there is no such thing in our society, our society is based on facts not myths. However, there quite clearly is such a thing, the subjects taught in school all have our creation myth interwoven into the material. The story of humanity's creation is, of course, the big bang and evolution, these things are, for the most part, seen as fact. However, the creation myth is different, it relates to the ideas I outlined in the first paragraph, and that is that humanity is the apex of evolution. Sentience is the end all be all of life and evolution. Strange then, that evolution has not stopped there. Humanity continues to evolve, does that mean self-awareness and sentience and humanity are not the pinnacle of life? Every human being knows, from birth, that man is superior, that they are superior. How could we not? Everything tells us this. What other creature controls fire, bends metals to their will, directs electricity, rules the skies, lands, oceans, Earth in the same way as man? Shouldn't that alone be proof enough that man is the pinnacle, life's greatest achievement? Surely, man is inherently different, inherently greater, than beasts.

As the Student also describes, do you ever get the feeling that you're being lied to?

Salutations!

Hello all, welcome to the one, the only, Ishmael Blog. This is your go-to source for quality, well thought-out posts and responses on the philosophical novel, Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. Of course, this blog also allows me an outlet to share my hijinks and general everyday hilarity with the rest of the world. Strap in folks, it's going to be a gorilla of a ride LOL!