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.