Climate Change Confusion

            The other day I watched a documentary about glaciers that reminded me of Ishmael. This documentary was called Chasing Ice and it was very frightening. The film crew travelled around the globe placing time lapse cameras and pointing them towards major glaciers. These cameras were left there for something like three years and at the end of these three years the footage was reviewed. What was found didn’t really surprise me, most of these glaciers had melted but the degree to which the melt had occurred was very shocking. To see the sheer size of the glaciers that were melting on a very human time scale was scary. This documentary did a great job of just displaying evidence in a digestible manner. The curious part about this was that it entirely convinced me that drastic action was necessary in order to effectively combat climate change. Ishmael had solicited the opposite response in me and I still don’t quite understand why. I don’t know where I stand now on the issue now.

            

Overall reaction to the book

            I think that my opinion about Ishmael has been communicated in my other blog posts, however, for the sake of completing the blog assignment, here are my thoughts about the book as a whole. For one, I thought that many of Quinn’s ideas were sound, particularly those dealing with resource depletion and animal ethics. However, the solutions presented were very farfetched and idealistic. Furthermore, the book was not nearly as challenging as it should have been for an AP English project.

            Like Quinn, I believe that there are problems which need to be addressed in the future. Without fixing these problems there will inevitably be a shortage of natural resources. However, I tend to be an optimist in that I believe humanity will be able to deal with these problems simply because we must. I think that the intent in writing Ishmael was to catalyze some sort of change in the behavior of the younger generation. However, it felt like propaganda because it provided its arguments without offering facts as support. The entire book I was unable to trust that darn gorilla because he so rarely gave supporting evidence. I sincerely wish I had not chosen to read this book especially because I have to write five blog posts which are really just me complaining.

            Quinn’s ideas about animal sentience and the value of life may be ahead of his time and I commend him for that. I also agree with his views about human-centrism and its potential to distort truth. I guess my main issue with Quinn right now is that I didn’t like his writing style. I really don’t have much more to say about this book.

AP Worthy?

Before the end of the second chapter of Ishmael, I knew that I had made a poor selection for the blog post project. While other books in my AP English class had challenged me, forcing me to read beyond the literal meaning, I found that Quinn wrote plainly and explicitly. Quinn does not write literature, and Ishmael is by no means AP worthy. One reason for this is that there is extremely limited use of literary devices to enhance the meaning of the novel. Furthermore, the use of the English language in general is very simplistic and boring. I do not recommend this book to anyone looking for a thought provoking or challenging read. In fact, I don’t think I would recommend this book to anyone in high school.

In my opinion, the major themes of Ishmael do not have an emotional or human element. The book lacks an underlying meaning which is personally or emotionally relatable for the reader. As such, I found that reading the book was more of a chore than something that was enjoyable. To save readers the time needed to actually read the book, here is a passage which I felt summarized the overall theme fairly well:

“Mother Culture teaches you that this is as it should be. Except for a few thousand savages scattered here and there, all the peoples of the earth are now enacting this story. This is the story man was born to enact, and to depart from it is to resign from the human race itself, is to venture into oblivion. Your place is here, participating in the story, putting your shoulder to the wheel, and as a reward, being fed. There is no ‘something else.’ To step out of this story is to fall off the edge of the world. There’s no way out of it except through death.” (Quinn 11)

For the sake of sharing my delight, here are some examples of literary devices used in Ishmael. Here is a simile: “Then he sat back with a sigh that rumbled through the glass like a distant volcano.” Quinn also employs personification in his discussion of the western collective unconscious which he calls Mother Culture. I don’t quite understand the reason for using this metaphor other than to make an abstract concept more concrete and detestable. Admittedly, Quinn does use other literary devices occasionally, but they rarely are used to develop a larger meaning. This lack of meaningful literary devices supports the idea that Ishmael is not literature.

Theme

            In the creation of Ishmael, Daniel Quinn made it his goal to reach the widest audience possible. And considering he sold over 1.5 million copies, we can confidently say that he succeeded. However, to make his book accessible to less experienced readers, Quinn condensed the important thematic points into loose analogies and metaphors. In doing so, the themes become painfully obvious and clichéd. One important theme of the novel is that modern man’s materialism is the result of our imprisonment in the ambient “taker” values of our society. A separate topic explored at length is the human belief that we have rightful dominion over animals. In Ishmael, the theme that humans are not the rulers of animals is central to Quinn’s argument. A final theme of Ishmael is that humans are subject to the laws of ecology. This theme may seem more trivial than the others, but it is alarmingly applicable to modern society.

My main complaint with the book is that it demonizes civilization and downplays the accomplishments of our society. Quinn argues that materialism is a necessary consequence of civilization – I disagree. I believe that the accomplishments of our society are astounding and that the benefits that we have reaped at least partially justifies our participation in civilization. However, I do agree with Quinn in that the damage we have done is unjustified and that we must seek ways to mitigate future damage.

            Quinn compares our materialism and western lifestyle to a prison from which we cannot escape. He asserts that it is our entrapment in and obsession with material wealth that prevents us from caring about the larger scale impact of our actions. After all, why be concerned with the consequences of a lifestyle that all your neighbors enjoy as well? While I do agree that environmental accountability is a tricky subject, I don’t think that the solution needs to be as radical as reverting to tribalism, which is what Quinn implies is the solution. The current structure of our economy exists to support as much human life as possible. To rebel against this would also risk the lives of the billions of people who rely on outside resources for their survival. I think this support net supplied by civilization is critically important and abolishing it would be an absurdly counterproductive. Environmentalism must be approached pragmatically to make an impact. Resources must be consumed responsibly and our impact on the environment must be regulated proportionally to the damage we do. I think this is a much more reasonable solution.

            The theme which resonated most strongly with me was the idea that humans do not have a morally justified dominion over animals. Quinn argues that it unnecessary and unethical to prioritize our lives over the lives of animals in situations where our survival is not at stake. This may be an idealistic simplification of a more complex issue, but a respect for life is an axiom of my personal philosophy. The last major theme of Ishmael, that humanity is subject to the laws of ecology, is increasingly applicable to the problems facing modern man. Resource consumption is one of these problems. As the global population rises at an accelerating rate, our growth threatens to permanently damage the earth and its ecosystems. Perhaps it is wise that we heed Quinn’s warnings about population growth if we don’t want to convert the entire planet into farm land.

Characters

            The novel Ishmael, written by Daniel Quinn, is a book which questions the assumptions of our culture. The novel’s main character is a gorilla named Ishmael with human-like sentience who is able to communicate telepathically with human beings. With this ability Ishmael aims to educate humanity about the dangers of their unchecked growth and ethnocentric social values. Ishmael and the narrator cross paths due to this shared concern for the planet.

Ishmael serves as a Socratic educator for the narrator, encouraging the man to arrive at his own conclusions by telling stories and asking questions. The stories told do little to characterize Ishmael and the narrator, but are instead a boringly transparent method which Quinn employs to disguise his own criticisms of western culture. In fact, I believe that the narrator is purposefully characterized vaguely in order to make him more relatable to the reader. His borderline stupidity when asked even simple questions makes the reading experience more accessible to readers of many backgrounds. While this may be an earnest effort on Quinn’s part to reach more readers, frustration quickly takes hold after the first few hundred times the unidimensional narrator fails to understand the meaning of Ishmael’s lessons.

In one of the stories told by Ishmael, Quinn likens humanity’s “self-centered” perspective on evolution to the belief of a jellyfish that it is the masterpiece of creation. I would question the validity of this metaphor because the complexity of human intelligence provides a compelling argument in support of human-centric ideals. I would argue that it is the brevity of humanity’s existence which limits the development of a more complete perspective on evolution, not our arrogance as Quinn claims.

There are a number of other stories told in the novel which make me question Quinn’s extreme cynicism. While reading I often remind myself that although we as the reader are guided to make our own conclusions does not mean that they are our own – make no mistake, these are Quinn’s beliefs disguised by his slippery writing. And while I wholeheartedly agree with many of Quinn’s criticisms, his apparent misanthropy and hysterical environmentalism strike me as pessimistic – at least so far.