Ishmael

Date Posted: 07.22.07

I just read the novel Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It was given to me by a friend who has been after me to read it for almost a year. He insisted it was an excellent book. The friend in question is intelligent and interesting. It was reasonable you think we might like similar books�. This is not so much the case this time around.

The book has a somewhat amusing premise. I am all for anything with telepathic animals.

It begins with a narrator whose name was not mentioned (or I missed it). He is a somewhat jaded and disillusioned writer. One afternoon he sees a personal ad in the paper that reads "TEACHER seeks pupil. Must have an earnest desire to save the world. Apply in person." He is skeptical but curious so he answers the ad. When he shows up he discovers that the teacher is a telepathic gorilla called Ishmael who has developed advanced critical, cognitive abilities. Which is to say, he has become a philosopher.

They begin a series of conversations during which the Gorilla uses a poorly considered Socratic technique to lead the semi-intelligent narrator through a series of philosophical and/or anthropological questions. They seek to determine the "laws" that govern the "right way to live." They conclude that the ultimate law is more or less "don't take more than you need."

The erstwhile philosophers then proceed to explain the difference in what is termed taker (civilized) v/s leaver (uncivilized) society. The ultimate conclusion is simply that civilized society has "eaten from the tree of knowledge." They have decided that they have the rights of the gods to decide who is and is not going to die. They view the earth as belonging to man as opposed to uncivilized leaver society which believes itself to simply be a part of the earth.

They reminisce about the evils of all of this. Meanwhile the gorilla is condescending and the narrator somewhat dense. Ultimately they come to the conclusion that people need to be inspired to take on a "leaver" philosophy but certainly not to revert to stone-age hunter gather lifestyle.

The book ends when Ishmael and the narrator finish their conversation. Ishmael dies and the narrator reflects upon the discussion.

I am less than impressed.

The author has a solid understanding of anthropology and cultural evolution (excepting a few errors). His knowledge of general science is reasonable. He is clearly an educated, well informed sort of fellow. He just didn't make any particularly grand or interesting statements.

The whole time I was reading the book I kept telling myself "soon the author will make some enlightened point. The things he said reminded me of a night with drunken undergraduate anthropology students. Having once been a drunken undergraduate anthropology student, I know what of I speak. There was nothing inspiring about it. I didn't see anything more than pretentious regurgitation of obvious ideas using too many 5 dollar words and awkward prose.

The argument is convoluted and punctuated by unnecessary pauses and awkward moments so that Ishmael the gorilla can tell the narrator to think more. This is pretty much the worst teaching technique available and it disrupts the flow of the reading. This is not even going into the poorly considered Socratic method that is

The arguments themselves are not especially brilliant. Either I am much smarter than I thought (and I think I'm pretty smart) or I missed something big because I didn't see a thing in the book I couldn't have gleaned from a mid level anthropology text with very little effort.

Replies: 1 Comment

On Sunday, July 22nd, Brascal said:

Some books can get by on less-than-lofty or innovative ideas, but fueled by the strength of their style, narrative and characterization. From what you say, this one managed to land mediocre scores both in end purpose and in execution.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]