felicityking

Firstly, a thank you to lolilie for sending me the book. I do appreciate it. Secondly, an apology. This is going to be most negative positive review ever, but I can't tell a lie. I've put the review under a cut since it's going to spoiler heavy, or as spoiler heavy as a philosophical book of this type can be.

Ishmael is the story of a carnival gorilla, who was rescued by a World War 2 survivor. Through the years, the man and the gorilla grow close and Ishmael eventually learns not just how to talk, but also also becomes an erudite scholar. Ishmael decides to pass his learning on to someone who "must have an ernest desire to save the world." The unnamed narrator of the novel applies and so begins "an adventure of the mind and spirit."

10.19.10: edited to fix a few grammar errors I just noticed.

For me, this book was like an object of sentimental value: I've long outgrown it but revisiting it makes me nostalgic for the person I once was. I myself found the book too limiting, but I imagine for people who have never been exposed to humanism, feminism and other liberal arts ideas, it will be a mindblowing experience.

Where to begin? I took notes as I read the book so this isn't going to be a formal review but rather a cohesion of what else I wanted, what I thought the book lacked, and what I felt were the best/worst aspects of the book.

I knew I was going to find this book problematic when I came across this gem within the first few pages: "during the children's revolt of the 1960s and 1970s, I was just old enough to understand what these kids had in mind---and just young enough to believe they might actually suceed. ...Then, one day I woke up... and realized the new era was never going to begin. The revolt had dwindled away...into a fashion statement." (4-5)

I have a minor in Women's Studies. I've read up on not just that, but also Civil Rights, counterculture, GLBT and other revolutionary movements that were happening during that time period. Those "children" (how patronizing by the way) didn't just give up. They kept soldiering on. Many had to move into academia or off-beat fields to keep the fight for justice going, but they didn't just stop fighting for a different way of life! However, I thought, I'm early in the book. That wouldn't be mentioned unless the author was going for a point.

The author DOES have a point. However, it is not quite as mind-shatteringly revolutionary as he thinks it is. Many feminists, humanists, Civil Rights, GLBT and counterculture philosophers came to the same point, and they weren't so limited in how they presented it. (Contrary to what the author thinks, not all those children were reformists only. Many, many were quite radical.) The point being that humankind needs a new, positive story to go by. That the old system isn't working. That we need to change the old system because we are destroying ourselves.

Now, I don't disagree with the author. And, as I've said, if you've never been exposed to that, it's going to rip open your mind and force you to think like you have never before. But. the concept is better than the execution. The concept is wonderful, original and intriguing. Gorilla seeks student who wants to change the world! And using the novel form as a way to get the point across is extremely good because people who won't pick up a book on feminism will pick up a novel if the concept is different and gets the point across in a clever way.

However, beware! this isn't your typical novel. It's very, very lean on description, character and even basic plot and very, very heavy on dialogue. (It would have been better as a 2 person play.) Also, the concept and the point is very problematic:

Firstly, it overgeneralizes. Way, way, way overgeneralizes. Secondly, this novel is not gender-friendly (which, if you are going to change the world and how it operates, you have to leave behind sexism! Yes, there was a very polically correct explanation for the use of the phrase 'mother culture' but nothing was given for the patriarchal 'mankind,' 'man' etc. A gender-friendly novel would have used the term 'human' or 'humankind.')

Thirdly, and this really drove me nuts: there is an imbalance in the teacher-student relationship. The (male) gorilla is all-wise, all-knowing, never ever ever in the wrong. The (male) student is always questioning, always accepting of everything the gorilla has to say. The student is never allowed to be able to ponder in a way that gives the student respect. (The questions are dumb and dumbly worded. When the student is allowed to wise, he basically repeating the gorilla verbatim rather than coming to his own original conclusions and insights.)

To add insult to injury, we the audience are treated like the student while the gorilla is used in a very meta way to sub as the author. This bit of meta really stuck out: "The authors of this story know what they were talking about." (106) This comes after pages and pages of the gorilla lecturing the student.

What's annoying is that the author clearly didn't take his own advice. If he had, the gorilla wouldn't be telling the student this: "Look, I can't forbid you to say 'I have no idea'; but I do insist that you spend a few seconds thinking before you say it." But the author refuses to give the student that luxury. He, like the gorilla, wants to believe we are all crazy corporate overlords bent on destroying the world because we are so totally ignorant (and so ignorant we don't even know the proper questions to ask) about alternative viewpoints. I think even the most basic reader wants to believe that the author has some faith in our intelligence, but according to Daniel Quinn, I have none and no ability to be able to think on my own (other than to say repeatedly 'I have no idea.'

This is where the lack of plot and character really does the novel a disservice. We are only with Ishmael and the student when they are together. We never get to see the student at home, with his mind boggled, trying to figure out all the new awesome shit Ishmael is throwing his way. When we do get the student at home, he basically turns his mind off. The book is basically a series of discussions but it would have benefited to having the student struggling to fit what he was learning from Ishmael in his real life. Instead, the student is just presented as rude (and a slacker about to get fired) when away from Ishmael. And the description is scanty at best. (You would think he'd be telling everybody he knows about this telepathic gorilla. And what that gorilla is teaching him. Instead, he's just....'my uncle came to visit and yeah, I wanted to get to Ishmael stat so I kicked my uncle out.')

The book does have one really offensive bit. I frankly couldn't believe it when I saw it. Native Americans are used an example of positive cultures who aren't crazy corporate overloads. Fine by me. They typically aren't. However, Ishmael celebrates Native American culture within the context of POPULATION CONTROL! Granted, he puts a positive spin on it, and discusses it in terms of Native Americans pre-white man context, but that is just so, so, so wrong. Has Daniel Quinn ever met any American Indians? I HAVE. And, I've read many books and taken several classes about American Indian culture. You don't fucking use population control terminology (be it positive or negative) to celebrate Native Americans. For that matter, when Quinn refers to Native cultures, he seems to have very New Age-y, wannabe hippy "Noble Savage" idea of the Native cultures which is very racist, and NOT revolutionary. Do you see what I mean by this author is limited? You want to change the world: YOU DON'T USE STEREOTYPES!!!!! (Yes, it boils my blood that he went there on the ethnic stereotypes. The fact that it outrages me even moreso than the gender-unfriendly terminology should be a clue just how incensed I am.)

Also, I felt cheated by the ending. So Daniel Quinn thinks he is all wise and knowing? Ok. Show me the student living Daniel Quinn's way. We never get that. After Ishmael has finished his lessons, the book ends. Such a cop-out. It's an especially huge cop-out because all those "children" that Quinn so dismissed continue to write about their struggles to live as humanists in a non-humanist world, how they achieve and fail on a day to day basis. A true revolutionary thinker would not only offer a new way to live but would also show you how he or she is trying to live that way. After an epic build-up from Ishmael, and then nothing at the end is a really cheap way to go. You don't just leave your readers hanging like that after telling them 'you need to find a new way to live otherwise you will destroy yourselves and everybody else.'

Now, my Ishmael eye-opening book (and one that doesn't cheat you on the ending) is a tie between 2: Sister Outsider by Audre Lorde (a black lesbian feminist) and This Bridge Called my Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color edited by Gloria Anzauldua and Cherrie Moraga. However, those are super-radical not just in ideas but also in how language is used, so a good bridge book would be Gloria Steinem's Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions. Yes, I'm biased! All are by feminists, but all them were involved in nearly all aspects of the "children's revolt of the 1960s and 1970s." I was in my freshman year of college when I read all 3 and they blew my mind so far I still need to reread all 3 just to see what I've missed. They are gender friendly, not racist, and they help you form your own ending. They don't just leave you hanging!

I'm not saying don't read Ishmael. If humanism is a scary idea to you, then this book is a good primer. I'm not saying Ishmael is a bad book but that it could be more (or maybe I expected more). The concept is enchanting so if you find it intriguing you should check it out. But don't stop at this book!