The book may not excite you, Adam, but it's a pretty cool book IF you can let it cast its spell over you. I grant you, that's probably a big ask, given its grandiose, Shakespearean language, its meditative transcendentalist digressions, the exhaustive dives into 19th century whaling facts and lore... Sadly, we're no longer well adapted to read stuff like this. The average reader's vocabulary and attention span are profoundly impoverished, compared to the book's original audience, and we're much less concerned with philosophical questions -- and what else is this book about, if not philosophical questions? They don't, as you illustrate, excite most Americans much anymore.
It appears that you have taken the view that many others have - that this is a book only about the hunt for a specific whale to its destruction. This view is the result of comparing the movie to the book. The hunt for Moby Dick is of course the main story we are involved with and the reason we have opened the book in the first place, BUT there is much more to this book. Melville himself was a seaman and spent time on merchant ships. As a result he is intimate with many aspects of seafaring and long voyages. He is a first-hand authority on many of the things he describes and an interested reader can benefit from what he has to tell. A war movie will concentrate on the fighting and bloodshed, but any soldier who has experienced war and has written a book on his experiences will make it obvious in that book that most of a combat soldiers time is spent in day-to-day experiences which have nothing to do with actual combat. Such is the case with the overarching intent of this novel. If you consider what you have read in the novel carefully you will remember that Melville touched on many aspects of the seafaring life such as food, weather, doctor treatment, the various tradesmen on board and how they performed their duties, aspects of the ship itself as well as the relationships of the sailors to each other and to their captain under varying circumstances. The book is intended to provide a vicarious, all-inclusive, and intimate experience by which the reader may actually "feel", as closely as prose will allow, the life of a seaman on such a ship's voyage, and in this regard I believe the novel succeeds. Now, the movie cuts to the chase because a movie does not have the time to go into every nuance of the book (especially this one) nor does it have the production resources to do so - case in point: every minute of the movie _Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King_ cost well over a half million dollars to produce. So I think it is safe to say that the book and movie diverge in their goals: the book, almost as an encyclopedia of whaling; and the movie, as a thrilling story about the hunt for one specific whale. I think each succeeds extremely well in its task though in different ways. A devoted reader will love the book, at least in part, for the reasons I have mentioned above, and a devoted moviegoer might disparage it for precisely the same reason. A competent critic will collate the merits and deficiencies of each within the context of its own medium before passing judgement on either.
Am reading 📚 moby dick again , read it in high-school. I'm 60 now ,and love the old classics. Oil from the ground or from whale's the same sad conclusion. We're all doomed... greed...
I want to address something terrible in the comments: there’s nothing wrong with audio books. The point is to consume stories. It doesn’t matter the method of consumption.
The Patrick Stewart miniseries is easily the best adaptation. Sometimes a great cast can breathe life into an otherwise basic and/or dull story. It hones in on the themes of revenge and man vs God in a way that keeps it engaging
LOL, the story isn't "basic," though you yourself may find it dull. It's an epic and Shakespearean tragedy, rolled into one, based in the philosophy of transcendentalism (this isn't my opinion, mind you, these are literary facts). I don't blame anyone for not being interested, but I think it's important to at least understand what it is you're rejecting.
If you are used to Victor Hugo's writing style in Les Misērables, you should have no problem with Moby-Dick, Or The Whale (that is the full title of the novel).
Also, being comfortable with Shakespeare is helpful, since Melville draws on him a lot (as we see in Ahab's histrionic soliloquies). Shakespeare was very widely read in America in the first half of the 19th century; de Tocqueville remarked that the complete works of Shakespeare were given pride of place on the mantles of even in the poorest cabins on the American frontier, so Melville's readers would have picked up on what he was about with this novel. Melville was consciously answering the Transcendentalist call to create a distinctly American literature, but he was building on ancient epics and Shakespeare. Moby Dick isn't a book you just pick up if all you're used to is Steinbeck, Vonnegut and Morrison. These authors are of course wonderful, but our language and literature changed a lot after World War 1 and it takes time and practice to find reading earlier works agreeable.
Basically this is a review of the particular audiobook that was listened to. Poor review at best. I'm ok the book wasn't read or the story wasn't liked - but at least the negative points should have been well made, which they really are not. Came away more confused than enlightened. If anything - this did make me want to pick up the book again - so thumbs up for that!
Oh, and also you have to read "In the Heart of the Sea" by Nathaniel Philbrick before even starting Moby Dick. Otherwise the whole thing loses it's significance and historical understanding of the sperm whale. It's based on the true story of the Whaleship Essex where a massive male sperm whale takes revenge on the great ship and sinks it by ramming into it purposefully from a great distance to build up speed. It takes two powerful direct hits to sink it. The crew almost all end up dying and having to eat each other to survive while dying of thirst on the small whaleboats to get back thousands of miles to shore. It makes you think about how many of the whale's friends and relatives were killed by the human whalers by the time it finally decided to take it's revenge on humans. Moby Dick can't really be understood without all that history which is in Philbricks book. If nothing else, watch his lecture on TH-cam about Moby Dick.
Yeah, right after World War 1, there was a literary revolt against the intricate and often flowery language of the previous century. Writers felt that a) such language had been used to bamboozle the public into a war that pretty much destroyed life as they'd known it, and b) overwrought writing was outdated and unsuitable to modernity. Western authors streamlined their writing, especially those writing in English, making it more direct and journalistic (think of Ernest Hemingway's style). They felt there was a kind of honesty in this and I personally wouldn't argue with that point of view. On the down side, a century of that approach has made most writing that came earlier much less accessible to today's readers, unfortunately.
Yes you can't really very easily do the audiobook for this one because there are so many words you have to stop and look up to figure out what it means. Lots of Biblical references which is mainly what it's about. It's a prose poem more like Shakespeare and likely influenced by Shakespeare.
It's no wonder you didn't like the narrator's rendition of Stubb. You sound just like him. You're like George Costanza reacting to the narrator's voice of "Risk Management."
I re-read Moby Dick every couple of years. It's one of the best American novels ever written. But only if you're not an idiot. If you are an idiot, you won't like (or even understand) the book. Also, you didn't actually "read" the book, you half-listened to it.
@@AdamWrightReviews Actually, she's dead. So thanks for reminding me of that fact. But, if she were still alive she would be proud of me because she raised someone who has the capacity to actually read for himself, and not rely on others to read to him.
I agree, wholeheartedly. This video made me sick to my soul. This person did not even attempt to actually read the book! For heavens sake! Those who deny the impact and greatness of Melville’s book are simply illiterate or not suited to enjoy true literature. You cannot start reading a novel from 1851 in this day and age, and expect to experience something akin to what’s on the cover. And you cannot listen to an audiobook and judge the book from that experience alone. That’s just asinine. At least he had the brains to enjoy John Huston’s film. I guess he’s should stick to movies.
@@AdamWrightReviews She would also be proud because there are many other commenters here who agree with me. I'm sure your mother (or whomever) is ashamed of you and is embarrassed by your stupdity.
I'm so glad to have watched your video, Adam. I just read Moby Dick for the first time (and tbh - only because I happened to have it in my Kindle app, lol). I feel EXACTLY the same way you do about it. I did, however, READ it rather than LISTEN. I have never done an audiobook and don't really feel any desire to. And I think I agree with you that Moby Dick is probably a bad choice for an audiobook. Read the book yourself, even if you DO like audiobooks. I do recommend reading it on the Kindle app as you can long-press one of the MANY words you've never seen before, and it'll define it. With regards to the seemingly unending chapters about whales and whaling... I just skipped them. Now, I haven't seen the 1956 movie, but just finished (5 minutes ago) the 1998 version with Patrick Stewart as Ahab. If you ever have the opportunity to watch this one, don't. Whilst I love Sir Patrick (I'm a Trekkie) and his acting was great, he wasn't the best Ahab. Plus, the SFX in the movie were pretty much on a par with the 1956 movie by the looks of the clips you showed (to be fair, it's a TV mini-series from the 90s, not a Hollywood blockbuster). The only good thing in it was Gregory Peck as Father Mapple. I'm thinking of watching the 2011 movie (I might leave it a few days or so) with William Hurt as Ahab (hmmm...). I'll come back and let you know what I thought after that.
For me, Moby Dick is one those books that do look exciting and fun for its premise but when you get to actually read it.... it's not. When it comes to sea adventures (which I thtink was a pretty common thing in the so called classics) 20.000 leagues under sea by Jules Verne and The Sea Wolf by Jack London are my favorites.
I totally get why you didn’t like the book. It isn’t for everyone. Personally, I love Moby Dick and apart from the places where Melville tries to impress the reader with his knowledge of whales and such, I think it’s perfect. This book pretty much ruined Melville’s career. It was not well reviewed upon released. It wasn’t until years after his death that people began appreciating Moby Dick. As people, we need to stop expecting everyone to love what we love. If you don’t like a piece of art it isn’t necessarily because you missed something or aren’t smart. It may simply be that it doesn’t resonate with you, which is fine- no explanation needed. Also, where we are in our lives plays a big part in what we love. Maybe you would have loved Moby Dick 15 years ago, or maybe 30 years from now. Who knows? I love country music not because it’s great, but because I grew up listening to it with my Grandpa. I love Moby Dick because it was the first book I read that made me feel like I was on a boat in the ocean hunting whales. I was 13 or 14 when I first read it, so I missed all the allusions and deeper meanings. I just loved feeling like I was someplace else and that’s all teenage me needed to fall in love with a book. I had a professor who taught me something really important. During a lecture he said, “people who don’t like the movie Signs don’t like it because they aren’t smart enough to understand it.” This was an important lesson because I learned that really smart people who have PhDs can be as fucking stupid as the rest of us.
I hated this photoplay when I saw it at the age of XII because I did not like seeing Gregory Peck as a villain. However, I saw it yesterday for the first time since then, and I consider Moby-Dick to be the antagonist.
In the book, Moby Dick is a philosophical metaphor but even if you want to set that aside, Starbuck tells Ahab that his obsession with taking revenge on a dumb beast that only acts defensively out of instinct is "blasphemy." I think it's a point worth considering.
Part of me has felt like I should read Moby Dick, but it seems so uninteresting and so I never have. Good to hear I'm justified in not reading it 😆 Though an audiobook narrator really does make or break a book
It's certainly dull to people who aren't into literature. If what you're looking for is escapist entertainment (and there's nothing wrong with that), the book's definitely not for you. But if you haven't read it (or have only half-read it), putting it down makes you look kind of childish and uneducated, tbh.
I have read the book, and it is indeed objectively terrible. Some people like to pretend it’s not in what I can only assume is a misguided attempt at literary vanity. But it’s awful. Truly awful.
it's nice not to see a butt kisser. I find the most important thing for any story ever is to be fun and entertaining in some aspect, first and foremost. It can be educational, but a lesson without engagement is a waste of time and words. You need "fun" somewhere. How can you impress an unconscious audience?
Finally, someone who has the same opinion of Moby Dick as I do. I felt the same about the encyclopedic tangents. For years I thought I was the only one that thought the tangents bogged down the book. For my money I'll take "The Great Gatsby" and "Blood Meridian" for my two favorite American novels.
The book may not excite you, Adam, but it's a pretty cool book IF you can let it cast its spell over you. I grant you, that's probably a big ask, given its grandiose, Shakespearean language, its meditative transcendentalist digressions, the exhaustive dives into 19th century whaling facts and lore... Sadly, we're no longer well adapted to read stuff like this. The average reader's vocabulary and attention span are profoundly impoverished, compared to the book's original audience, and we're much less concerned with philosophical questions -- and what else is this book about, if not philosophical questions? They don't, as you illustrate, excite most Americans much anymore.
I lament this fact as well.
It appears that you have taken the view that many others have - that this is a book only about the hunt for a specific whale to its destruction. This view is the result of comparing the movie to the book. The hunt for Moby Dick is of course the main story we are involved with and the reason we have opened the book in the first place, BUT there is much more to this book. Melville himself was a seaman and spent time on merchant ships. As a result he is intimate with many aspects of seafaring and long voyages. He is a first-hand authority on many of the things he describes and an interested reader can benefit from what he has to tell. A war movie will concentrate on the fighting and bloodshed, but any soldier who has experienced war and has written a book on his experiences will make it obvious in that book that most of a combat soldiers time is spent in day-to-day experiences which have nothing to do with actual combat. Such is the case with the overarching intent of this novel.
If you consider what you have read in the novel carefully you will remember that Melville touched on many aspects of the seafaring life such as food, weather, doctor treatment, the various tradesmen on board and how they performed their duties, aspects of the ship itself as well as the relationships of the sailors to each other and to their captain under varying circumstances. The book is intended to provide a vicarious, all-inclusive, and intimate experience by which the reader may actually "feel", as closely as prose will allow, the life of a seaman on such a ship's voyage, and in this regard I believe the novel succeeds.
Now, the movie cuts to the chase because a movie does not have the time to go into every nuance of the book (especially this one) nor does it have the production resources to do so - case in point: every minute of the movie _Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King_ cost well over a half million dollars to produce. So I think it is safe to say that the book and movie diverge in their goals: the book, almost as an encyclopedia of whaling; and the movie, as a thrilling story about the hunt for one specific whale. I think each succeeds extremely well in its task though in different ways.
A devoted reader will love the book, at least in part, for the reasons I have mentioned above, and a devoted moviegoer might disparage it for precisely the same reason. A competent critic will collate the merits and deficiencies of each within the context of its own medium before passing judgement on either.
Am reading 📚 moby dick again , read it in high-school. I'm 60 now ,and love the old classics. Oil from the ground or from whale's the same sad conclusion. We're all doomed... greed...
Very well (and kindly) put, @DATo_DATonian, you have a lot more patience with American anti-intellectualism than I do.
@@EyeLean5280 Thank you Eileen, you are too kind.
I want to address something terrible in the comments: there’s nothing wrong with audio books. The point is to consume stories. It doesn’t matter the method of consumption.
Yes, after all, Homer's works were originally conveyed orally, and written down much later.
The Patrick Stewart miniseries is easily the best adaptation. Sometimes a great cast can breathe life into an otherwise basic and/or dull story. It hones in on the themes of revenge and man vs God in a way that keeps it engaging
100% agree!
LOL, the story isn't "basic," though you yourself may find it dull. It's an epic and Shakespearean tragedy, rolled into one, based in the philosophy of transcendentalism (this isn't my opinion, mind you, these are literary facts). I don't blame anyone for not being interested, but I think it's important to at least understand what it is you're rejecting.
@@EyeLean5280 The curtains are blue
@@robertlauncher Your brain is broke.
If you are used to Victor Hugo's writing style in Les Misērables, you should have no problem with Moby-Dick, Or The Whale (that is the full title of the novel).
Also, being comfortable with Shakespeare is helpful, since Melville draws on him a lot (as we see in Ahab's histrionic soliloquies). Shakespeare was very widely read in America in the first half of the 19th century; de Tocqueville remarked that the complete works of Shakespeare were given pride of place on the mantles of even in the poorest cabins on the American frontier, so Melville's readers would have picked up on what he was about with this novel.
Melville was consciously answering the Transcendentalist call to create a distinctly American literature, but he was building on ancient epics and Shakespeare. Moby Dick isn't a book you just pick up if all you're used to is Steinbeck, Vonnegut and Morrison. These authors are of course wonderful, but our language and literature changed a lot after World War 1 and it takes time and practice to find reading earlier works agreeable.
Herman Melville began writing the novel in February MDCCCL, and finished it XVIII months later.
Basically this is a review of the particular audiobook that was listened to. Poor review at best. I'm ok the book wasn't read or the story wasn't liked - but at least the negative points should have been well made, which they really are not.
Came away more confused than enlightened. If anything - this did make me want to pick up the book again - so thumbs up for that!
Oh, and also you have to read "In the Heart of the Sea" by Nathaniel Philbrick before even starting Moby Dick. Otherwise the whole thing loses it's significance and historical understanding of the sperm whale. It's based on the true story of the Whaleship Essex where a massive male sperm whale takes revenge on the great ship and sinks it by ramming into it purposefully from a great distance to build up speed. It takes two powerful direct hits to sink it. The crew almost all end up dying and having to eat each other to survive while dying of thirst on the small whaleboats to get back thousands of miles to shore. It makes you think about how many of the whale's friends and relatives were killed by the human whalers by the time it finally decided to take it's revenge on humans. Moby Dick can't really be understood without all that history which is in Philbricks book. If nothing else, watch his lecture on TH-cam about Moby Dick.
I love the movie! I tried once to read the book but gave up. I found Melvile to be ovetly wordy and could not get through it.
Yeah, right after World War 1, there was a literary revolt against the intricate and often flowery language of the previous century. Writers felt that a) such language had been used to bamboozle the public into a war that pretty much destroyed life as they'd known it, and b) overwrought writing was outdated and unsuitable to modernity. Western authors streamlined their writing, especially those writing in English, making it more direct and journalistic (think of Ernest Hemingway's style). They felt there was a kind of honesty in this and I personally wouldn't argue with that point of view. On the down side, a century of that approach has made most writing that came earlier much less accessible to today's readers, unfortunately.
Yes you can't really very easily do the audiobook for this one because there are so many words you have to stop and look up to figure out what it means. Lots of Biblical references which is mainly what it's about. It's a prose poem more like Shakespeare and likely influenced by Shakespeare.
It's no wonder you didn't like the narrator's rendition of Stubb. You sound just like him. You're like George Costanza reacting to the narrator's voice of "Risk Management."
I re-read Moby Dick every couple of years. It's one of the best American novels ever written. But only if you're not an idiot. If you are an idiot, you won't like (or even understand) the book. Also, you didn't actually "read" the book, you half-listened to it.
Your mother must be so proud.
@@AdamWrightReviews Actually, she's dead. So thanks for reminding me of that fact. But, if she were still alive she would be proud of me because she raised someone who has the capacity to actually read for himself, and not rely on others to read to him.
I agree, wholeheartedly.
This video made me sick to my soul. This person did not even attempt to actually read the book! For heavens sake!
Those who deny the impact and greatness of Melville’s book are simply illiterate or not suited to enjoy true literature. You cannot start reading a novel from 1851 in this day and age, and expect to experience something akin to what’s on the cover. And you cannot listen to an audiobook and judge the book from that experience alone. That’s just asinine.
At least he had the brains to enjoy John Huston’s film. I guess he’s should stick to movies.
@@AdamWrightReviews She would also be proud because there are many other commenters here who agree with me.
I'm sure your mother (or whomever) is ashamed of you and is embarrassed by your stupdity.
This is an awful comment. There are plenty of reasons not to enjoy Moby Dick. Also, there’s nothing wrong with audio books.
I didn't get any further than being told that the person reviewing the book didn't actually read it.
Would you consider doing a Hannibal series movies vs book? I am on the last book and would love your thoughts!
I read the greatest illustrations cut of it which those thankfully cut a lot of the crap out and help get to the important parts.
I'm so glad to have watched your video, Adam. I just read Moby Dick for the first time (and tbh - only because I happened to have it in my Kindle app, lol). I feel EXACTLY the same way you do about it. I did, however, READ it rather than LISTEN. I have never done an audiobook and don't really feel any desire to. And I think I agree with you that Moby Dick is probably a bad choice for an audiobook. Read the book yourself, even if you DO like audiobooks. I do recommend reading it on the Kindle app as you can long-press one of the MANY words you've never seen before, and it'll define it. With regards to the seemingly unending chapters about whales and whaling... I just skipped them.
Now, I haven't seen the 1956 movie, but just finished (5 minutes ago) the 1998 version with Patrick Stewart as Ahab. If you ever have the opportunity to watch this one, don't. Whilst I love Sir Patrick (I'm a Trekkie) and his acting was great, he wasn't the best Ahab. Plus, the SFX in the movie were pretty much on a par with the 1956 movie by the looks of the clips you showed (to be fair, it's a TV mini-series from the 90s, not a Hollywood blockbuster). The only good thing in it was Gregory Peck as Father Mapple.
I'm thinking of watching the 2011 movie (I might leave it a few days or so) with William Hurt as Ahab (hmmm...). I'll come back and let you know what I thought after that.
You should give the 1956 movie a try!
@@AdamWrightReviews I might just do that 👍
So, I watched the 2011 version with William Hurt as Ahab. Meh. It was another "TV movie" though... so you can't expect much.
For me, Moby Dick is one those books that do look exciting and fun for its premise but when you get to actually read it.... it's not.
When it comes to sea adventures (which I thtink was a pretty common thing in the so called classics) 20.000 leagues under sea by Jules Verne and The Sea Wolf by Jack London are my favorites.
It depends on what you're looking for, really. I agree it's not what most people want in a sea story.
I totally get why you didn’t like the book. It isn’t for everyone. Personally, I love Moby Dick and apart from the places where Melville tries to impress the reader with his knowledge of whales and such, I think it’s perfect.
This book pretty much ruined Melville’s career. It was not well reviewed upon released. It wasn’t until years after his death that people began appreciating Moby Dick.
As people, we need to stop expecting everyone to love what we love. If you don’t like a piece of art it isn’t necessarily because you missed something or aren’t smart. It may simply be that it doesn’t resonate with you, which is fine- no explanation needed. Also, where we are in our lives plays a big part in what we love. Maybe you would have loved Moby Dick 15 years ago, or maybe 30 years from now. Who knows?
I love country music not because it’s great, but because I grew up listening to it with my Grandpa. I love Moby Dick because it was the first book I read that made me feel like I was on a boat in the ocean hunting whales. I was 13 or 14 when I first read it, so I missed all the allusions and deeper meanings. I just loved feeling like I was someplace else and that’s all teenage me needed to fall in love with a book.
I had a professor who taught me something really important. During a lecture he said, “people who don’t like the movie Signs don’t like it because they aren’t smart enough to understand it.” This was an important lesson because I learned that really smart people who have PhDs can be as fucking stupid as the rest of us.
I started the audiobook, and as much as I love Frank Muller's narration, I couldn't get through the whale encyclopedia.
I hated this photoplay when I saw it at the age of XII because I did not like seeing Gregory Peck as a villain. However, I saw it yesterday for the first time since then, and I consider Moby-Dick to be the antagonist.
In the book, Moby Dick is a philosophical metaphor but even if you want to set that aside, Starbuck tells Ahab that his obsession with taking revenge on a dumb beast that only acts defensively out of instinct is "blasphemy." I think it's a point worth considering.
Part of me has felt like I should read Moby Dick, but it seems so uninteresting and so I never have. Good to hear I'm justified in not reading it 😆 Though an audiobook narrator really does make or break a book
It's certainly dull to people who aren't into literature. If what you're looking for is escapist entertainment (and there's nothing wrong with that), the book's definitely not for you. But if you haven't read it (or have only half-read it), putting it down makes you look kind of childish and uneducated, tbh.
Great video, have you considered comparing the I AM LEGEND book to the movie?
I have read the book, and it is indeed objectively terrible. Some people like to pretend it’s not in what I can only assume is a misguided attempt at literary vanity. But it’s awful. Truly awful.
it's nice not to see a butt kisser.
I find the most important thing for any story ever is to be fun and entertaining in some aspect, first and foremost. It can be educational, but a lesson without engagement is a waste of time and words. You need "fun" somewhere. How can you impress an unconscious audience?
Finally, someone who has the same opinion of Moby Dick as I do. I felt the same about the encyclopedic tangents. For years I thought I was the only one that thought the tangents bogged down the book. For my money I'll take "The Great Gatsby" and "Blood Meridian" for my two favorite American novels.
Great review
Thanks!
You publicly admit this? The point where you said you listened to it was the final fail. Man, stick to Tik Tok.
I sincerely apologize for not meeting your standards.
@@AdamWrightReviews No worries. Good luck with the channel.
😂