Call Him "Ishmael"

Props to my kid brother daniel (or "best man sully", as he's been calling himself lately) for recommending Daniel Quinn's Ishmael to me a few days back. I'm sort of surprised that I'd never heard of this book, as it's been around well over a decade and apparently has a considerable cult following. It's not as great a book as the last one he recommended to me, Life of Pi, but still worth a read. I had thought to write him personally to discuss the book, but hopefully reviewing it out here on the internets will allow anyone else who's read it to join the discussion.

My reaction to this book is similar to my reaction to The Da Vinci Code. Not to say that the two books have a lot in common thematically--one is the story of a disillusioned writer engaging in a Socratic dialogue about human nature, sociology and environmental destruction with a telepathic gorilla, and the other is, you know, The Da Vinci Code--but both books have the same structural problem as novels. Both contain preposterous plots populated by characters that could charitably be described as one-dimensional (the gorilla in Ishmael is a possible exception). But in a sense these criticisms are immaterial, since plot and characters exist in these books only as mediums to allow for the "discovery" of hidden histories and the discussion of world views and value systems that would be called subversive by some, liberating by others. Whether Quinn's historical or sociological facts--or The Da Vinci Code's, for that matter--are valid I cannot say for certain. What I can say is that his ideas are intriguing and merit discussion.

The story in Ishmael mostly concerns a series of dialogues between an unnamed narrator and the eponymous Ishmael, a telepathic gorilla who lectures students (whom he acquires through personal ads) on the cultural, ecological and spiritual values of modern civilizations versus those of societies we would generally refer to as "primitive", and the effects of these values on the natural world and on us as human beings. Ishmael has a lot of interesting things to say about the immense power of cultural narratives, the nature of the unspoken values that frame our ideas about how humanity should live and relate to the larger world, and the roots of the spiritual alienation so prevalent in the modern world.

To over-simplify, Quinn divides human cultures into "takers" (like us), who's mythology posits that the world was created so that mankind could conquer and exploit it along with everything that lives on it to suit our own short-sited agenda, and "leavers", who exist peacefully and harmoniously within the world rather than trying to rule over it with an iron fist. While I can't say that I buy into every premise espoused by Quinn and his inexplicably super-intelligent gorilla, at heart he has a valid point to make: most of modern man's ecologically and culturally destructive tendencies stem from a fundamental lack of respect and reverence for the living world around us and the diverse ecosystems that maintain it. It is a great mistake to believe that we are somehow "special" in that we exist outside and above the world that nurtured us as a species for millions of years, and that we have a divine right to plunder and/or exterminate whatever serves our short-term needs.

My only problem with this book is more artistic than intellectual; I am forced to wonder why it exists in the form of a novel at all. Clearly Quinn has a lot of interesting ideas that he wants to discuss, but why the gimmick of the talking gorilla? Why not simply present his compelling ideas for discussion? Is the idea to make the issues more accessible? That may be a laudable goal, but if that's the aim the book doesn't pull it off very well, at least for me. So far as the story goes, very little takes place aside from the narrator repeatedly coming to visit Ishmael, first in an office building and toward the end of the book at a carnival side-show. Although we learn some of Ishmael's history (but not how he became intelligent, telepathic or so darn well-read), we never get to know or care about the characters in any significant way. But as I say this is an artistic criticism, not an intellectual one. Clearly Quinn isn't really that interested in telling a compelling story about a man and a gorilla. He's really interested in telling the much more compelling story of two competing ways of looking at the world and the potentially disastrous effects that one of these world views has for humanity and the world itself.