I’m about 100 pages into Moby Dick, right at the point where Queequeg and Ishmael are about to board the Pequod. What is intriguing me is the apparent homoeroticism of the relationship between Ishmael and Queequeg. A sample from Chapter 10: A Bosom Friend:
“How it is I know not; but there is no place like a bed for confidential disclosures between friends. Man and wife, they say, there open the very bottom of their souls to each other; and some old couples often lie and chat over old times till nearly morning. Thus, then, in our heart’s honeymoon, lay Queequeg and I–a cosy, loving pair.”
This, which is only the most egregious of many examples, has made me wonder if Melville intended a homosexual subtext here. Now, of course, I haven’t finished the book, but I’m wondering if I’m just reading too much into this chapter (and the following chapter as well), or if other people have noticed this. Does this undercurrent play a role in the later development of the novel? Thoughts/interpretations/comments?
Yeah, when they were sleeping in the bed for the first night, that was indicative of possible homoeroticism. However, I think that just might be demeaning the complexity of their relationship. We have to remember that Ishmael’s relunctance in meeting his future bedfellow was relieved, and I think that relief manifests into the parallel of husband and wife in a bed. In the bigger context of the novel, however, I’d say that no, the relationship isn’t homoerotic; just very personal and strong. It isn’t replicated with any other characters, making explicit the bond they share.
Full Disclosure: I haven’t read Moby Dick more than the bit quoted in the OP. But I have read Huckleberry Finn, and claims of homoeroticism in that book are absurd.
If the bit quoted in the OP is the “most egregious” example encountered in the book so far, then I’d be inclined to say it’s much ado about nothing. The comparison to a newlywed couple doesn’t imply a sexual relation, just a sharing of confidences. It’s not saying that Ishmael and Queequeg are sexual partners, but soulmates. As with Huck & Jim, trying to bring a sexual undercurrent into these relationships just cheapens them; these are people who are truly connecting and understanding each other, which is much more significant than sex.
Sometimes a pair of cigars is just a pair of cigars.
You think that’s homoerotic? Just wait until you get to “A Squeeze of the Hand.” If you should decide not to finish for any reason at least read this chapter before putting it down.
I think some confusion may stem from a severe difference of lifestyle. In pre-modern America, when not everyone could afford to have their own bed, it was not uncommon for rural lads to sleep in the same bed, and their sisters might share another. I’m sure Ishmael’s relief stemmed partly at not having a smelly, drunken sot of sailor to bunk with, as much as having someone to talk to. In many ways the “olden says” were a lot less prudish. Wealth changes things.
When I say “homoerotic,” I don’t mean to imply that Ishmael and Queequeg were sexual partners. If I did, I would have said homosexual or gay. No, what I’m saying is that Melville, by deliberately comparing I & Q to a happily married couple on their honeymoon, seems to indicate a deeper connection than just friendship. I do not think their closeness can be explained away simpy as Ishmael being relieved that his roommate isn’t some crusty, alcoholic sailor. No, he fairly rejoices in his intimacy with Queequeg.
Also, I’d point out that in this very same chapter, Ishmael decides to worship Queequeg’s idol. His willingness to violate the moral proscripts of his Presbyterian upbringing seems to indicate an overall, ummm, moral flexibility in Ishmael that was hardly typical of his peers.
Just found this article on Salon.com, which indicates that Melville himself had homoerotic designs on none other than Nathaniel Hawthorne. The author makes reference to what I can only assume in the chapter “A Squeeze of the Hand” mentioned by Dignan. I do feel somewhat more justified in my reading knowing that Melville himself was a bit queer.
There’s no homoerotic subtext in the book. It’s just on the part of the readers.
You’re assuming Melville was writing in the 21st century. He was not and it would hardly be his intention to portray an unnatural and perverted crime against God in a novel that was intended to be a popular bestseller.*
At the time, two men sharing a bed had no sexual connotations (this isn’t to say homosexuality didn’t exist, just that few would make the connection). Beds were primarily sleeping places, and often scarce, and few thought of homosexual connections. Men would share a bed simply because beds were expensive and sleeping space hard to find.
Nowadays we look upon this differently. But it’s essential when interpreting a book to think of it in terms of its time. Male friendship in the 19th century did not imply any sexual component.
*In terms of his time. Melville was copying the format of the popular sentimental novel of his day, but the book failed because he strayed too much from the format (no love interest, primarily). If you read a sentimental novel of the time, you’ll see how much he was writing to formula.
There’s no homoerotic subtext in the book. It’s just on the part of the readers.
You’re assuming Melville was writing in the 21st century. He was not and it would hardly be his intention to portray an unnatural and perverted crime against God in a novel that was intended to be a popular bestseller.*
At the time, two men sharing a bed had no sexual connotations (this isn’t to say homosexuality didn’t exist, just that few would make the connection). Beds were primarily sleeping places, and often scarce, and few thought of homosexual connections. Men would share a bed simply because beds were expensive and sleeping space hard to find.
Nowadays we look upon this differently. But it’s essential when interpreting a book to think of it in terms of its time. Male friendship in the 19th century did not automatically imply any sexual component.
*In terms of his time. Melville was copying the format of the popular sentimental novel of his day, but the book failed because he strayed too much from the format (no love interest, primarily). If you read a sentimental novel of the time, you’ll see how much he was writing to formula.
Definitely Homoerotic - Read Chapter 94, “A Squeeze of the Hand”, where the sailors are sitting on deck squeezing each others’ hands in a pool of semi-congealed whale sperm:
Or, try Chapter 95, where one sailor removes and skins the whale’s penis (the “grandissimus”), cuts in armholes and puts it on like an oversized sweater. He looks like a religious man in a cassock, so Melville refers to him as an “archbishoprick”:
… And just how gay are such monkeys AndyGirl?