Essay Ally

The Love of Ishmael and Queequeg: Homoeroticism in Moby-Dick  

Moby-Dick is a story about macho whalers on a quest to kill an infamous white whale. There is no question that the sea yarn woven by Herman Melville is a celebration of masculinity and male triumph. But there is a closeness in the men that goes beyond traditional male bonding. While chance circumstance might bring two men together in friendship, love takes these men a step further both physically and emotionally. There can be little doubt that this male-male bonding is purposeful, the intent however is not easily apparent. Through careful analysis of the love between Ishmael and Queequeg, a reason for their behavior in the novel becomes evident. The relationship of Ishmael and Queequeg is not a simple platonic friendship, but a homosexual love that epitomizes the homoerotic undertones of Melville’s writing. Ishmael and Queequeg are clearly more than friends, and Melville carefully words their relationship with intimate contact and phallic imagery. Ishmael is originally forced to share a bed with Queequeg, due to a lack of space at an inn. We will assume for argument’s sake, that there are no other affordable inns in New Bedford, and so the situation is inescapable. Melville is being tactful about their initial contact; Ishmael, a self-proclaimed good Christian, admits discomfort in sharing a bed. “No man prefers to sleep two in a bed. In fact, you would a good deal rather not sleep with your own brother.” Ishmael explains to the reader (Melville 30). If left at this statement, Ishmael could be seen as obeying the laws of society; homosexuality is unacceptable and grotesque in his culture. But Ishmael goes a step further, in describing his qualms “and when it comes to sleeping with an unknown stranger, in a strange inn, in a strange town, and that stranger a harpooner then your objections indefinitely multiply.” (Melville 30). This second thought stirs a question in the reader: is Ishmael’s real problem in sharing a bed with another man, or in sharing it with a stranger? The phallic imagery used to describe Queequeg, a flesh loving cannibal, and his occupation are intentional. Queequeg is a “head-peddling harpooneer” and the image of a dark cannibal with rippling muscles, tomahawks, and sharpened, pointed harpoons ever at his side, goes beyond masculine, into the realm of homoerotic (Melville 33). The homoerotic descriptions continue as Ishmael silently observers Queequeg undressing. His protests become more sexual as he takes issue with Queequeg’s appearance. His problems with sharing a bed are no longer based on religious morals or plain discomfort; Ishmael says “What a sight! Such a face! Yes, it’s just as I thought, he’s a terrible bedfellow.” (Melville 33). It sounds now as if Ishmael is discontent because his partner is unattractive, not because he is male. Ishmael evaluates his companion as if Queequeg is a woman, taking careful note of his physical aspects. As circumstances eventually force the two to bed together, regardless of Ishmael’s unhappiness with the situation, there is an expectation that Ishmael will feel awkward as he sleeps and when he wakes sharing a bed with a cannibal.

This expected reaction never comes. The unexpected more positive reaction of Ishmael explaining his experience in a bed next to a south pacific cannibal plainly illustrates there is an attraction growing there. Ishmael says he has “never slept better in his life.” (Melville 36). In the morning he finds Queequeg’s arm thrown over him in a “most loving and affectionate manner” comparing himself to a wife (Melville 36). At this moment, nearly all of Ishmael’s original prejudices are relieved. They become fast friends and in a gesture beyond friendship, Queequeg presses his forehead to Ishmael, grabs him around the waist, and tells him that they are married which Ishmael understands to mean bosom friends (Melville 56). From then on they are a couple; “Man and wife, they say, there open the very bottom of their souls to each other; and some old couples often lay and chat over old times till nearly morning. Thus, then, in our hearts’ honeymoon, lay I and Queequeg - a cosy, loving pair” Ishmael says of their relationship (Melville 57). These are words carefully chosen by Melville, there can be no doubt the relationship is no longer ambiguous to the cautious reader.

However, the relationship would in no way, have been obvious to readers of Melville’s time. In fact, the word homosexuality did not exist in the English language until 1892, years after Moby-Dick was published (Crain 27). Why did Melville place the relationship in the novel, and disguise it as a platonic love? There is evidence that Melville himself was both fascinated and troubled by homosexual love. In some aspects, he likens it to cannibalism, which could explain Queequeg’s character. Both acts in Melville’s time are considered “violations of the bodies of American citizens”, and both acts are about loving of flesh (Crain 27). Ishmael “according to the conventions of the era” has compromised “integrity, bodily and spiritual” (Crain 46). But he accepts that it is acceptable to sleep with this strange man - “when Ishmael sees Queequeg is a cannibal - and not a belligerent drunk, a renegade or a Satanist” (Crain 46). Ishmael views Queequeg as a lover of flesh and this is more important than his religion or his origin. Melville uses the same logic when discussing his own love of Nathaniel Hawthorne. “As a literary device, cannibalism was not only useful in fiction…” “In expressing his love for Hawthorne, he also borrowed imagery of cannibalism; his letters to Hawthorne are full of confused metaphors of eating men.” (Crain 46).

While it seems that Melville does not condemn homosexuality, despite its taboo in his culture, he is careful in expressing acceptance of the acts openly. The tactful expression of male love, and ambiguity in the relationship, functions in another manner. The love between Ishmael and Queequeg is humanizing. Melville’s novels are sometimes criticized for their neglect of woman. He is seen as “the American master of male bonding narratives and sentimental renders of life among men” (Wiegman 735). While the bonding is specific to men only, the sentimental nature brings about important “homosocial ‘social bonds between people of the same sex’” that could arguably help maintain patriarchal structure (Wiegman 741). But Robyn Wiegman, a feminist, goes on to argue that “Melville’s phallic punning and masturbatory imagery, [particularly in Moby-Dick], are explorations of the social potential of male homosexuality to break down the forces of aggression identified with the patriarchal structure (Wiegman 748). The homosexuality shows men are capable of nurturing as well as destruction. Melville’s homoeroticism in Moby-Dick is no longer sexist; it is an act toward changing patriarchal structure away from its stereotypical masculinity and unsympathetic nature. Furthermore, linking male homosexuality with “benign masculinity” can in fact aid in “breaking down male-dominated culture” (Wiegman 749). Moby-Dick could then be interpreted as a revolutionary novel. While women are absent, there is a marriage of men. Ishmael and Queequeg are as caring and nurturing as any woman might be. This “historicizing” of the novel’s sexual contents make Melville out to be progressive.

The context of the novel must be carefully considered however. In Melville’s time, before new criticism and the rise of post-modern literature, authorial intent is paramount in evaluating the context of homoeroticism. It is entirely possible that Melville uses cannibalism as a way of diffusing focus on the homoerotic elements in his novel. It is less plausible that Melville is concerned with the plight of women or the portrayal of men as domineering (although this feminist interpretation of the text does have merit). Since the homoeroticism has been determined as intentional, a question still remains. Why does Melville consider the homosexual relationship to be necessary in his great work? Melville seems to be struggling with the issue, and so it must be of importance to him. There are ambiguous male bonding rites throughout the novel, as is expected in any novel about sailors, but the love between Ishmael and Queequeg is the most obvious and blatantly homosexual relationship in the novel. The significances of this come in the fact that Ishmael is the narrator of the novel in the first person. He is a minor character action wise, but is omniscient enough to often know what’s being said by characters when he is not present. Ishmael says “I” frequently, and interjects in his own comments with long philosophical rants nearly irrelevant to the main plot of the story. Ishmael is not an important character (plotwise) in the novel; so his significance must lie elsewhere. He is the embodiment of Melville in his own work; the authorial intrusions allude to this fact. If Ishmael is in fact supposed to be Melville, then his homosexual tendencies must also be those of Melville. When Ishmael says he is “in our heart’s honeymoon” this is actually Melville speaking (Melville 57). Melville’s heart longs for male companionship. The novel is so precise in language, and the phallic puns and ambiguity so intentional, that the point of view must be intentional as well. Ishmael’s “I” is Melville’s “I” and is carefully calculated to let Melville play with his own desires and emotions without invoking disgust or condemnation from the reader.

Melville is not entirely at ease with his own sexuality expressed in the text. Ishmael from time to time discusses his discomfort with Queequeg, despite their love. His discontent with sleeping in any manner other than “his own skin” shows his own repugnance for homosexuality (Melville 30). There is one moment, late in the novel where Ishmael panics. While asleep, he manages to get turned around “the tiller was, somehow, in some enchanted way, inverted. My God! What is the matter with me?” (Melville 328-329). These words are carefully chosen. At the time when Moby-Dick was written “inversion” was the psychological term used to describe people who adopted behavior of the opposite gender (Crain 40). When Ishmael questions what is wrong with him, he is not questioning his inversion at the helm, but rather his inverted sexuality. This is the biggest moment of doubt for Melville about the novel’s sexual aspect.

Homosexuality, though made carefully ambiguous by Melville, is the stabilizing force of the novel. While the entire world is in turmoil, Ishmael and Queequeg’s love remains the point of salvation. The homosexual relationship is comforting and rewarding. “We felt very nice and snug, the more so since it was so chilly out of doors;” the colder it gets outside, the warmer and more hospitable the relationship is for Ishmael and Queequeg (Melville 58). This moment is significant for Melville, the relationship of Ishmael and Queequeg is as stable as that between man and woman. There is an inverse relationship between their love and the outside world. As circumstances become more desolate and foul, their marriage becomes solid and unbreakable. The love is also Ishmael’s final salvation. While his lover dies, and the Pequod is destroyed, Queequeg’s coffin floats to the surface, providing Ishmael with a life raft. Melville’s ultimate decision about homosexuality then, is that despite the fact that it is considered an “inversion” of the mind, it is actually a stable and loving way to live life. This assertion is coy because it is not an acceptable one in American society at the time, but Melville is making it nonetheless.

Homoeroticism, though not the central theme of Moby-Dick, is still an important one. It allows Melville to go through a course of self-exploration, while at the same time provides a point of stability to the tumultuous novel. The cruel sides of nature and man are contrasted by the loving and nurturing bond between Ishmael and Queequeg. Moby-Dick is more than a sea yarn; it is a romance novel about two men who have undying love for each other. Ishmael and Queequeg are truly married, like husband and wife they do not part until death.

Works Cited:

Crain, Caleb. “Lovers of Human Flesh: Homosexuality and Cannibalism in Melville’s Novels.” American Literature, Vol. 66, No. 1, New Melville (March 1994) 25-53

Melville, Herman. Moby-Dick. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2002

Wiegman, Robyn. “Melville’s Gender Geography.” American Literary History, Vol. 1, No.4 (Winter, 1989) 735-753