Talk:Ishmael (Quinn novel)

This article needs to offer page numbers where the quotes are pulled from. This would be very helpful. 150.243.32.195 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

This book needs a criticism section. From Amazon Review: I think the message of the book is laudable, it's just mostly wrong and based on incorrect science. Nearly all all factual stuff cited in the book is wrong. Quinn claims that his so-called "Leaver" cultures don't suffer from mental illness and depression. Not always true. The Yoruba tribe are more depressed than we are in the USA. He claims that no animal ever purposely ruins food for other species. False. Wild dogs in Australia routinely kill far more lambs or other livestock than they could possibly eat. He claims that increasing material abundance allows more population growth. False. Rising economic fortunes are probably the best birth control ever invented. Any species or population acts to maximize its reach and success. It's called natural selection, and anybody who knows Darwin knows as much. Quinn claims that different species leave room for each other to exist. False. It's axiomatic in evolutionary genetics that any two species which occupy the exact same niche, one will inevitably be driven to extinction. The book's most presumptuous assumption is that intelligence or morality can prevent extinction. Balderdash. The fossil record is littered with proto-hominid braincases larger than ours. Meanwhile, protozoans have been doing very well, thank you, and they have the intelligence and morality of, well, pond scum. Quinn mocks the old anthropological (a la Childe) notion of the noble savage, yet with his Leavers vs. Takers distinction, he lapses into a kind of neo-noble savagism. I think this is a fundamentally flawed and artificial distinction, and by far the most damming fault of the book. How can you follow the exhortations of the book if its propositions are so mangled and wrong? Which is a shame, because there are serious threats to our environment, and I certainly can't contest that many indigenous peoples are being driven into modernism, which is hardly the solution it purports to be. I don't know how to solve this problem, but I wholeheartedly agree it is one. And there are other, crushing problems like overpopulation and destruction of our environment, overdevelopment of the rain forest, the emergence of new viruses and new versions of drug-resistant bacteria, which all portend to dire consequences and which are all the result of our greed and insouciance. The book could have been far better had it got its science right. As it was, it left me exasperated. I'm bewildered that other people have failed to point out its copious flaws, first of all its editor.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2TU8GEWURX6B9/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2TU8GEWURX6B9 -- 01:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs)

I feel that this article needs more than just a summary of the book and how it arrives at the final conclusion—perhaps someone could write a "controversy" or "objections" section at the end. I remember reading this book and being quite disgusted by it. This article, I feel, is not NPOV. Benji 17:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: what in the book did you find disgusting? Was it the manner of story telling or was it the story itself? I've been a very satisfied reader of the story, but that's probably because it fits my world-view nicely, which, I should warn, makes it impossible for me to present a really neutral point of view. --BigSmoke 00:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was mostly the manner in which the story was told that got to me. It seemed painfully slow to me for some reason. The real problem I have with the article is that it makes the book out to have arrived at correct conclusions. I hold a more cynical/pessemistic view of the world I guess. However, it's been way too long since I've read it, so I don't really consider myself qualified to rewrite. Benji 11:21, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I to feel this article needs a controversy section, I just recently read the book and while a lot of the main points where interesting the supporting arguments it often used were either weak or entirely false. It states that humans are the only animals that kill our competitors, that seek to eat the same food we do. It also states we are the only beings that deny our competitors access to food(that we have made). It also was extremely misleading as to the cause of certain civilizations disappearances, such as the Maya or the Hohokam. In the case of both of these the book strongly implies or outright suggest these people left agriculture and irrigation in favor of hunting and gathering willingly. In the case of the Maya's they had a collapse of central government that caused a separation of power but they remained until they were destroyed by invaders from across the sea's. The Hohokam most likely disappeared as a result of a long drought forcing them to abandon irrigation. It also implies that everyone living in this civilization believes this universe was made exclusively for them to rule and that man is somehow not an animal but something better, no longer evolving. I hope this is not representative of the general populations opinion but it very well be. This last fact made the book somewhat difficult for me to read being that I consider humans just another animal, who happened to evolve a highly adaptive brain, which gives us no special position in the universe different from any other being. One last thought, this book suggests if we were to live the life of the hunter gather, being one with nature, we could survive this way indefinitely, this is not true, if we are still on this planet in several hundred million years we will be consumed by the sun(as the sun enters its final death throws), just like every other living thing here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.56.104.196 (talk • contribs) .

In several hundred million years, "we" as a species will definitely not be here anymore. Best case scenario: we will have evolved into something totally different. Just think about it, several hundred million years ago there weren't even any mammals. It's just what Mother Culture is saying: "creation has ended with the birth of Man". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.106.43.93 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Someone who's read the book...

I removed this from the first of the summary paragraph:

"By this time the reader they will find themselfs sleeping or realizing how bad of a book ishmael is. one might want to put the book down or cry because our world has come to this. forget creation, captivity, diversity, and laws, the only thing you have ot realize is this book sucks. its a talking GORILLIA!"

Now I haven't read the book, but this is clearly in gross violation of NPOV, and sloppy to boot. Can someone who's read the book check if anything needs adding between these first two paragraphs of the summary section?

Yeah, I did that, the first two paragraphs are fine. I cleaned them up a bit since they were really confusing, so now they are good. And don't believe what that guy wrote, Ishmael is a wonderful book, you just need to have an open mind regarding the whole gorilla thing.

you just need to have an open mind

Which explains why a lot of people won't like it. They're "takers", not "leavers", and they'd rather not be called on their actions. I'm starting to think that Wiki needs a template tag for "Articles that will annoy Americans by describing truthfully what Americans do and how they think about the rest of the world". (And yes, before anyone asks, I'm an American.)

That's a very insulting viewpoint to have. Have you maybe thought about the fact there might be other reasons not to like the novel? Like the fact it really gives no solution, or even a good framework to arrive at one. Or that it is basically dead wrong about many aspects of indigenous life. Personally, having read this book and a lot of others like it, I feel a lot like the protagonist thought he would feel after talking to the teacher. Somewhat annoyed, and having heard most of this before, not surprised that after all that meandering to get to the point there's not even a real proposal here. That's not to say the book is completely wrong and horrible. It's just that really the ideas proposed are nowhere near so radical and enlightened as some people seem to think they are. I think that the book is a good starting point if you haven't previously been exposed to similar ideas, and it does have some nice thoughts and the vocabulary/metaphors might be useful to begin a discussion of how to fix our current problems, but I am really disappointed that wikipedia doesn't have a section for critiques on this one. First off, the book probably isn't meant to be perfect and any argument is only strengthened by response to critiques. If your love of the ideas presented in the book is so great that you cannot bear to see them assailed, then you have become another of Ishmael's failed students, because by *not* engaging in discussion/critique of its ideas you're not following the one direction that the book even gives you, which is to spread and improve the knowledge and to formulate with your fellow humans a plan for enacting a new story that does not have the nasty ending for which we are currently headed at warp speed. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Atlant 11:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who said the have an open mind thing and unfortunately I agree with you--most people will not have an open mind about radical ideas like Quinn's. As an anarchist I was pretty willing to look critically at power structures and society, so to me it was mainly just stating a lot of things I had already thought (plus a lot of new ones). And I too am American, at least by birth. I hate calling myself an American though, probably because of the same reasons you allude to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.205.10.56 (talk • contribs) .

So you claim to know the opinion of all Americans? Before being ashamed of your birth, do a little traveling. It is certainly true that America has more than its share of ignorant, bigoted, close-minded imperialists. However, it is also true that America is by far the most diverse country on the planet. See a connection? People have never had an open mind to radical ideas. That is what a radical idea is. t requires temperment to be accpeted by the general populace. Either that, or it remains a cult thing.

02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Anon 68.158.43.192

Quinn makes some good points, but conversely, his Platonic style is designed to shoehorn the reader into his conclusions without allowing an honest discussion. People who are inclined to agree with him will find the book brilliant, and those who are inclined to disagree will be overwhelmed by its fallacies and errors (even when the actual issue no more weakens his argument than the fact it is presented by a telepathic gorilla). Neither of these is an example of critical thought. In any case, I think this entire section is a good example of why the article needs a Controversy element, which is much more the reason I post here than to resurrect a years-old argument. Is anyone aware of any scholarly sources to support such an addition? While you're at it, you might consider archiving most of this Talk page.

LOL, so you either accept the book's premise of a wise talking gorilla handing down sage advice--in which case you are an open-minded person willing to look critically at the world around him--or you're a closed-minded Taker bastard hell-bent on killing every nonhuman species. Maybe it's not just the book's opponents who have "open-mindedness" problems. As the above discussion indicates, if you swallow everything Quinn says with that open mind of yours, you may be accepting many baldly false assertions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.145.126.104 (talk • contribs) .

I definitely agree with the poster above.

Please say I'm not the only one who thought Ishmael was insanely over-hyped. It lacked pretty much any unique thought and was full of historical inaccuracies. There is no scientific consensus that the Hohokam said, "To hell with it," concerning their agricultural system. The Maya never decided, "Wow, having an agricultural society is suicidal," and simply abandoned their lives. After an incredible amount of research, it was found that both were found to be a mixture of political and environmental issues. There are very little remains of hunter-gathering societies, for obvious reasons, and we don't know nearly as much as Quinn is claiming. So, why is a man with no degree in history, anthropology, or biology writing a book on the anthropological and biological faults humanity is making? He has no authority in the sciences he's commenting on. Why are people believing him when he writes all of this without any citation or bibliography?

This book has as much factual credit as the Bible, Torah, and Koran. Daniel Quinn gives the reader no logical reason to believe him. All he provides are 250 pages of fallacies. Humans aren't nearly as savage as Quinn depicts them.. The reason why farmers go out and hunt foxes is because they are capable of doing so. The hyenas would go attack the lions if they were physically capable of being assured victory, like the farmer is. Animals (especially other primates) divide into tribes and attack each with little provocation. Humans aren't the only ones who behave in such a way.

Humans are the only animal on the planet that actually mourn over their kill. Whether it be fellow human or animal, we are the only species that have ever shown deep respect for our prey (though we rarely do that now) or for killing another human in battle.

Feel free to research any of these statements. I'd be glad to know that I'm wrong on some of them, because I'm having the hardest time swallowing the near unanimous respect this novel appears to be garnishing. There seriously needs to be a section about how inaccurate this book is. Antisthenex 13:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Antisthenex, allow me to respond to your points in order - please forgive if I summarize for bevity.

I have no information on the Maya or Hohokam civilizations, but simply because Quinn isn't an authority per se in the sciences doesn't mean his ideas aren't worth considering. I agree he takes a lot of liberties with some of the presentation, and that can be off-putting to some readers. Attacking him for his lack of college degrees is a fallacy itself - ad hominem

Farmers hunt foxes because it makes business sense. Why continue farming with the understanding that 15% of your chickens will be eaten every year? Quinn's point was all animals serve to balance the environment except humans. Humans spread and adapt even in the face of predators, disease, drought, etc. Humans are the only animal not bound by geography, not limited by nearby food or water, and who value self-preservation above balance. I'm not passing judgement on the practice, I think humans are superior to all other creatures. Monkeys might fight in a small area for little provocation, but they don't guarantee a food supply to monkeys on other mountains in times of trouble - they don't actively attempt to increase their numbers beyond what their limited area will support.

Mourn their kill? Define your terms. Most animals that hunt in packs will celebrate their kills. Numerous animals appear to have emotional connections to other members of their group and mourn the loss of their own kind (ducks, elephants, wolves, etc). It's kind of a loaded question, though. You can't expect "human" emotions from non-human creatures. Even if observation supports the claim, we have almost no way to communicate with animals and get meaningful results - again because language and abstract thought is believed to be a completely human or higher function type of process.

I'm not without my criticism for the book. I do, especially, like the idea of not sending food to countries with prolonged shortages. My background (and degree) is in applied math. There *is* a definitive limit on how much food the world can produce. I have no idea what that number is, but it exists - for all levels of technology. We can improve our techniques, but the max output remains unchanged. Continuing to feed countries incapable of feeding themselves ensures another (larger) generation needing assistance until the time when we reach max production and people *have* to die. By then so many generations will have passed that instead of allowing 50,000,000 to die, we have no choice but to watch a huge multiple of that number starve.--Legomancer (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree when you say that "Humans are the only animal not bound by geography, not limited by nearby food or water, and who value self-preservation above balance." For one thing, many of the historical human migrations, such as some of those which helped populate North America, were cases of humans following animals. No animal seems to be so completely restricted by geography as they might be by climate and habitat encroachment (a tiger travelling from India to Thailand would have many obstacles in its path, many of which are human), and there are lots of other animals which travel great distances and may even settle in new places if the environment is suitable enough for their purposes. As for your question on mourning your kills, in some indigenous cultures at least (I haven't studied this aspect of very many of them unfortunately) the concept is that the animals that you hunt are dying (actually in some cultures willingly sacrificing themselves and/or chosen by the other animals) so that you can live. There is often a ceremony associated with this which designates the animal as a sacrifice; it often includes aspects of a funeral. I think this is probably what the previous poster meant by "mourning the kill" that we actually will regret having to kill something and will either take pains to reduce how much killing is required and how the animal dies. In many cultures, and this kind of seems to be carried on in traditions like Shechita, it is the human's duty to give the animal a "good death" or reduce its suffering in death. It doesn't seem to me that lions are aware of this or really concerned about how their kills die, just so they do. It is true that in the natural world animals usually only take what they need -- they don't slaughter all the buffalo in the area just because -- but I'm having a hard time believing lions go around in a complex over all the buffalo and zebra they have killed as is the case with some humans. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ishmael (novel) Looking Back-ward and In-ward

It was I think Baldwin whose "we create our own universe" concept which motivated my good friend and writer Brady to question the Thrown-ness of Text. It seemed that in the novel (as genre) he found that the out-there (if indeed it be created by each of us) is both subject and object. He recently wrote to me that he found that the Post-Modern concept of throw-back-ness (as in Fowles's Magus)[that is the novel written in our time takes on the posture of the Victorian] drove a new sense of Baldwin's notion. It was for me Ishmael which (who?) drove the problem into thoughtful-ness. The opening line (who can forget it) sets it up and throughout -- at least through 2/3 of the text -- the Out-There became the In-Here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.69.208 (talk • contribs) .

Category

I am just wondering if this book fits in the "Alternative History" category. It doesn't really provide an alternative history it simply gives one person (gorilla's?) interpretation of history. Jhawk1024 07:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary?

The "plot summary" section is a hash of both items that are (a)plot, as in events that move the action forward and (b)items that are ideas or philosophy. I know the plot is not the most compelling part of the book but it deserves to treated separately from the exposition.

If anyone seconds the motion, I'll work on this right away. Kwarizmi 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. Look forward to how you'll improve it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I Third. Jhawk1024 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Heck, the plot could fit on one page of the book. A man has a telepathic gorilla tell him stuff. Telepathic gorilla dies from being in the rain. Bada bing, bada, boom. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm reworking the article using the following organization:

• Plot summary (reworked plot summary goes here)
• Major themes
• Ishmael's view of human history (existing text gets reorganized into this section)

• Takers and Leavers
• Enacting the story

... leaving as much of the original text as possible. Much of the narration in the current text ("Ishmael says that", "Ishmael makes the point that", etc) will be removed. Comments/suggestions please? Kwarizmi 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There should be a mountain of information at http://www.ishmael.org/welcome.cfm. However, if possible, you should seek third-party sources to make the article's information more balanced. Maybe you can find something about the book in Google Scholar or another database. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Something should be mentioned about the conclusions drawn by Alan at the end of the book. Something along the lines of: humans should see a greater potetial and act as stewards/shepards for other species as they evolve...Wewantutopia 03:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mother Culture

Does anyone like the idea of having a separate section for the "Mother Culture" idea? I found it an interesting notion, but I'm not sure it's unique to Ishmael. Can anyone help with a possible source/referrence? Kwarizmi 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that there should be a whole new article about Mother Culture and the entire world view that Quinn proposes. Because... it's not all about this book, there are several others and articles, essays, interviews that bring a lot of clarity into the matter. 86.106.43.93 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I too think that there should be a whole new article about the world view that Quinn proposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.186.205 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DanielQuinn Ishmael.jpg

Image:DanielQuinn Ishmael.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

tetrology?

not that it's that big of a deal, but i don't think beyond civilization goes with the other three books in the series. the three in the series all have similar cover designs and are..yknow...fiction. quinn writes about similar ideas in all his books, this doesn't make them all the same series.
--74.97.142.249 20:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DanielQuinn Ishmael.jpg

Image:DanielQuinn Ishmael.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Quinn Have Any Citations?

Since much of Daniel Quinn's work is fiction, he doesn't cite sources, and my cursory investigation yielded no evidence that he even has source material. While I certainly don't believe that his work can only be valuable if there are "legitimate" scholarly sources for his interesting theories, I do think that for the sake of academic or artistic integrity, we should be clear about it. Daniel Quinn's books present themselves with an air of authority that seems to imply that though they are technically fiction, they are actually non-fiction wrapped in a narrative story. I think that because of the implied authority of the Ishmael character, the article should be clear about whether anything Ishmael says is actually backed up by real evidence.

For example, a significant chunk of the book centers around Ishmael's interpretation of the Genesis story. Is this interpretation something that Quinn concocted for the purposes of making a point, or is there actual historical evidence that this interpretation might be accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.58.108 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)