In the Heart of the Sea

I would like to take this opportunity to rescind my response to Jesse and Brandi's exercise. I had initially said that I would rather be the killer than the killed in a situation similar to the one that the men of the Essex had experienced. However, I had not yet eaten when the question was posed and so I feel that my judgment was clouded. Taking the philosophical approach that Blaise Pascal did with regard to his belief in God's existence, I came up with this:

If I am the killed, I am going to die. Whether or not the rest of my shipmates are saved is unimportant because I am dead.

If I am the killer, I am going to eat my fellow shipmate, prolong the misery of my suffering for a few a days and then either join the ranks of the dead or be rescued and go back home so everyone can whisper about what I have done while I struggle to recuperate.

After thinking about it in the context of the sufferers of the Essex, I would much rather be put out of my misery. Then I can know that I perhaps saved someone's life and ended my suffering at the same time. Even if eating someone saved my life, there would still be an overwhelming burden on me for the rest of my life; not to mention the awful struggles to regain my health.

And many people seem to think that this narrative is a departure from what we have been reading in class; that we have been tackling patriarchal and societal issues. But you must admit that there is nothing more patriarchal than a ship full of dudes. For me, the novel splits up into two very compelling reads. First, there is the introduction before the men go out to sea, which explains in detail the way of life that the Nantucketers had. Then there is the awful tragedy of running out of food and eating your buddies. Again, if this is not a social issue, then I don't know what is. Maybe it could fall under biological science, but the definition of sociology is the study of a society. And the crew of the Essex was a small society. Which ate each other. Study that.