67 pages • 2 hours read
Daniel QuinnIshmael
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1992A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Symbols & Motifs
The Gods
The gods that Ishmael discusses, initially within the context of narrative, are representative of the forces in nature that are either unexplained or unexplainable. In Ishmael’s definition of a “story,” which relates humanity to the gods, the gods serve as a symbol for order in the universe. By personifying this conception of order, Ishmael is then able to apply rational thought and organization to the forces that are beyond human understanding or control. When, for example, the gods have eaten from the tree of knowledge and prevent the lion from eating a deer, then allow the lion to eat the deer the next day, Ishmael is describing chance and coincidence in the real world. In other words, the lion may or may not catch the deer, but by framing the lion’s hunt under the organization of a rational force, Ishmael is then able to frame all of nature under the idea of rational order.
As a symbol, the gods are meant to aid the reader in understanding Ishmael’s basic argument about the Takers’ and Leavers’ perspectives as they relate to the physical world. Unlike the biblical references in the novel, the gods seem to connote older forms of religion and spirituality, evoking an understanding of the world that mimics pre-scientific understanding of basic ideas, such as forces like gravity and aerodynamics, which Ishmael uses in a similar fashion. The order that the gods represent is, as Ishmael explains it, a set of laws or rules that all organisms, and physical reality, must follow to avoid destruction. When the gods declare that humanity cannot have the knowledge of good and evil, for example, Ishmael is not saying that a rational force beyond humanity does not want humanity to know good and evil, but that knowledge is literally beyond the reach of humanity.
Biblical References
A motif throughout the novel is Ishmael’s tendency to reference biblical stories and imagery to emphasize the points he makes regarding Taker culture. Ishmael aptly notes that the stories of the Abrahamic religions—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—are the most widespread ideas among humanity, and these references serve to make the messaging of sustainability and ecology more palatable to those who are already familiar with such stories. Before Ishmael discusses Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel, for example, he brings up the ideas of Trees of Knowledge and Life, clearly referring to Genesis in the Bible, in which God presents Adam with the Tree of Life, or the Garden of Eden, which can give him immortality, as well as the Tree of Knowledge, which, though it will give Adam the knowledge of God, will also lead to his death. Ishmael later expands this comparison, but it is initially drawn without direct mention of the Bible.
The purpose of this motif is to create links between existing Taker culture, as embodied in the Abrahamic religions, and the reframing Ishmael attempts to apply to them. In the end of the novel, for example, Ishmael refers to his references to Adam and Cain when he develops an action plan for the narrator and for humanity. His assertion that Cain should stop killing Abel and that humanity needs to spit out the fruit of knowledge recalls his reframing of Cain and Abel as an allegory of the Takers killing the Leavers and his reframing of the fruit of knowledge as the arrogance of the Taker culture. As with most biblical comparisons, Ishmael’s use of biblical stories is meant to both connect with narratives that the reader most likely knows, but also to lend a certain divinity to the argument. For many people, the stories in the Bible contain divine knowledge, so reframing those stories lends itself to a divine message.
The Narrator’s Confusion
A critical component of the sage/student and leading dialogue techniques that Daniel Quinn uses in Ishmael rely on the narrator knowing less or understanding less than his teacher, Ishmael. This pattern is emphasized and developed through the narrator’s frequent confusion about what Ishmael is saying or what the main point of Ishmael’s argument might be. Though the narrator periodically explains ideas himself, such as his college paper on Kurt and Hans, or his explanation of the Takers’ perspective in his roleplay with Ishmael, the narrator predominantly expresses two things: tentative agreement and confusion.
The narrator frequently follows Ishmael’s lectures with repetitions of “True” or “Okay,” which then allow Ishmael to continue speaking. These examples of tentative agreement are meant to reassure the reader that Ishmael makes sense, encouraging readers who might be confused to reread or think further about Ishmael’s argument if they are having trouble understanding it. Similarly, the narrator’s expressions of confusion are meant to mimic the reader’s likely confusion, giving Ishmael a chance to continue explaining himself. For readers who already understand Ishmael’s line of thought, these points of confusion, though potentially frustrating, give the reader a sense of accomplishment that inherently aligns the reader with Ishmael, again reinforcing Ishmael’s point of view.
The narrator’s continued confusion also allows the development of the surrounding narrative of the novel, in which the narrator needs guidance, and Ishmael is the salvation that the narrator is seeking. His disillusionment with the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s becomes a parallel motif to his confusion, reinforcing the dual idea that the narrator is approaching Ishmael’s lessons in good faith, meaning he earnestly wants to learn, while also establishing his perspective as a cynic. The reader is meant to see the narrator, through his confusion, as a relatable and trustworthy figure, who will hold Ishmael accountable for any errors in logic and reasoning throughout the novel.
