issue that appears, at a first glance, to be an essential part of his argument. Yet, he never raises the issue again, nor does it seem to pertain to his argument in any way. Nope, like any other critic, he can’t keep his mouth shut about it. If it doesn’t belong, leave it out, dude. What the hell went through his mind? “Let’s see if I can get away with making a completely unsubstantiated and reductive claim and leave no evidence for it just so I can put in my really important two cents and tell that Bezanson, in print, how I feel about his crap.” It’s this sort of masturbatory, self-serving commentary that really grinds my gears about critics. You can’t just let it alone. I realize living up to Greenblatt standards is sort of a present fad in the study of Literature, but, hey guys, let me tell you a little secret: no one likes Greenblatt! In fact, I don’t know a single undergrad who can stand him, let alone revere him. Oh, but I forgot, undergrads don’t have anything useful to say. Apart from Hayford’s unsubstantiated, backhanded claim concerning the “two Ishmaels,” the article is incredibly helpful. Well, at least it would have been if I hadn’t been so focused on reductive claims made in an introduction. The entire time I read the article, I was looking for claims to argue with. While there are some marginal notes of mine that say, “got that right” or, “agree,” so on and so forth, the larger, more fervid notes are the disagreements. Hayford talks about the tenses and syntax used in the novel: “Many passive verb constructions and dissociations of self occur” (668). Hmm. If dissociations of self occur, how can Ishmael be the same Ishmael? He’s dissociated from himself. He’s dissociated from himself. Dissociated. From. Himself. Do you want me to spell it, too? What kind of firm, innate-Ishmael identity (Plato might call this the “Form of Ishmael”) can occur if the very syntax marks “dissociations of self”? Maybe Hayford has some pathological need for one single Ishmael. I mean, it just goes without saying that our identity is firmly linked with our interpretive process—especially in Melville,
28