/lit/ - Literature

>>19034228
The Norton Critical Edition corrects the line to "second mate." All the other editions have "third." Melville just goofed.

>>19034281
Damn :( thanks for your help bro

>>19034228
To err is human, anon. But what's your secret thought?

I've got the Wordworth Classics edition (yes you can insult me later) and this edition has "second mate"

>>19034308
Also, the Norton has a footnote that says the exact same thing about Stubb being the third mate to be mentioned. The explanation doesn't make much sense to me either, but that's probably where the anon you mentioned got it from.

>>19034323
Wordsworth classics are incredibly based. Real readers prefer these you have nothing to be ashamed of. That's very interesting, is there a footnote on it explaining that they changed it? Does anyone have/know of a facsimile of the first American edition?

>>19034325
So it corrects the mistake and justifies it as a nonmistake? Can you post a picture

>>19034408
some tards on here will shit on wordsworth at the first chance. and no supporting note to explain it unfortunately anon

>>19034281
Can you take a picture and show that?

>>19034228
>One anon said that it's because Stubb was the third mate discussed in this chapter, but that isn't true.

You haven't discovered anything new, it's discussed endlessly. Search with Google next time and you can see this is a quora or Reddit-tier question. The conclusion of many scholars is that he's the third mate described in the particular passage describing the three mates acting as headmen of their boats not the entire chapter. If you must know, some Norton critical editions change it to second mate some don't, there is criticism of this by other perhaps more reputable scholars.

>>19035948
>mates acting as headmen of their boats not the entire chapter
If you had actually read the chapter in question you would know that they talk about flask acting as headsman of his boat first, then stubb, then ahab, then Starbuck, then flask. Only after all this does he call Stubb the third mate. This explanation makes no sense.
>there is criticism of this by other perhaps more reputable scholars
Can you link some of this please?

I would like to see the norton critical text here if anyone can show me

>>19034281
What a fucking hack. Proof of the vacuity of the "canon".

You know what you have to do.

>Noooo! My Immersion!!!

>>19034228
lmao Melville confirmed to be a hack. what a faggot.

I found something else. Chapter 50. Archy was the one who made the discovery, not Cabaco. In Chapter 43 Archy hears Fedallah and his crew and tells Cabaco, who doesn't believe him. Once Fedallah is revealed to the crew Archy tells everyone how he already knew. What the fuck Melville? I'd like to see you third mate mentioned theorists explain this one.

>>19038252
I see the anons quick to defend Stubb being the third mate are silent now

>>19034228
My copy of Moby Dick has a footnote for this part, which says this:

>*That is, the third to be described in the scene.

The second mate is called the third mate on Tuesdays in the Weberian tradition of seamanship. This was just a clever way of quickly orienting the reader in a novel temporal frame.

>>19034281
Norton didn't correct it. He distorted it. The original was the correct line. It isn't up to you or Norton to go about willy nilly changing words you think are wrong, especially when the author is dead and he cannot confirm your so called correction. It is clear from the circumstances leading up to chapter 48, Stubb warranted a demotion, which would confirm what the author written. Leave his book alone. All "corrected" books made without the author(s) express review and consent whilst living, should be burned, and individuals like yourself should face censor, sanction, and penalty for willingly propagating false editions and making assumptions from them. It wasn't Melville who goofed. It was you.

WTF? My opinion of Moby-Dick just cratered...

>>19039156
It shouldn't. OP is the one who made the mistake.

>>19039153
nice headcanon

>>19038252
Melville EXPOSED

>>19039153
Some books just have obvious errors and since they've gone through an editor, we often don't know if the author specifically approved. Wuthering Heights notoriously was very poorly edited for its first edition and no original manuscripts exist, the second edition was heavily edited after the author's death, so it's up to modern editors to make educated guesses what the best readings are.

>>19039251
>it's up to modern editors
It isn't. You just said it is.
> to make educated guesses
They have no business playing guessing games with any materials they see fit
>what the best readings are.
And in doing so abrogate the author's will and replace it with their own to fit temporal aims, ideologies and perspectives and opens the floodgates to blatant revisionism. If you seriously believe this, you and such esteemed modern editors should have your eyes gouged, ears blocked, and tongue removed. This is a fitting penalty as your actions effectively do this to the author for not a lifetime but for as long as your perverted copies of their work persist. The rest of your post is plain wrong. Errors are not "obvious" and those where they so exist is not sufficient precedent for other scenarios.

PHEW I can write this dusty tome off my to-read list.

>>19039282
And yet you are silent on this obvious mistake >>19038252. Why are you so dishonest?

Alright fuckers, here's the editions I've found. Penguin and Norton 2nd edition have "third mate" while Oxford and Norton 3rd edition have "second mate", the latter indicates that "third mate" is in the first British and American editions.

>>19039282
Even first editions have corrections from editors and there are often multiple editions in an author's lifetime with slight differences.

>>19038252
>tries to create incredibly detailed book highlighting the intricacies of whaling
>can't even follow his own basic plot
melville BTFO

>>19039497
I've been nothing but honest. You are the one wanting to alter and change that which shouldn't be.

>>19039695


A fool saw a camel grazing, and said, Why is thy form all crooked?

Said the camel, In disputing thus thou censurest the sculptor; beware! Look not on my crookedness in disparagement, and kindly take the straight road away from me. My form is thus because it is best so, as from a bow's being bent comes its excellence. Begone hence with thy impertinent interference, an ass's ear goes well with an ass's head.

>>19039522
Thanks anon, anything about the Cabaco mistake?

>>19040342
They correct it to Archy, aside from Penguin which has Cabaco. The emendation lists say 'Cabaco' was in the first editions.

>>19040387
Thank you anon for actually being helpful

Mauler should review this book

This is somewhat unrelated to the discussion at hand, but the anon who wrote the endnote to chapter 55 did an incredible job. Anon, if you're reading this, you positively impacted my Moby-Dick reading experience.

>>19034228
What does the definitive edition say?

>>19034281
>>19039251
Whoa, you're telling me the Norton Critical edition just replaced this without comment? Even if it's an obvious mistake, you correct shit like that with a footnote or something, I want to know it was originally there.

>>19034323
>>19034408
Wordsworth's only problem is shitty translations, other than that they are based.

Does Norton say anything about this? Tashtego is Stubb's harpooneer, and while all of the boats would likely be pretty close to each other, Dagoo would most likely have to be yelling in order for Stubb to hear him

>>19034281
>WHAT???? HE MADE ONE TRIVIAL MISTAKE IN A 800 PAGES BOOK????
>DROPPED

>>19042837
No, he made three trivial mistakes (caught so far)

>>19034281
Yikes. What a retard.
I can’t take Moby Dick seriously anymore

>>19042409
There's a list of emendations in the back with specific page and line numbers for everything they changed from the original British/American editions. It's all spelling mistakes that were in the original MS or transcription errors that were in the original printings. All completely trivial stuff that doesn't have any bearing on the story itself. Not sure why so many people ITT are pissing and shitting themselves over it, this kind of stuff happens all the time with older books.

>>19042910
I know it's pointlessly autistic, but I like to know nonetheless. Thanks for clearing that out anon. And come to think of it, you'd never get that appreciation of how full of errors old books were if you read a fully sanitized edition.

>>19042910
Did they emendate >>19042746 or explain why it was actually Dagoo?

>>19042962
Yes, they changed it to "said Tashtego."
There's an emendation listed, but no explanation or footnote in the text itself. I assume the editors just noticed the same continuity error you did. Same goes for >>19038252, that line now reads "Until Archy's published discovery..."
The first American edition also apparently fucked up some of Melville's ebonics. There's a whole rabbit hole here you could go down if you wanted to.

>>19034228
Ladies and gentlemen, This is the greatest Amerimutt novel!

>>19043351
Thanks anon this is great info. I was already planning on reading NCE for my eventual third read of the Dick, but this clinches it

>>19042910
This is why I like to go on archive.org and read first editions or at least early editions. Sadly they don't have the first edition of Leaves of Grass.

>>19043351
Did they correct the inscription to Nathaniel Hathorne?

>>19045114
Forgot pic related.

>>19045114
What would need to be correxted?

>>19045163
His real name was Hathorne

>>19045393
Wtf no it wasn't

>>19039101
wew, saved.

>>19045427
read his wiki guess Norton can't fix everything bet they even left out the Gothic in the inscription. don't cry 2 hard pussy

>>19045525
I guess you're mad that it doesn't say Moby-Dick by Herman Melvill as well huh

>>19045592
dgaf I am a patrician 1st edition reader

>>19045592
>>19045600
ps ur a lil pussy bich 4 reading norton bet u like the feminist/queer critical essays in teh back

>>19039920
Unfathomably based

>>19039920
Where is this from? It's really good.

Love Moby-Dick no matter what

>>19047235
Love me Ishmael
Love me Queequeg
Love me Ahab
'Ate Moby-Dick
Simple as

>>19047541
Moby Dick or Moby-Dick?

>>19034228
Dr. Bunger is the most based character in this book

>>19047623
Sound like a proper nonce you.

>>19048396
Moby Dick is the name of the whale, and Moby-Dick is the name of the book about Moby Dick

moby dick is overrated

>>19047623
The Whale

>>19034228
>duckduckgoing

>>19050842
I know they're trying to push Quacked as the verb but duckduckgoing is the only way to say it where people might know what you mean. The platform is not yet known enough for quacked to mean anything to people