Reception studies: blaming the book's structure

SIZE MATTERS
.It seems that many readers and critics alike tend to focus more on the books length and wide range of subject matter rather than focusing on the content or attempting to understand what Melville was trying to accomplish. This is one thing that has not changed over time. One critic wrote, “He spreads his subject out beyond all reasonable bounds; until the scene becomes altogether too long for the motive, and the finest writing will not prevent it from being tiresome”. . . . . To me this is a reflection of the misunderstanding of the supposed encyclopedic novel. While the fact that Moby Dick may be too long and cover too many topics for some readers, for others this is exactly what makes it so great. —Justin H.

WHAT CONTRACT DID MELVILLE VIOLATE?
Clearly, according to most of the reviews [on an online forum apparently populated by mainly younger readers], the "story", is composed of the events and physical 'moving forward' of the novel's plot. The 'story' becomes the novel itself. Furthermore, it seems as though many of these readings are extremely cinematic, were the reader desires the story alone. Being a student of literature I know I have been disillusioned to the fact that some, dare I say most people read novels for the story? It is not mystery that within these reviews, the acclaimed, “cool” parts were said to be the story itself (mamette), rather than all the other, “poetic crap”(Ibis). –Michael W.

Moby Dick has grossly offended the [1851] reviewer’s expectation of a novel and of chronological storytelling, and the reviewer ends his article by accusing Melville of refusing to learn “the craft of an artist,” where his previous works indicate he is possible of doing so. “There is a time for everything in imaginative literature;--and, according to its order, a place—for rant as well as for reserve,” but it seems the two are not to be thrown together, nor to be “interrupted by the facts of Scoresby and figures of Cocker.” The reviewer sees Moby Dick as a bizarre, confusing hybrid, not unlike Frankenstein’s monster. --Irene

In this [early] review, the author somewhat upbraids absurdity, a crucial characteristic of modern writing. . . This critic believes good literature should have continuity and should make sense. . . these qualities described by the critic as disfiguring are the very same qualities which I find redeeming. For the purpose of comedy, absurdity has ironically worked its way up from a damaging to a redeeming quality. --Celeste

MELVILLE, WE LOVE TO HATE THEE
Critics may or will criticize—Who couldn’t with such a bizarre novel as this?—but the importance is that fascination. I imagine that even the most disgusted reactions were, in a way, fascinated. From what I’ve read, few reviews simply state that the book was boring, formulaic, unimportant and measly piece of you-know-what. The negativity of the book for these critics lies in its absurdity, which fascinates. . . It seems that people nowadays focus on the digressive nature of the narrative, Melville’s historical present, the inability to decide whether the novel is incredible or horrible, and most importantly its strangeness or uniqueness. --Patch

I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE CALLING IT “ENCYCLOPEDIC”
I was amazed at the amount of times people [on Amazon] referenced the novel as like an encyclopedia, though almost always in a negative way. A review entitled “Fairly Convulted”, which awarded the book only a two-star rating, states “The first thing that put me off was the fact that huge pieces of the story were simply the author explaining things like an encyclopedia” (Daniel S. Gruss). Another review, entitled “Get on With It”, though it awarded the book a 3/5 rating, states “Hey Herman! - were you trying to write a story or a friggin' encyclopaedia” ("cgoesel"). It was interesting to me that these reviews, and at least one other, actually used the term encyclopedia in their reviews, and they used it in such a way as to suggest that the novel was the worse for its encyclopedic traits. –Andrew