Ishmael
Ratings98
Average rating3.8
I first read this book 30 years & loved it. The basic premise of the book is the comparison of the culture & values & practices of modern humankind, which he calls the “takers” (as in the orientation to take things) vs the pre-agrarian hunter-gathers who he calls the “leavers”. Its an interesting comparison of cultures and on modern-day culture which leaves you feeling like we lost something important of our humanity along the way. But this time through I got a bit bored of the preachy tone & slowness & lack of actionable advice. I've still given it 4 stars which is more than it deserves in 2023 I think but congrats to the author on its overall conception & narrative which is good.
accidentally deleted this review so gotta write a new one
this book was really cool and I still think about a lot of the themes it shows, some gripes with some things in the plot but if everyone read this book the world would be saved
This still stands: Some dude has a conversation with a gorilla. That's it. That's the book.Except is it really a conversation if the gorilla lectures the dude, and the dude just says things like “Yes, I see”? No. It's boring. There are some interesting ideas in the lecturing, but also there are lots of holes that are never explored because the dude just agrees with the gorilla at every turn.
And I'm left wondering at the end — if the gorilla's teachings are really supposed to save the world, as he claims, by convincing people to go back to the way humanity behaved for millions of years prior — how?? Have the dude lecture people one at a time the same way Ishmael did for him? Yeah, the human race will have died out before this could ever hope to be a success. Ishmael claims to have already had four “failed” students, but it's not clear WHY he “failed” at teaching them when he is “successful” at teaching narrator dude. Because they didn't think it would be possible to convince anyone of Ishmael's message? Because they knew this method had no hope of being realistic? Because they dared to disagree with him on some point or another?
Also, I read this idea once upon a time, but when people talk of “saving the world,” they really mean saving our own skins, making sure the world won't catch fire on our watch. Except the world has been around long before we were, and will be here long after we are, so now that phrasing irks me. And I really am an optimist! I believe in recycling and avoiding war when possible and not polluting the oceans and producing less — but I am NOT a person that's like, meh if we just don't feed starving people then the world's population will control itself.
We needed a female character. One other than the “nurturing” “Mother Culture” (barfing emoji). Someone that would be willing to argue some of the finer points.
I have more thoughts regarding sacrilege, but I haven't figured out how to articulate them, so maybe I'll come back later. Or maybe I'll decide to put this out of my head entirely the moment after book club ends.
I'm a bit ambivalent about this book. On one side there are quite a lot of over simplifications and shortcuts, but on the other it teaches quite a lot of things about humanity and the way we built out societies and force us to think deeply about our lives and place in the world. A lot of things said by Ishmael ring a bell and sound quite true, enough to force you to think and reflect about ourselves.
Read this in a single afternoon. While it has some good messaging (be more thoughtful and critical about humanity's impact on the Earth) it's not as mind blowing as I expected. Additionally it has some problematic messaging as well. If you're the type of person who equates “natural = good”, then you'll enjoy this book immensely. However, if you're someone who's able to take a step back and do some critical thinking, you'll quickly find that this book is extremely shallow and only a worthwhile read if you're a teenager or a sheltered (probably white) person.
There's a line in the book about how the narrator wishes Ishmael had reached him when he was 15 years younger, and that basically sums up how I feel about this book. This is perfect for someone in high school who is still learning about many of the topics covered, but there was very little new information presented to me as I approach 30.
Additionally, I have two big issues with this book. One being the dismissal of Eastern ideologies and the very Western focused assumptions made about the narrator (who is a stand in for the reader). This might have made sense in the 70s when this was originally conceived or even the 90s when it was published (which is the version I read), but is outdated by 2020 standards. I can give this a pass for the most part because it's from a different time.
However, my bigger issue is with the writing itself. There's this constant repetition of repeating back previous lines over and over to the narrator. Ishmael will say something, the narrator will say he doesn't understand, and beyond a few times where Ismael launches into a story to try and convey the information in a different way, he essentially just repeats what he said as he guides the narrator through the same thought process with more pauses and breaks. While I understand this is the Socratic method of teaching (and maybe even a stylistic choice since this story begins with a teacher seeking a pupil), it is still a bore to read. Especially when there is little to no new information being presented to me.
Is the book a decent introduction to ecology, mindfulness, and philosophy? Does the book tell us how we got to our current state of affairs in a capitalistic society that consumes without thinking but fails to provide any real solutions on how to fix all of it? Does Ishamel advocate for the mass genocide of people by starving them out to reach some misguided notion of “balance” in nature? Are you the type of person who will become an anti-vax mom who only eats organic and romanticizes the hard and cruel life of hunter-gatherers from millennia past?
Absolutely.
Captivating read. An interesting view of humanity and its relations with the world (takers vs leavers). I can see where some would find this book pretentious in its “enlightenment”, but I found its content unsurprising. Possibly because of its alignments with my personal philosophies.
Maybe I'm just drinking Mother Culture's kool aid, but reading this book felt like I was at a party and listening to the slightly stoned and drunk guy who is holding court and telling everyone how it is and how it should be.
It was okay. A few interesting ideas and thoughts, but nothing that's life changing for me. Most of it is pure logic.
Um... it's about the teachings of a telepathic gorilla who (by dint of being an animal and not a human, presumably) has attained the wisdom necessary to learn how humanity can avoid destroying the world.It had its interesting points, despite the Socratic dialogue format, with the narrator being basically a (particularly dull and two-dimensional) foil, breaking up the gorilla's long monologues with a continuous refrain of “I don't know” or “I don't understand.”Basically a very long philosophical essay, thinly draped in fiction (much like [b:Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance 629 Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance An Inquiry Into Values Robert M. Pirsig http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1157065130s/629.jpg 175720]). Not sure what audience the author hoped to reach – I thought it was too condescending and simplistic for those who are already environmentalists, but those who aren't will be immediately turned off by its new-agey tone and, well, totally silly premise.
