Jump to content

Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish" is chapter 89 of Herman Melville's 1851 novel Moby-Dick, in which Ishmael, the book's narrator, explains the concept of "Fast-Fish" and "Loose-Fish." If a whale, whether dead or not, is marked by a ship's crew with anything to claim it, such as a harpoon or rope, it is a "fast-fish", that is, it must be left alone by other whalers; if it is not so marked, it is a "loose-fish", which can be claimed by any ship that finds it. The clarity of this doctrine, Ishmael says, prevents disputes from escalating into violence. He describes court cases dealing with disputes between crews of whaling ships, and then extends the concept to society and politics, questioning the concept of ownership and the right to possession.

Legal scholars use Ishmael's arguments to illustrate that the literal text of a law can be difficult to interpret and that the morality of a law's implications is unclear.[1] Instructors teaching Moby-Dick use the chapter to illustrate one of the book's main themes, the slippery nature of moral principles.[2]

The chapter

[edit]

Ishmael opens by explaining that when the crew of a whaling ship has harpooned, wounded, or even killed a whale but for some reason is not able to take possession of it, another crew might lay claim to it. This would often lead to "vexatious and violent disputes," Ishmael goes on, creating the need for some "written or unwritten, universal, undisputed law applicable to all cases.” Whalers came to define a fish as "fast" if a ship had either formed a physical connection to it, or had killed and clearly marked it for later pickup; any fish not claimed in either manner was defined as "loose." Two simple rules were then formulated as a means of settling arguments over the ownership of a fish, as follows:

  • I. A Fast-Fish belongs to the party fast to it.
  • II. A Loose-Fish is fair game for anybody who can soonest catch it.

Ishmael then describes a court case in which the crew of one ship's whaleboat chased and harpooned a whale, but then had to abandon the boat in order to save themselves. A second ship later killed and claimed the whale, along with the first ship's boat and harpoon that had remained attached to it. The first crew sued the second for the value of the whale and equipment; the judge awarded the boat to the plaintiffs and the whale and harpoon to the defendants, saying that the plaintiffs had given up their rights to the latter items when they abandoned their chase. Ishmael initially says that the decision was just, as the world as a whole favors the strong over the weak.[3][4] However, he mentions a divorce case cited by the defense in which a former husband brought suit to lay claim to the property of his divorced and now remarried wife on the theory that she was a "fast-fish" which he retained as property. Ishmael then describes cases with wider and wider implications, building up to an ironic attack on the concept of "loose-fish." In these cases the strong take possession of "loose-fish," that is they take whatever their strength allows them to. He gives examples of the concept, applying them to instances such as slavery in the United States, serfdom in Russia, British rule in Ireland and the American annexation of Texas.[citation needed]

In these cases of Fast-Fish, Ishmael asks, "is Possession not the whole of the law?" He then finds that the doctrine of Loose-Fish is universally applicable, as when great powers acquire new territory. He finally asks what are the Rights of Man and the Liberties of the world but Loose-Fish -- "And what are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?"[5][6]

Thematic use in Moby-Dick

[edit]

Critics point to meanings beneath the surface. Ishmael's description initially seems to praise the legal concept as solving whaling disputes peacefully, but the critic John Bryant points to the chapter as an example of Melville's ironic style. Melville does not generally have his characters "spout politics," says Bryant, but encourages readers to find the meaning (or meanings) for themselves. In "Fast-fish-Loose-Fish", Bryant continues, the "message of revolt" is not openly announced but "subsumed within the lyric strains of Ishmael's meditation." Ishmael gradually converts his initial off-handed meditation on the legal concept of possession into "a more sanguine, indeed calamitous, tirade" on topics such as British rule in India and the US annexation of Mexican territory, and ends with the question of whether the rights of man and the book's readers themselves are fast fish or loose.[5]

The French critic Agnès Derail points out that the cases Ishmael refers to all give the property to whoever had control of it. Ishmael condemns the principle “possession is the whole of the law”: to legitimize the right of the strongest is to legitimize all systems of exploitation. She also points out that Melville himself treated much published literary and whaling material as "loose fish" to be freely appropriated,[7] including literary works.[8]

[edit]

The chapter has been taught in law school classrooms as raising questions in property law and the concept "Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish" is sometimes used to characterize legal ownership of any type of property.[9] One law school instructor wrote that the chapter may be particularly useful in helping students understand the concept fee simple absolute as it relates to a property dispute.[10] Another wrote that she uses "Melville's elegant and pithy meditation" on "the law's limitations" in a “rules” course like Civil Procedure. Most students believe the course principally involves memorization of the rules, so it is "often difficult for them to perceive the ambiguity of meaning and application that even some of the most apparently straightforward rules offer." They also learn the "importance of words," that "fast" does not mean "speedy", and that the text of the law is often not as important as how it is used and interpreted.[11]

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Lamb, Robert Paul (2005). "Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish: Teaching Melville's Moby-Dick in the College Classroom". College Literature. 32 (1): 42–62. doi:10.1353/lit.2005.0011.
  2. ^ Corey-Gruenes, Jeremy (September 28, 2012). "Are you a fast-fish or are you a loose-fish?". Albert Lea Tribune. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  3. ^ Herman Melville, Moby-Dick, Chapter 89 – Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish.
  4. ^ Pardes, Ilana (2008). Melville's Bibles. University of California Press. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-520-94152-6. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  5. ^ a b Bryant (1998), p. 77-78.
  6. ^ Noah, Harold J. (October 1974). "Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish in Comparative Education". Comparative Education Review. 18 (3): 341–347. doi:10.1086/445790. JSTOR 1187865. S2CID 144048809. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  7. ^ Derail (2019).
  8. ^ Hansen, Anne Mette (2006). The Book as Artefact, Text and Border. Rodopi. pp. 264–266. ISBN 9789042018884.
  9. ^ Callies, David L.; Hylton, J. Gordon (2012). Concise Introduction to Property Law. LexisNexis. ISBN 978-0-327-17436-3. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  10. ^ Finley (2011), p. 175-176.
  11. ^ Piety, Tamara R. "Something Fishy: Or Why I Make My Students Read Fast-Fish And Loose-Fish" (PDF). Vermont Law Review. 29 (33): 33, 37, 39. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  12. ^ Lehner, Christine (Summer 2006). "No, I am not a loose-fish and neither are you". Southwest Review. 91 (3): 366–386. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  13. ^ Scott, Saul (2000), "Mysteries of the Postmodern Deep: Laurie Anderson's Songs and Stories from Moby Dick", Theater, 30 (2): 160–163, doi:10.1215/01610775-30-2-160, S2CID 144066287

References

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Fast-Fish_and_Loose-Fish&oldid=1206249741"