Ishmael Analysis

764 Words4 Pages
Ishmael was a very disagreeable book with very few points to agree to. This essay will contain three major points in which there is nothing to agree about. The generalzation of people and cultures goes too far as to say that a group of people are all the same without a difference of where one or another is from. Who is to say that people are all the same whether or not you are from the Taker or Leaver time and culture. The story of the gods goes too far into being an opinion for one to be able to side with it. The end of the book was too much of a cop-out, a poor way to end the book. It had nothing to do with the book itself. To begin, the Taker and Leaver culture was beyond generalized. The who Takers and Leavers thing is too generalized.…show more content…
That’s where the book gets into trouble. It is not factual enough. The story of the gods, Adam, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, suggests Quinn only knows half of what he’s talking about if even that. There are some aspects of it that can be agreeable. One might agree that the story of Knowledge of Good and Evil was written by the Leavers because the apple from the tree wasn’t thrust upon him if one agrees with what Quinn says in the book. One could also argue that Quinn goes way too far as to suggest that Adam simply chose to eat from the tree because of temptation. If the Leavers had written it then there would be no temptation because they lived in the hands of the gods. Nothing Ishmael said in the book worked. It was either contradicted or too far fetched to be…show more content…
It was not only a cop out ending but it was again not viable. With man gone will there be hope for gorilla? Nope, probably not. It’s a question that not only will never be answered but a question that there is no point in asking. The way the question was asked was as if Quinn didn’t know how to end the book so he just went with some random idea that popped into his brain like the rest of the book. With gorilla gone will there be hope for man? Nope, definatly not. It is the same way with the first ending. It has nothing to do with the book. It was just some random question asked by Quinn to end the book. Yes, it was thought provoking but once one digs deeper it doesn’t mean anything. It was just a way to end the
Open Document