Banana For Thought

The thing that I find so interesting about Ishmael is that the teacher in the novel is a gorilla. It really makes me wonder, do we ponder his philosophies more because he is an animal? Had the teacher been another human being, would we have considered their thoughts as much? I don't mean to say that we linger on every word that we receive from Ishmael because he is a gorilla, but simply because we have heard so many narrations from people that human philosophy has actually lost some value. I believe that if Ishmael were a person, the audience would point fingers and ask themselves why he is any different: an exception to the rules he creates about mankind. Instead, we give him a greater benefit of the doubt because we know he is not guilty of the same things we are.

I think this is a reflection of Daniel Quinn's narrative ethic. I feel that Quinn understood the implications of making the "teacher" a gorilla, but wanted the audience to remove themselves from their usually judgmental state. It's almost a bit cynical to think that a human wouldn't listen to a fellow human, but that is the impression I get. After all, if words of wisdom are coming from the lips of a gorilla, who are we to second guess?