More Thoughts on Ishmael as a Gorilla

I think that Kim makes some very good points in her post about the use of characters in Quinn's Ishmael. More specifically, I think she makes a very astute observation that not only should Ishmael be a gorilla in order for the story to be the most effective it can be, but he simply cannot be anything other than this. He could not be a human for the story of Takers and Leavers to legitimately make an impact on its audience. His position as neither a Leaver nor a Taker lends him much objectivity.  


I also see a certain irony in the fact that as a gorilla, Ishmael is considered "less" than man, but he is ultimately the only one with clarity and insight into the situation at hand: the destruction of the world. Despite this inherent inferiority, the animal teaches the human; although man considers himself the peak of evolution, an animal lower on the chain than he is instructs him.


From his position Ishmael sees that the Leaver culture is an accumulation of knowledge that reaches back in an unbroken chain to the beginning of human life (204); This, he says, is why it works. It has been perfected over time. Their story, when it comes down to it, is one that works well for people. (148) Were it not for his characterization, it is unlikely that Ishmael could have come to these realizations, let alone taught them to others.