Naming Ishmael

                Giving Ishmael his name was not on accident.  Daniel Quinn was attempting to allude to the Biblical story of Ishmael and the purposes therein.  The anecdote goes something like this: Abram was promised by God to have uncountable descendants, but his wife Sarai could not conceive.  To take matters into their own hands, Abram and Sarai agreed to let Abram sleep with Sarai’s handmaid and through her fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant. The resulting child was Ishmael, but Sarai became bitter that she was not the one to give Abram an everlasting line of descendants.  She then treated Ishmael and his mother so harshly that they ran away.  Ishmael was, at first, what was needed.  But, in the end, he was not what was wanted.  He wasn’t ideal for the task.  This is paralleled in Quinn’s novel.  Ishmael had all the ideas that were needed to save the world, but he was not destined to be the one to perform the actual act of saving.  Someone else needed to step into the picture.  This is where the narrator of the story comes in.  He, being human, is the acceptable option.  Takers (in mass) will not listen to the teachings of a gorilla (a Leaver).  One of their own, a fellow Taker, is the acceptable being to listen to.  In order to save the world (according to Quinn), Takers need the teachings of Ishmael, but what they want is one of their own to present these teachings to them (like the idea “it takes one to know one”).  In conclusion, the naming of Ishmael was extremely deliberate.  Also, it kind of foreshadows Ishmael’s fate, if you think about it.