A Socratic dialogue between an aging hippy and a telepathic gorilla is hardly a normal means for sending a message about society. It works in this novel, though, so it is worth looking into why the author chose this method over others.
Many texts use dialogue and conversation (though usually absent the gorilla) as a means for portraying ideas. One simple reason for this is clarity. A lecture is often harder to follow. Dialogue, especially with an uninformed character like the narrator in Ishmael, offers a chance for questions to be answered. Because the narrator knows only as much as we know, it is necessary that Ishmael make his explanations in the simplest terms, and often his more confusing points are clarified after those pertinent questions by the narrator.
The Socratic method also allows people to come to their own conclusions. Ishmael tells many stories, but he doesn't tell the narrator what conclusions to draw from those stories. His questions may be purposefully leading, but the narrator's conclusions are his own, even if they are the desired ones. This gives the realizations a new weight. People may believe what they are told, but might need to be reassured with an argument of justification of rationalization. The Socratic method bypasses these barriers. An individual does not need to be convinced of a conclusion they've come to on their own. This also puts the agency in the hands of the narrator. His participation is necessary to forwarding the conversation, and because the audience is most likely to identify with this narrator, it involves them as well, increasing the likelihood that they will accept Ishmael's message.
You are completely spot on that Quinn uses dialogue the the "simple reason" of "clarity." The journey through which Ishmael takes the narrator and the audience/ readers is a very long and mentally taxing one. I don't think that the journey could have been successful if Quinn had written this another way.
ReplyDeleteWatching like a third party as a story unfolds to someone else isn't very personal, unless you are already very connected to that character for some reason. Quinn pretty much does everything but say, "I'm talking to you, the audience and these are your questions" when he wrote Ishmael. We are the narrator and the narrator is us. His questions are our questions and we follow completely his logical conclusions.
However, I love that you also said, "The Socratic method also allows people to come to their own conclusions." As much as we the readers logically follow Quinn's dialogue and understand the unfolding theories, the readers are still allowed to formulate their own ideas about the conclusions in the book (as you also said). But there is still the element of reader freedom: we never have to completely become what the author wants us to be, so we can choose to keep reading and only take certain ideas, refute all the ideas, or simply put the book down and never think of it again. None of those options are ideal for the purposes of the author, obviously, but the fact that the reader has that unalienable right is a relief with a book of such mental magnitude. But it is the constant availability of this "easy way out" that contrarily makes the reader keep on reading. I don't know if Quinn consciously makes all his readers feel this way or if it's just me. All I know is that the Socratic method allows me to understand Quinn's ideas, ask the author questions through the narrator character, formulate my own ideas, and feel the freedom to think against what Quinn has to say. But ultimately, all this is exactly what Quinn wanted in the first place.