Moby Dick

I just finished Moby Dick today, it is a book I've been meaning to read but was a little put off by people telling me that it was obscure and hard-going. It was neither of these I found.
I think Melville is a talented writer and the 'story' part of the book, namely Ahab's obsession, is gripping and eerie, I was mesmerised. The 200 pages or so devoted to whaling in general kept my interest mainly because Melville's enthusiasm is infectious (I had the impression he should have written a non-fiction work about whaling instead though - maybe he did?). I think this digression is what may frustrate some people about the work.
That said I really feel a sense of loss tonight as my voyage on the Pequod is over. The book succeeded in drawing me into a world I had no knowledge of or interest in previously.
My verdict is that Moby Dick, though perhaps over-ambitious in all the ground it tries to cover, is a unique work.
What do others think?

I completely agree with you: I never thought it would be possible to write so interestingly about whales; or that I would ever be reading several pages on the way a whaling boat is constructed, and find it interesting! That really does make Melvilla a Great Writer.

I ʻve begun to believe that Melvilleʻs The Confidence Man and possibly his Mardi, too, are greater literary efforts than Moby Dick. That doesnʻt stop Moby Dick from BEING a great book.

Another myth about Melville is that Moby Dick attracted few or no readers. In fact, it did have maybe "15 minutes" of fame, in Warholian terms, maybe 20 or 25. Then it was pretty much forgotten for some 60 years, until it was taken up by literary critics just after WW I.

The technical parts may get tedious, but it would have been even stranger if Melville had not told us much of anything about what whaling is like in general; and probably he would have gotten more flak from critics, as putting a whaling yarn over on us, while knowing "nothing at all about whaling", as Ahabʻs assistant tells Ishmael early in the book. The idea is that Ishmael is and isnʻt Melville, and, if Ishmael knew nothing at all THEN, he does know something NOW (at the end.)

I think the deviations also have an important literary function. Much like Ahab, Ismael is also trying to capture the whale; Ahab is hunting for a specific whale the traditional way, Ishmael is trying to find the 'essence' of the whale as an idea, by looking at in from all possible directions: biological, historical, in the fine arts, in poetry, ...

Much like the longueurs(*) in War and Peace, for example, only there it's the author adding philosophical essays on the same themes that he is exploring in his novel.

(*)It's a technical term for long, tedious and boring passages in works of art; but I don't think they're boring ;-)

Mmmm, I don't know if I think Melville is as philosophical in these 'longueur' sections as Tolstoy in War and Peace (though he is when talking about racism I think).
Perhaps I am missing the deeper significance but Melville to me appears to be a bit of a trainspotter as regards whales, no doubt stemming from his time spent on a whaling vessel. He seems interested in actually contributing to the extant knowledge of the whale at the time, more in a scientific than philosophical manner it seems to me. I get the feeling he would have loved to write a scholarly, non-fiction work on the whale but didn't have the expertise or reputation to do this. A novel (and a really good one) was something he could produce and why couldn't it also contain new information on the whale based on Melville's first-hand experiences?
That said, it is true that there is a juxtaposition in the book between Ishmael's scientific and historical treatment of the whale and Ahab's irrational obsession.

The longer philosophical passages incorporated, or addended rather, into War and Peace--also employed more systematically by Hugo--do not have much correlation in Melville. Melville's is a polymath mind, and you need not look any further than Sir Thomas Browne or Robert Burton to see where this style emanates. I think readers should avoid focusing on the encyclopedic references, which to me are used in a discursive, expatiating manner; instead they should look for the satire and humor in Melville's work and let his uncanny knack for metaphysical statement supersede what may seem like surfeits of detail--make no bones about it, Melville is a terse man. I also enjoyed The Confidence Man, a superlative work we are fortunate enough he had the gall to write. I can't say it's better than Moby Dick, but nonetheless it is as impressive a creation.

Moby Dick was the first classic I chose to read of my own volition at age 16. I thought it was wonderful! By 17 I was collecting Dickens and had become a real believer in Classics.

One of my favourite classics, I read it young enough that it came across as pure adventure and I paid no mind to symbolism, etc.; a superior sort of Treasure Island in a way, the one I think of first when I consider classic adventure stories. I'd read it again for sure, if I could spare the reading time to read anything twice.

Great book. Maybe the Great American Novel. Layers and layers.

Now you have to read Why Read Moby-Dick? by Nathaniel Philbrick. Slim but deep, it has become one of my favorites. And if you want to read the true story on which Moby-Dick was based, read Philbrick's outstanding In The Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex. Two great books about a Great book.

Melville also wrote one of my favorite short stories, "Bartleby the Scrivener." It is so unlike Moby-Dick that you'll be surprised the same author wrote it.

Great Short Works of Herman Melville