not in strict character
English translation: not strictly consistent
04:57 Dec 26, 2012 |
English language (monolingual) [PRO] Poetry & Literature | |||
---|---|---|---|
| Michael Kislov Russian Federation | ||
| Selected response from: Charles Davis Spain Local time: 03:37 | ||
Grading comment
|
SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 | uncharacteristic |
| ||
4 | not strictly consistent |
|
Answers
1 hr confidence:
uncharacteristic Explanation: It describes a behavior that would not normally follow based on the nature of the whale. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
4 hrs confidence:
not strictly consistent Explanation: Melville has just told us that a male whale, who had a harem of females, like a "Grand Turk", abandons the harem in old age and becomes solitary, warning young male whales to avoid the very behaviour in which he himself, the Grand Turk, indulged in when young: "goes about all alone among the meridians and parallels saying his prayers, and warning each young Leviathan from his amorous errors" Since the harem is called a "school" of whales, the male in charge of it (the "Grand Turk") is called a "schoolmaster", the master of a school. This is a joke, of course, since "schoolmaster" normally means a teacher. When younger, this "schoolmaster" taught young males, by example, that a male should keep many females; when old, he teaches the opposite. So this behaviour, though characteristic (typical) of males whales, is inconsistent, because when old they teach the opposite of their own behaviour when young. The reference to Vidocq underline the point, because Vidocq was a notorious criminal when young, and in later life became a detective and founded the Sûreté Nationale. So again, the idea is of teaching in later life the opposite of what one taught when young. "Not in strict character", meaning not strictly in character, not strictly consistent with his earlier behaviour and teaching, is an ironic, jocular, understatement; it is blatantly inconsistent. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 4 hrs (2012-12-26 09:33:53 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- "In character" would normally mean that which is to be expected of someone in view of his/her character or personality; if a person is honest, we say it is not in character for him/her to behave dishonestly. I think Melville is using "character" here in a particularly sense which is no longer current, as defined here by Webster in 1828: "character 8. Adventitious qualities impressed by office, or station; the qualities that, in public estimation, belong to a person in a particular station; as when we ask how a magistrate, or commander supports his character." http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/character So "character" could then mean that which is to be expected of someone in a given occupation. Here, not (strictly) in character means not what is to be expected of a "schoolmaster" (of this particular kind). |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.