>/lit/tok tells me Melville was obscure back in his day>turns out he was successful at first but failed to match the success of his early works, akin to a one hit wonderAlso, has anyone else noticed how much he spends describing male characters? It's kinda gay.
>>24820149>has anyone else noticed how much he spends describing male characters?yes! i agree, very gay.
>>24820149His problem was he got famous for his first book which was treated as a fun exotic travel book, so he got the reputation of being a guy who only wrote that. His accomplishments as a serious writer of great depth did go unrecognized.
>As the Handsome Sailor, Billy Budd's position aboard the seventy-four was something analogous to that of a rustic beauty transplanted from the provinces and brought into competition with the highborn dames of the court. But this change of circumstances he scarce noted. As little did he observe that something about him provoked an ambiguous smile in one or two harder faces among the blue-jackets. Nor less unaware was he of the peculiar favorable effect his person and demeanour had upon the more intelligent gentlemen of the quarter-deck. Nor could this well have been otherwise. Cast in a mould peculiar to the finest physical examples of those Englishmen in whom the Saxon strain would seem not at all to partake of any Norman or other admixture, he showed in face that humane look of reposeful good nature which the Greek sculptor in some instances gave to his heroic strong man, Hercules. But this again was subtly modified by another and pervasive quality. The ear, small and shapely, the arch of the foot, the curve in mouth and nostril, even the indurated hand dyed to the orange-tawny of the toucan's bill, a hand telling alike of the halyards and tar-bucket; but, above all, something in the mobile expression, and every chance attitude and movement, something suggestive of a mother eminently favored by Love and the Graces; all this strangely indicated a lineage in direct contradiction to his lot.
