A reflection on the context of Ishmael as an argument

With this Ishmael discussion coming up I’ve been deciding what I think about Ishmael as an argument. I definitely like it aesthetically, and the argument flows pretty well, so I want to say that it’s effective. However I’m concerned that the argument doesn’t really have an end to which it pushes it’s reader. Not that I expect Quin to have all of the answers, as he raises very large questions, but it feels strange that he doesn't offer us anything. How can I judge the effectiveness of something that lacks an end aims to achieve? Furthermore, Ishmael doesn’t offer much that I wasn’t aware of already, and/or already believed. None of Quinn’s societal observations are particularly original or innovative, at least to his likely audience. Presumably Ishmael will be read primarily by people already concerned with or interested in environmental issues, who will already be versed in the criticisms and observations the book makes. So the I doubt the argument has many people to really win over. That’s the unfortunate thing about Ishmael and other similar persuasive novels, the book is most attractive to people who already agree with the sentiments presented. That doesn’t make them less valid, but it does call into question the purpose of the argument as a whole.  Perhaps if Quinn had incorporated more typical novel elements, and made the story side of the novel more compelling, his argument would have reached a wider range of people, and had the opportunity to actually win more people over.

There’s a funny irony that in Ishmael, Ishmael says that one cannot simply tell people to reject a story, but instead of must give them an alternate story to adopt in its place. Yet, Quinn fails to do just that. However, the book is still an interesting piece, and many of Quinn’s arguments are quite novel. I particularly liked the biblical reinterpretations, as they were so original.

If you want to win over people from the opposing viewpoint, you need to be clever about how you present your argument. As I have said I see Ishmael as dangerously close to preaching to the choir. Arguments that succeed in changing peoples mind are more like the pill you hide inside a piece of hotdog to give to your dog. The material needs to be accessible and desirable, so that it is widely disseminated to people of all viewpoints on the issue you intend to argue. Often this requires the author to dial back the volume of the argument itself, but that is far outweighed by the wider audience that is achieved. Quinn missed the hotdog around his pill, so even though its a good pill, only people who already believe it will help them will take it.  

Essentially, besides the lack of alternatives or suggestions, Quinn makes an effective and compelling argument, but its societal effectiveness may be compromised by its context and medium. Again this is not a fault of the argument itself, but a failure in the choice of how, when, and where the argument is presented.