So, to summarize. We are to believe that Ishmael the composer of Moby-Dick, the lone lucky survivor of the Pequod disaster, is not traumatized by this experience into sticking to the land at all, but instead goes back to the sea constantly, taking many more trips not only on merchant vessels, but on whalers. He becomes just as obsessed with whales and the white whale especially as much as Ahab ever was; he is a very old, very weathered and wizened sailor, covered in tattoos as surely startling as Queequeg’s once were to him. The book is written on his body, perhaps, just as Queequeg’s understanding of the universe is written on his. The book is as much an exorcism of his whaling demons as it is a chapter of his life recollected in tranquility.
All of which is not necessarily Nabokovian, except for the ending. Provocative statement for discussion and debate: Moby-Dick has the craziest, most ludicrous ending of any great book. As the ship sinks rapidly in its awful vortex, Tashtego, drowning, all but his arms underwater, still manages to continue hammering a red flag to the mast, and catches the wing of a “sky-hawk” in between his hammer and the mast, bringing it down with the ship. In “The Trying-Out of Moby-Dick”, Howard Vincent somewhat hilariously tries to defend this as “perhaps [Melville’s] masterpiece of style.” Um, yeah. Style does not change the fact that this scene is bat-shit insane, and always has been, even by Romantic standards.
I tried—I really tried—to keep at distance Willie’s reviews and rereading of “Moby Dick” and “The Trying-Out of Moby Dick”. Then Willie had to expound on Ishmael as a Nabokovian trickster narrator. Damnit. Where did I hide my copy from myself?
By writing [a] penalty into the contract, and then signing the contract, the lender has agreed to accept the property, and (in most states) the option to pursue a deficiency judgment, in lieu of payment. Of course, even in states where they can, lenders frequently don’t pursue borrowers for deficiency judgments because it’s often not economically worthwhile to do so.
In short, as far as the law is concerned, choosing to exercise the default option in a mortgage contract is no more immoral than choosing to cancel a cell phone contract. The borrower just has to be willing to accept the consequences – which, in the case of a mortgage contract, typically include being subject to foreclosure and, in most states, the risk of a deficiency judgment.
(For those not following the occasionally surfaced threads of my life in comments, 1. I completely understand and am glad and, 2. I merely mean to point out good reading material. I’m not near the group considering walking away from their mortgages, hate homeownership though I may. I just like the debate.)
The BSA, RIAA, and MPAA are businesses. They make money by finding faults in others and extracting payments from them by exaggerating the economic consequences of the guilty’s wrongs. They get the pirates to pay them instead of the government, and then use some of that profit to lobby the government to uphold their exaggerated import. I call that a racket.