In Annie Dillard's chapter "The Writing Life" I was facinated by her approach of utter seclusion for her selected place for writing. It seems to me that in order to write about nature well, one would have to be in and amoungst it to experience the ganduer of it. Dillard claims that for her best writing ability she prefers a room that is completely isolated from everything else, with no view, and no distraction. This is to give her a clear mind that can be able to expand and open her imagination to illustrate whatever she wishes. This is not only confusing, but it makes me consider the intent to be unauthentic. The idea of writing about nature would be more authentic, in my opinion, if someone can record what they see and observe after many encounters in the same situation. If a scientist took a three day cruise to Alaska, I would not not feel qualified to write about it when I finally arrived home to my study.
At the same time, Dillard does specialize in writing about nature. Her techniques seem to work. Dillard claims to use the dark, solitude as a place where her memories and imagination can come together. Now that I consider it, her approach is not so different from the trancendentalist approach Thoreau might have taken while he was in the city. Nature can possibly transcend the bounds of the physical when there is a metaphysical factor such as memory present.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment