Answer any ONE of the following questions:
A. Do you agree with Oates' characterization of nature in the opening section? Why or why not?
B. In the second and third sections of her essay and again in the concluding two sections, Oates recounts personal experiences with nature. How do Oates' experiences of nature change over time? How are they related? In an essay about writing about nature, what does this personal dimension add?
C. What does she mean when she says on page 4 "Nature is mouths, or maybe a single mouth" and then, at the opening of the next paragraph "nature is more than a mouth--it's a dazzling variety of mouths." Is she contradicting herself? Discuss her characterization of nature in this section.
To respond to this post simply click on the "comment" link below. If however, you would like to add additional material to your post (links, images, video) you need to create a new post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Question B:
ReplyDeleteOates starts out telling about herself laying on the ground while her heart undergoes a short but intense bout of turbo-beating. She has to admit, while lying there, that there is a presence which "nothing to be said about it expresses it, nothing touches it, it's an absolute against which nothing human can be measured." She obviously feels something, but is clearly wary of falling into the nature glorification trap. In order to keep her somewhat cheeky, sharp-witted approach, she delves into several short anecdotes about rotting dogs self-devouring raccoons. These rancid gems clearly negate any notion that she will fall into glitzy, fluffy descriptions of the beauty of dew drops forming on her rose bushes...or something of that....nature.
Still, the next time that she shares a story that describes what we might call a highly 'spiritual' near-death experience-deeply moving notions of the lack of self and existing as rays of light that people generally only experience after years of meditation or after ingesting certain botanical and fungal wonders.
There may be something to this, but nature itself is not what is so amazing to her. She is not sold on the nature-as-spirit conviction, and has no problem systematically destroying an innocent line of black ants at the end of the passage.
The personal stories add a lot to the piece. Not only are they my favorite parts to read, but they strengthen the personal aspect of the work. Oates incorporates many different quotes and poems from other people in order to reinforce her argument, but none of them completely speak for her-only her own stories do.
Although it appears and sounds as if Oats is contradicting herself, I think her statement is said the way it is for simply a stylistic purpose, and not to dispute her previous observation. “Nature is mouths or maybe a single mouth” is one of those odd metaphors that take a second more to make sense of, that need more explaining from the author to fully comprehend, and Oates accomplishes that. She picks up the challenge of comparing nature to a mouth and makes us accept it and appreciate it. However, by doing she also learns something for herself. She learns that her original comparison does not even scratch the surface of what she is trying to describe. She realizes there is more to her fascinatingly original comparison than she thought, and as she realizes this, she is teaching it to us. She is trying to convince us of her same epiphany. Her second paragraph, “nature is more than a mouth” is said in a tone as if she is genuinely recognizing this for the first time. Her initial metaphor was good, but the more she developed it and explored her own thinking even deeper, she came across an even more powerful metaphor, that not only is nature a mouth, a chasm so beautiful and yet dangerous at the same time, but there are so many different aspects to it, that of course “it is a dazzling variety of mouths.” I don’t think she is contradicting herself; I think she is becoming more aware at the power and originality of her statement. She’s teaching herself more about the profundity of nature by writing this essay, and her passion and interest with nature becomes more and more pronounced as she writes. She’s learning about her connection and appreciation for it as much as she is teaching it to us. This is one of those very odd, very perplexing metaphors that can be interpreted many ways, and she tackles them all. First, the straightforward, confusing one, and then the more understandable, specific one; the one that has been explained and now understood and appreciated. Contradictions are bolder than this; they usually are stronger and forced, and the reader does not usually follow or agree with them. This sentence came naturally, and I understand it and appreciate it as I do the rest of her essay.
ReplyDeleteOates’ experiences with nature (at least the ones she shares with us) throughout the essay go from her finding death, to her witnessing death, to her committing the action causing death. She states that nature is some we have created and is not something that exists without us. To a point, her concept makes sense, yet even without humans to observe and classify nature, the process of growth, death, and deterioration would continue without us. What puts Oates out of place and the reason she’s not classified at a nature writer is because so many nature writers focus on the growth, on the life, the regeneration found within the environment. Even though Thoreau discusses the dead horse near his cabin on Walden Pond, but he takes the situation to discuss the cycle of death, degeneration, and regeneration. Her concentration on the death and degeneration makes Oates a unique writer. She not only focuses on death and degeneration, but how these two happen; how either through an active decision of killing ants over and over again with her only consideration being how long she could keep doing it. She also discusses how it is an act uncontrolled by humans, or how it can be a random act, unknown to the lover of nature for some time (as in the example with the dog) or even if ever. With this personal aspect of her essay, we really learn why she views nature as a creation of humans, and where her focuses within nature writing lie. The personal aspect also makes the essay incredibly interesting.
ReplyDeleteI am very inclined to disagree with Joyce Carol Oates on at least a few of the points in her opening section. I especially disagree with the contentions that nature is humorless; that it lacks moral purpose, and that is has no (verbal) language. Perhaps it is true that certain parts of nature lack these things, but certainly within the context of the animal kingdom there are examples.
ReplyDeleteOn the first point, that nature lacks humor, I have personal experience to the contrary. I have seen a family of river otters come out in the middle of an Alaskan winter just to play on the ice. There was an obvious good-natured teasing between them that is easily comparable to a group of laughing toddlers. One summer I watched a wolf repeatedly put a dead snowshoe hare in front of another only to snatch it back each time. Eventually it allowed the other to have it, but I was reminded unavoidably of when I pulled the car forward each time my brother reached for the door handle. As a final example: I have had a troop of spider monkeys throw their shit at me. Some of them were definitely laughing.
The morality of animals is definitely different is some ways. There are also many similarities. We find that many animals love their young. They protect and provide for each other. They repeatedly show loyalty and courage in the face of danger that is exceptional and heroic by human standards. A soldier who jumps on a grenade to save others receives the highest honor that our country can bestow. I would argue that a wolf who leaps at a bear to defend a member of his pack is displaying similar values. Although nature can be brutal and unforgiving it is unfair to say that it always lacks moral purpose.
It also does not lack language. There is some debate over animal language vs. animal communication. We all know that animals communicate with each other. The dancing of bees to lead others to food is a good example. When does this communication become language? The songs of whales and dolphins must certainly be close. The remarkable talent of some African Grey parrots to describe and discuss objects is also very close. The best example that I know of is the recent research into the language of prairie dogs. Not only do they communicate using complex structure, they also create words to describe new experiences. Here is a link to one of the many available synopses of this fascinating research. http://www.grandin.com/inc/animals.in.translation.ch6.html
It is true that these examples pertain entirely to animals rather than the whole of nature. There is so much that we don’t understand about nature that there are sure to be other examples in the future that are unknown today. Perhaps in light of that fact the “painfully limited” nature-writer responses of piety, reverence, and awe are well placed.
Yes, I do very much agree with Oates’ characterization of nature. Oates has an “uneasiness” about nature as we claim it to be, or “nature mysticism”, “nature adoration”, and “nature-as-moral-instruction-for-mankind” as she puts it. Oates sees the concept of “nature” as a construction of our human minds and culture. This, in turn, furthers her skepticism of “nature writing”, like that of Thoreau and Colette and Ponge. Furthermore, she brings up the case of “where is nature?”, which makes us, and most likely herself, wonder what we consider nature and why it is considered nature, and eventually, if nature exists at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with her line of thinking for many reasons. Her line of thinking, so to speak, follows the ideals of the new environmentalists, which sees humans as part of the world instead of separate and larger than it, and who recognize the inability of the “back to nature” environmentalism to really achieve anything in the field other than “experiencing” what has in the past been referred to as “nature.” Her point, I believe, is to show us that there is more to just going out and hiking and camping and writing a journal in “nature”. Nature is more than a “noun”. She wants us to really look around and think about the complexity of the word. As for me, who heartily believes in the social construction of the word, I just see everything as a part of everything, and I try not to use the word “nature”. If I did, the whole world, even the cities would be “nature” to me. It will always be somebody’s “nature”.
I have mixed feelings about Joyce Carol Oates’ characterizations of nature in the first section. While she is lying there, she describes the beauty of nature while also saying it isn’t very significant. I believe her characterizations are correct but she gets it wrong when she devalues the significance of nature. I believe there is nothing more significant in the world than nature, without it, we wouldn’t be able to learn from it and admire it and be a stagnant society. She seems to want to really enjoy it and take it all in but I believe while she is trying to fight off her attack of tachycardia, she tries to see nature in its simplest form in order to calm herself. It is sort of a way to shield herself from overstimulation so she can get her attack under control. The word presence is very powerful in this section. It describes her feelings toward being aware of the earth and nature but not really knowing how to describe it completely. I agree with her when she starts to mention other dimensions where human language has no bearing on the world. I firmly believe there are other parallel dimensions out there where things are completely different. If you want to look this statement it in its simplest form, human language has no resonance in the natural world when there is no other humans around. I also agree with her when she describes the blue sky as an illusion. The sky to me is a wondrous and dynamic phenomenon, but it is just an illusion; without the reflection of the water on the earth’s surface, the blue sky would look like nothing. Overall, I agree with her general characterizations of nature but I don’t think she has the right sentiments when it comes to the emotional connections a person should have with nature.
ReplyDeleteA. I've gone back and forth about weather I agree with the opening section of this reading or not. I started to pick apart the pieces didn't fit for me and then realized that people's perspectives and relationships with nature are really their own and I can really accept however Joyce wants to portray nature to her audience. If she says there is no humor, well I would not write that in my own story, but I can see why she thinks this way. The way she came about noticing nature was very intriguing; how she happened to have a paroxysmal tachycardia and found herself laying in nature. I can relate to her because many instances where I've really enjoyed nature have been times where I mistakenly ended up somewhere I wasn't supposed to be and all I could do was to sit and be aware of my surroundings (for example: when I had a flat bike tire and all I could do was wait for three hours for my dad to rescue me with nothing but fields and cows around). So I very much enjoyed how Oates brought me back to my own memories.
ReplyDelete