4 ms·

I don't think it's fair that this is being downvoted. It's a valid take, even if one disagrees with it. Let's break down the original quote a bit: > On the mou

by scop 3y ago

I don't think it's fair that this is being downvoted. It's a valid take, even if one disagrees with it. Let's break down the original quote a bit: > On the mountain the limestone shelves and climbs in ragged escarpments There is a mountain with limestone. We are thrown by "shelves" because this is an unusual verb, making us feel uneasy. "Climbs" gives a personal sense to the mountain. Both imply, to me, a laborious nature to the scene. I behold in my mind's eye a mountain with true weight and scale, not just "a mountain". > among the clutching roots of hickories, oaks and tulip poplars "Clutching". Do trees clutch? Certainly they do. Do we think of them as clutching? Clutching implies an active and focused activity, as opposed to the normal sense in which we view trees as simply being "rooted" in an established way. "Clutching" is often momentary or done in an emergency/needed situation, so we immediately get a sense that these trees are on odd angles with an odd look to compensate for that. > which even here brace themselves against the precarious declination The trees are in a "precarious" situation. Are trees in danger? Sure. Though to me there is also a hint of personhood being implied here. Can plants be in danger? Sure. Who cares? Well, plants care. They accommodate the elements just like we do. Are plants different than us? Are we different than plants? Just what is "danger" in nature, as for us humans danger is very much tied with personhood. Is there a personhood in nature or behind nature? > allowed them by the chance drop of a seed. Ah, and then here we are amid all this "drama" of the tree on the hill when we remember it all began by the "chance dropping of a seed". How did all of these seed come from chance? Does that render it pointless? Is it pointless? How to chance and meaning interplay? I'm not going to answer of the questions posed (though I have some personal beliefs/answers), but these are just the questions it all brings to mind. To me McCarthy's writing brings the universe's embedded sense of deep meaning/purpose to the forefront and forces the reader to answer: does this matter? McCarthy does not provide an answer.

solardev 3y ago
Thank you. For what it's worth, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here. Different authors have different writing styles, and different readers have their own preferences. For context, I was an environmental science undergrad, and we read a lot of nature writing like this with very descriptive prose. Aldo Leopold, Barbara Kingsolver, The Overstory, etc. have similar passages. Many/most of my classmates loved those kinds of books. I tried, but could not. In particular, The Overstory is the only book I've ever (tried) to read that was recommended to me by an environmental lawyer, a college teen, an old lady, a grocery store clerk, and a cop – all in the same week or so. It clearly won a place in many people's hearts. But I couldn't read past the third or fourth chapter because it just got so long-winded with descriptions about a chestnut tree. I could see the beauty in it, but I still couldn't bring myself to finish it. (In contrast, I'm now reading a book about AI spaceships... lol. Not exactly Pulitzer material, but a fun read.) There are other nature-adventure writers with different writing styles, like Jon Krakauer (Into the Wild, Into Thin Air, etc.), who uses grade-school language to rapidly advance the plot page by page. Where setup is important, he centers nature scenes from the perspective of a person experiencing it, instead of the Haiku-like out-of-body experience found in most nature writing. I find that much more relatable, personally. Other books, like The Klamath Knot, center nature in the context of mythology juxtaposed with science, using comparisons and contrast to paint an interesting picture, rather than verbose, painterly descriptions. It's fine if people prefer one writing style over another. I loved The Road, but watched the movie first and then read the book. I preferred the movie, personally, but the book was fine too (if depressing). He's not one of my favorite authors, but so what? I have nothing against the man. > Does this matter? I think it's great that there are authors with distinctive styles, even if they're not for me. It's so awesome -- and rare -- when a book can really grab someone's imagination like that, even if that someone isn't me.

by scop 3y ago

solardev 3y ago

Thank you. For what it's worth, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here. Different authors have different writing styles, and different readers have their own preferences. For context, I was an environmental science undergrad, and we read a lot of nature writing like this with very descriptive prose. Aldo Leopold, Barbara Kingsolver, The Overstory, etc. have similar passages. Many/most of my classmates loved those kinds of books. I tried, but could not. In particular, The Overstory is the only book I've ever (tried) to read that was recommended to me by an environmental lawyer, a college teen, an old lady, a grocery store clerk, and a cop – all in the same week or so. It clearly won a place in many people's hearts. But I couldn't read past the third or fourth chapter because it just got so long-winded with descriptions about a chestnut tree. I could see the beauty in it, but I still couldn't bring myself to finish it. (In contrast, I'm now reading a book about AI spaceships... lol. Not exactly Pulitzer material, but a fun read.) There are other nature-adventure writers with different writing styles, like Jon Krakauer (Into the Wild, Into Thin Air, etc.), who uses grade-school language to rapidly advance the plot page by page. Where setup is important, he centers nature scenes from the perspective of a person experiencing it, instead of the Haiku-like out-of-body experience found in most nature writing. I find that much more relatable, personally. Other books, like The Klamath Knot, center nature in the context of mythology juxtaposed with science, using comparisons and contrast to paint an interesting picture, rather than verbose, painterly descriptions. It's fine if people prefer one writing style over another. I loved The Road, but watched the movie first and then read the book. I preferred the movie, personally, but the book was fine too (if depressing). He's not one of my favorite authors, but so what? I have nothing against the man. > Does this matter? I think it's great that there are authors with distinctive styles, even if they're not for me. It's so awesome -- and rare -- when a book can really grab someone's imagination like that, even if that someone isn't me.