Annie Dillard's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is very different from any other book we have read this year. Rather than having a clear plot, Pilgrim is comprised of thoughts and reflections from the unnamed protagonist and because of this, categorizing the book into a genre is very difficult. When looking for books, either in a store or even online, most people tend to browse by genre. So what is the discourse community for Pilgrim at Tinker Creek? The book seems to be for nature lovers, but wouldn't the intended audience be outside, observing the world, instead of reading? My guess is that Pilgrim at Tinker Creek was mainly written for herself; Dillard had these thoughts, and wanted to organize and compile them by writing. Due to the lack of a genre, this book likely received little public attention until it won the Pulitzer Prize.
The narrator's thoughts seem jumbled at times, occasionally skipping seasons. Yet, each chapter serves to convey an overall message, idea, or even a specific feeling of the narrator. Although some of the reflections are boring, the chapter on sight really stuck with me. Even if we have our eyes open, how much of life do we really see, and how much do we merely glance or skim over? The surroundings are blurred, rather than in focus. People often are so concentrated on the task at hand that they miss natural phenomenons going on only a few feet away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although Dillard seems to want to celebrate nature, her prose doesn't seem all that celebratory. The unnamed narrator narrates neither sentimentally nor selectively; ultimately, she doesn't seem all that happy to be meditative or reflective about her surroundings. Actually, she's pretty blah (to say the least). Maybe I feel this way because Pilgrim is a new kind of read for me. It's more passive and candid and the lack of action and emotional depth, for me, creates a less compelling read. However, despite my wishy-washy attitude, I have to agree with Brian. She does delineate simple natural occurrences very well. Though Dillard's descriptions of the outdoors are beautiful, I'm staying inside.
ReplyDeleteDillard's novel seems to be the flowery prose that is skipped over in most other reads. It is certainly, as stated in previous comments, an atypical read; however, it shows that the natural, poetic side of literature still exists (a concept which I love if anyone is familiar with my "flowery prose"). If the novel seems slow to your taste, it is very understanding as to how it can seem of lackluster emotion; however, I believe that its dense composition and unorthodox take on writing causes it to come off as slow, which unfortunately diminshes the potential impact and success of the novel. She maneges to embody the multifacitated sides of nature, its astetic aura, horrifying beauty, and overall power in a quasi-emotionless manner, which is either accidentally done or resultant of truly great writing.
ReplyDeleteFor Meredith--
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brian - Pilgrim certainly did raise questions that I'd never really considered before and were interesting to explore. However, I found her frequent use of rhetorical questions unappealing, as she hurls all these deep philosophical probings at you in bunches, which kind of divert your attention from her story. She uses "we" a lot - I'm not wild about how she assumes the voice of the human race, and she mostly concentrates on how dim we are. She sometimes tries to incorporate humor into her voice (like when she watches the coot and gets angry at the thought that it might be a decoy), but to me it fell flat and only made her seem more amateur.
Her figurative language is beautiful, however - she creates images and comparisons with objects or ideas that I would never think of but are refreshing and right on target. Sometimes she loses control and waxes rhapsodic about every leaf she sees, and she does get redundant in her attempts to describe light, the sky and wind over and over again.
I feel as though this book is only pertinent to her - we're outsiders, and she is aware of that, which only makes her detailing of her little worlds all the more remote to the reader.
Also, her use of information and quotes does not add to her ethos - it's interesting, but it only emphasizes her as this "beginner" of sorts. And I don't really buy her sell on how she has this transformative experience that relates to everybody.
Like Alexa, I think I'll stay in. Someone else can play mindgames with the cattle across the creek.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I only read the first chapter of the book, I think that I basically have a feel for how the whole novel is going to play out. Sometimes, I find Anne Dillard's subject of writing a little dull. It seems to me like the book is like one long poem. However, what impressed me most about Dillard's writing is the rhetorical strategies that she uses. Already, I see multiple examples of parallelism, personification, metaphors, similes, and many more devices. Also, her sentence flow impressed me a lot. It sounds as if she spent a lot of time carefully choosing the right words to fit into her book. Every sentence seems to flow very smoothly and each word plays an important part in the impressions she is trying to convey unto her reader.
ReplyDeleteAfter questioning the Dillard's current condition and state of mind, I find that the suggestion to read the book outside in the woods would scare the h-e- double hockey sticks out of me. I feel like Dillard is more of a Frida Kahlo than a J.K. Rowling..and Kahlo has always scared me. I agree with Alexa in that I do not see celebratory language in all of the thoughts and collections, although I am not that far into the book yet.
ReplyDeleteI do prefer normal fashioned novels over books such as Pilgrim (seperate anecdotes), and did feel that Dillard is the narrator as well. Furthermore, I believe I share the same confusion that Brian has in exactly what type of discourse community this would appeal to...(perhaps those 40 year olds who still live in their mom's basement and wish they could be out in nature except the sun would disintegrate them once they step outside?)
I adore this book. After every couple of lines I feel as if I've just read an entire book in itself or seen an entire play, her observations are just that astute and comments that profound. Like I mentioned last class, the novel reminds me a lot of Gilead by Marilyn Robinson, which has the same rambling and observatory tone. However, I've been reading Gilead for three years, literally only a couple sentences a night, so I can get the full effect of each word. I am a fast reader, but this book is just so dense that I still feel rushed. I also find it interesting that the book won a Pulitzer prize, which begs to question what type of literature is deserving of such an award. Of course, I'm clearly a fan of this writing, but it is essentially the journal entries of a particularly intelligent and eloquent writer, so I don't even know if I could say the book was written with that much actual skill. Regardless, I love it, it's very refreshing to read about such peaceful things and the lack of direction is so contrary to our everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I really wish I did enjoy this book and could have become engaged in it, it simply did not happen. As mentioned before, Dillard's prose certainly is beautiful and unique, but what she is actually saying comes off to me as almost pointless. She maintains a stream-of-consciousness-like voice, which causes her to ramble at times and never really get to a point. The narrator also speaks through internal monologue throughout the book's entirety, a standpoint interesting in the beginning, but one I found quite lackluster after just a short while. Although I am sure she makes very eye opening points throughout the novel, the points are hard to grasp, as the language simply bores and confuses the reader.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't particularly enjoy reading this book, I don't find it horrible. I am somewhat unsure of how I feel about this book; I like the fact that it's illuminating and enlightening, but, at the same time, it can be quite bizzare. Her prose, though elaborate and beautiful, is excessibly circuitous at points. It's hard to keep reading a book that is full of futile nature description, but if I overlook that drawback, I find myself deeply engaged by her reflective style. Occasionally, however, I really have no idea what she is talking about simply because I am not the type of person to sit around outdoors and ponder. Maybe I should try reading it outside!
ReplyDeleteI have feelings similar to that of Chris. I really do wish I could get into this book, but it's not really my taste. While I do appreciate Dillard's beautiful prose and use of language, it is a little too much for me. I have to agree with Justin in that Dillard's style of writing is almost an expansion of the parts of more typical books most people get bored with.
ReplyDeletePilgrim is certainly a genre that I have never read before. It is not exactly the type of book that I would plow through in one sitting. I find it extremely difficult to get through this book. While I appreciate being exposed to a different type of literature, is it definitely not one that I will further explore.
Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is certainly an acquired taste. I can understand someone adoring the rambling and digressive yet descriptive prose like Isabel, it just is not my cup of tea. This isn't to say that I dislike stream-of-consciousness, non-narrative writing, wordy descriptions, or novels which generally defy convention; however Pilgrim is the sort of novel which I find frustratingly self-indulgent. It's the kind of book I respect more than I actually enjoy, as while I can admire what Dillard is going (notably in her attempts to homage transcendentalist writing), every attempt I have made to read the book has felt like a chore. I'm not even sure I would even describe her prose as being either lyrical or poetic, more clinical than anything. I agree with Alexa's take on the writing, in that the never-ending passivity creates an effect which is undoubtedly... blah. Her writing is beautiful, but it's so endlessly descriptive and almost repetitive in this regard that it just becomes a frustrating slog. Once again, I respect what Dillard is going for her, and her command of language is admirable, it is just not something I am enjoying.
ReplyDeleteI find Dillard's writing refreshingly unique. When I first began reading this book, some of her observations reminded me of my own thoughts. Unfortunately, as I continued to read, I grew tired of the style. For this reason I decided to absorb this book in smaller chunks, because when I try to jog through it for long intervals I tend to overlook her more unusual observations. I find myself underlining sentences simply because I have never heard anyone phrase things the way that Dillard does in this book. Here are some examples:
ReplyDelete" My twisted summer sleep still hung about me like sea kelp"
"I am the arrow shaft . . . this book is the straying trail of blood."
" I had been my whole life a bell, and never knew it until that moment I was lifted and struck."
I further appreciate Dillard's writing because she successfully avoids the use of clichéd ideas and phrases. Instead, she uses strange but entertaining language to present her idea.
I find it difficult to characterize the voice of Dillard's voice in this work, because, though she speaks and writes with the eloquence and language-command of an adult, her observations have an unusual purity and objectivity. Also, her activities mimic those of a wandering child, so her identity as a writer remains a bit of a mystery to me. I do not know how to categorize this book or truly identify the purpose of her writing, but I have found a good use for the book. I read it at night before I have to go to sleep, and Dillard's prose cleanses my thought process with images of creeks, water, frogs, waves, and birds. These images, coupled with the abstract philosophies she constantly explores, create a written version of a nature CD.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike Anna said, I agree with Chris's statement about "respecting" the book over "enjoying" it. I know that I, personally, would not have chosen to read a book like Dillard's on my own. With that said, I do have to applaud her detailed imagery of nature and the passionate voice of her narrator.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to dissect the book for rhetoric, she certainly uses a lot of simile and metaphor, rhetorical questions, and of course, the previously discussed imagery. However, there is such thing as too much of a good thing! The book just seemed kind muddled and I did not feel any motivation to turn the next page.
All in all, I found the book kind of pointless. Perhaps it can "provoke thought" like Anna and Chris said, but like Bridget and Chris said, it can also just be plain boring and confusing!
Dillard's observations can be quite "interesting," and because "interesting" is not a descriptive word, I'll try to explain what I mean by it. I feel that while reading her book, I enter a different world with more that just 3-dimensions. This book seems to explore different possibilities, reasons and outcomes she noticed in her life.
ReplyDeleteWhile this book does remove me from the real world, I cannot say that I truly appreciate her style of writing. She reminds me of Emerson and Whitman, which are two authors that I am still trying to understand. I don't feel that I can connect to the author's discoveries and insights that nature unfolds for her, in the same way that I cannot relate to Emerson or Whitman's writing.
I'm going to agree with everyone here and say that Dillard does have some unique perspectives and thought-provoking insights regarding nature and her experiences. However, I found that these ideas were presented in a very formulaic way, which made reading the book tiring. The chapters all seemed alike; Dillard would describe a certain section of Tinker Creek, bring up a philosophical question, answer it, describe nature a bit more, quote a well-known author or philosopher, and repeat the process. Although some of her ideas were genuinely interesting, it was hard to look past the repetitive structure of her writing. I also found her writing to veer into the pretentious at times; I definitely got the impression more than once that Dillard was overly aware of the fact that she was being "philosophical", and, instead of simply explaining her ideas, wallowed in sounding educated and deep.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Justin said about Dillard's writing being the part that I often skip over in other books...However, when I force myself to keep reading and think about it she does have an interesting perspective on nature. Also I tried reading outside and it made a big difference, the books kind of blended into being outside and I was able to read more of it without the feeling that I was forcing myself to. I haven't finished Pilgrim at Tinker Creek yet, or even gotten very far but in general I think that while it isn't a book that I would choose myself it isn't going to be my least favorite book we have had to read for school.
ReplyDeleteFor Lucy:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meredith in that Dillard's novel and her observations and views only seem relevant to her. Though this book definitely has value and opened my eyes to a different viewpoint, I found it very hard to identify with Dillard. She has such a love affair with nature that it seems that there is no room in her life for human relationships. Her world is so different from mine that alot of what she was saying came off as bizarre. However, Dillard does make me think about my own perception of nature. I have never stopped to witness a frog jumping from log to log as Dillard has, and her beautiful prose enlightens me and makes me wonder if I'm missing out on enjoying everything that nature has to offer in the hubbub of everyday life. Dillard's spiritual connection with nature ties in nicely with Thoreau and Krakauer, and it's really interesting to compare the three
I really wish i loved this book as some people, such as Isabel, did. however i wasn't really able to get into the book, but i was distracted by all the flowery prose. I found it hard to concentrate since there was no plot, and all the flowery and descriptive language was actually just a distraction to me. I was able to appreciate the language and i could see the beauty of it, but i couldnt get into it. However, i did feel like i was in a whole different world, surrounded by nature, as i read it. It definitely opened my eyes to another type of book, though, for it was very different than any other book ive ever read and it was interesting to read this style. I appreciate Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, but i dont think ill ever read another book like it.
ReplyDeleteI, like Lauren, had a really hard time getting into Pilgrim (which is partly why it took me to long to get around to writing anything about it). I need a book to have a direction, I like a story, and Dillard didn't really give that to me. I found her writing beautiful, but not at all interesting to me. I even tried to go out and sit in backyard, but I still couldn't get it. I regret that, because I'd like to have the same zeal for the book that other members in our class do.
ReplyDeleteI guess Chris and Bridget said it best--It really is something you respect more than you enjoy.