The first thought to cross my mind when beginning to read Dillard was "Man, this is easy!" She's got a much more natural style of writing then Thoreau, I think, which makes it easier for me to read and get into. That's not to say that I found it easy to figure out where she was coming from with her writing, quite the contrary: I have no idea! I found it a little bit disappointing that she chose to write about things that can make a grown man quiver, such as waking up to find yourself bleeding from feline-inlficted wounds, or watching a helpless frog get swallowed by a bug. Who does that? And why? This puzzles me. I sure hope I can sleep tonight come to think of it. I mean, this is the stuff of nightmares. Freddy who?
I don't have a problem with the fact that some frogs will inevitably get eaten. I just don't understand the purpose behind Dillard's mention of this. Is this a lesson in revenge? DId the frog have it coming to him? If so, is this a supposed to be a (highly confusing) metaphor for what will happen to people if they don't get more in touch with their inner nature?
Part of the problem I have with "nature writers" that we've read thus far is that they seem to delve too deeply into the relationship between self and nature when I think it's obvious that we are a part of nature! As everything is! it's just what we make of it. Without nature we would absolutely not be here. No plants? No oxygen, we'd never even come into existence. No sun? No plants, no oxygen, no people. We need food, water, oxygen, all of which are here solely because of our surroundings. The sooner people accept that they are as much and as equally a part of nature as everything else, the sooner I'll be able to sleep at night because I won't have to stay up late trying to understand the complicated minds of the "writers of nature".