Blog – Given today’s discussion, was Eustace a Transcendentalist? Gilbert does comment on this. Do you agree with her interpretation?
To some degree Eustace was a transcendentalist. Without getting too bogged down with the definition, a transcendentalist is a person who believes in the right of the individual to define what they believe in. This is where the biggest disconnect between Eustace and transcendentalism lies. Eustace believes he is right. Whereas transcendentalists were opposed to congregationalism, Eustace wanted everybody to follow him. It's not that concrete though, because Eustace wanted people to adhere to his notion of living, but not necessarily live with him. This is an area of gray, Eustace believes in the individual's beliefs, as long as they lie in the realm of appreciating and coexisting with nature. It is true that nature was a major part of transcendentalism, but there is a difference between that nature and Eustace's nature. Eustace's nature is more extreme. Just as there is a difference between Christianity and extreme Christianity. What Eustace was doing was unique, it cannot be solely defined by any idea that came before, such as transcendentalism. It mirrors various theories of living in some aspects, but is not identical because of the extreme nature of Eustace's beliefs - it has been created by one person, in the mind of one person. transcendentalism was more than an idea created by one person.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
=============
Blog – Pick one or two lines that really speak to you and explain them
"The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food."
In this excerpt, Emerson is talking about who can see nature. Just because you have eyes, does not mean you can see nature. One must be able to appreciate it - to be able to wrap all their senses together to appreciate nature. One must have the characteristics of a child - curiosity, sensationalism, exuberance, and keen to their environment. Otherwise, one cannot understand the true beauty of nature.
The second sentence is a metaphor designed to compliment the first sentence. In the first sentence, Emerson presents the "The lover of nature". In the second sentence, he uses this to create the metaphor of "The lover of nature" having "Intercourse with heaven and earth". Emerson believes that one must have some sort of spiritual connection to nature (hence the "heaven" part). Extending on the spiritual connection, he references a religious aspect, "The daily food".
"The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food."
In this excerpt, Emerson is talking about who can see nature. Just because you have eyes, does not mean you can see nature. One must be able to appreciate it - to be able to wrap all their senses together to appreciate nature. One must have the characteristics of a child - curiosity, sensationalism, exuberance, and keen to their environment. Otherwise, one cannot understand the true beauty of nature.
The second sentence is a metaphor designed to compliment the first sentence. In the first sentence, Emerson presents the "The lover of nature". In the second sentence, he uses this to create the metaphor of "The lover of nature" having "Intercourse with heaven and earth". Emerson believes that one must have some sort of spiritual connection to nature (hence the "heaven" part). Extending on the spiritual connection, he references a religious aspect, "The daily food".
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Why Write The Book?
Blog – Why did Elizabeth Gilbert write this book? What does she want us to take away from Eustace. Refer to (and analyze) a specific passage in your response.
Elizabeth Gilbert wrote this book to better understand herself. Specifically, her desire to live in nature, something reflective in Eustace Conway. Shortly after the book begins, Gilbert dives into her story - growing up in a wealthy suburb in Connecticut, pretending she didn't, and moving to Wyoming when she was 22. As she said on page 8, "I went to Wyoming, in other words, to make a man of myself". The key in this excerpt is that she doesn't mean man literally. She means man as in idealism - the kind like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, and even Eustace Conway. She was enchanted, even if, as she admits, she was a "faker".
The other reason that Elizabeth Gilbert writes the book is to explore how the reality contrasts Eustace's idealism. On page 11 she writes, "Eustace told me that people tended to romanticize his lifestyle. Because when people first ask him what he does for a living, he invariably replies, "I live in the woods." Then people get all dreamy and say, "Ah! The woods! The woods! I love the woods!" as if Eustace spends his days sipping the dew off clover blossoms. But that's not what living in the woods means to Eustace Conway." But, people don't know that they are wrong, that Eustace lives in a world full of stress and hypocrisy and struggle. Perhaps, Elizabeth Gilbert is trying to say that there are no "American men" left. Perhaps, Elizabeth Gilbert is saying "American Men" can no longer be 100% Davy Crockett. That is the reality that emerges from Gilbert's exploration of Eustace Conway.
Elizabeth Gilbert wrote this book to better understand herself. Specifically, her desire to live in nature, something reflective in Eustace Conway. Shortly after the book begins, Gilbert dives into her story - growing up in a wealthy suburb in Connecticut, pretending she didn't, and moving to Wyoming when she was 22. As she said on page 8, "I went to Wyoming, in other words, to make a man of myself". The key in this excerpt is that she doesn't mean man literally. She means man as in idealism - the kind like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, and even Eustace Conway. She was enchanted, even if, as she admits, she was a "faker".
The other reason that Elizabeth Gilbert writes the book is to explore how the reality contrasts Eustace's idealism. On page 11 she writes, "Eustace told me that people tended to romanticize his lifestyle. Because when people first ask him what he does for a living, he invariably replies, "I live in the woods." Then people get all dreamy and say, "Ah! The woods! The woods! I love the woods!" as if Eustace spends his days sipping the dew off clover blossoms. But that's not what living in the woods means to Eustace Conway." But, people don't know that they are wrong, that Eustace lives in a world full of stress and hypocrisy and struggle. Perhaps, Elizabeth Gilbert is trying to say that there are no "American men" left. Perhaps, Elizabeth Gilbert is saying "American Men" can no longer be 100% Davy Crockett. That is the reality that emerges from Gilbert's exploration of Eustace Conway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)