What I like about Dillard's writing (probably one of the only things I enjoy about it to be honest), is when she adds in random scientific or historical stories and facts (such as the whole story about the blind patients early on in the book). They are an interesting contrast to her nature writing. Yet at the same time they connect perfectly. This blend is what I think makes the book special. It's not just a stream of conscious on nature, it's trying to make sense of the world (the natural one granted)in many different ways.
I really love Dillard's descriptions. She absolutely doesn't hold back-which at some times can be a little too much-but most of the time is really cool. I feel like if she wanted to tell you she was looking at a piece of paper she might take 50 words to describe the blank white sheet, but for certain things, the descriptions are really amazing. I also really like her tone, because even when she's talking about a heavy subject, I'm not terribly bored of it and I want to see what she has to say. She has some very interesting points about life and death but her points aren't morbid. So far, so good with Pilgrim!
I don't especially like this book or Dillard's style that much. I find her descriptions interesting but the way in which she writes them is a bit strange.
I find Dillard's metapors a little hard to follow because they can extend for many pages. I feel like her descriptions could be appreciated more for their beauty if there were not fifty other sentences like it on the same page. My favorite description in the book, that was also a percussive element, was the description of the bug that sucks out the frogs insides. Even though it was gross, Dillard presented the event in a different way than most people would see it.
I appreciate Dillard's style, but her writing tends to be a little too wordy for me. She describes nature beautifully, but the descriptions could be a little shorter. I like how relaxed the book is, but her metaphors extend for so long. She has a way of describing normally percussive things (like the frog that gets eaten by the water bug) in a way that's informative, not too percussive. I feel like I'm waiting for a plot twist that just isn't going to happen. It's a different type of book than I've ever read.
It's a little weird to read because it's so stream-of-consciousness. I like her descriptions, too, even though she can go on for a while about pretty small things. it's an interesting way of seeing things; the wonder almost reminds me of a little kid's reaction. Reading the book is really relaxing, too, like meditating sort of.
I love her style of writing. She writes how I think, so I can follow her crazy rants and extensive descriptions. My writing has always lacked organization so this is my preferred form of writing. Her descriptions of nature are fantastic and the tangents she goes on are even more interesting, like the one about blind people.
I really don't understand this book at all, it seems that instead of adding plot, Dillard just has tons of metaphors about life to fill the space. Some of the metaphors are really good, but I just feel like her story just goes around in circles. The stream of conscious is definitely unique, and it will be really hard to write an essay in this style.
So far I think the book is very interesting. The language and the metaphors about life make up for the lack of a plot. It is very thoughtful and talks about the world in a way that it is not normally seen.
I would have to say this is not my type of book. The lack of plot really bothers me and also the surplus of metaphors just seems overdone to me. I do however like the stream-of-conscious because its a new style of writing to me and definitely unique. I feel like the essay will really prove a struggle...at least for me.
I agree with Nick completely. While some of her metaphors are beautiful, to me, most are dragged out too long and are hard to follow. I also think that her stream of conscious is unique. Last semester we saw a little bit of SOC in Hemingway's writing, which I enjoyed.
To be honest, I did not like the book when I first began reading it. I found the book strange and did not particularly like the style- or lack of style. However, with some time, I started to appreciate the book for what it was and stopped criticizing it for what I'd wanted it to be or what I expected it to be. All in all, it is definitely not one of my favorite books but I find it interesting and I am glad I read something like this.
This book is different from anything that I have ever read. It is both beautiful and complex, it requires a certain mindset to understand. Different authors have different methods of conveying their emotions and perceptions, Anne Dillard opts for a total stream of consciousness. Entering someone's mind for an entire book is a difficult task, one that most people may not be able to handle. I personally found it challenging to following the arbitrary path that the narrative takes but the writing and style are certainly powerful.
Unique, is the word that comes to mind as I read Anne Dillard's novel. Its really rather remarkable that she actually managed to write an entire book in this style of writing, while still retaining complexity and thought provoking passages. In my opinion the book is rather dry for a young reader, although i must confess the section on the blind was fascinating. Her use of rhetoric can bring even the most boring description to life, and this is crucial when most of the book is a keen analysis of natural phenomenon. For me, personally, the reason it can be boring to read is the slow nature of the book. The book moves very very slowly (perhaps Anne purposely matched the pace to that of grass growing).
Pilgrim is a completely different style of writing for me. After preparing for the exam and working on perfecting organization in my own writing, its a complete contrast to her style. I feel like she just writes what she feels; like a stream of conscientiousness without much organization. I feel like the writing is more free flowing and more true to the author since it wasn't altered too much by an editor, which I like. However, without the editing, she tends to ramble. Although her tangents are interesting, it is frustrating because she takes so long to describe one event.
I didn't particularly like Annie Dillards style of writing in pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Many of my classmates have indicated that her style is one you either really like or really dont like. I was in the latter category. I found many of her extended descriptions to be endless, unnecessary, and towards their conclusions i felt my understanding of the metaphor was vague at best. In addition, I found her connections between life and nature were outlandish, forced, and often innaccurate. The style of the book was interesting in the sense that Dillard was highly observatory. In comparison to some of our other novels, I liked this a little more, but still not much.
What I like about Dillard's writing (probably one of the only things I enjoy about it to be honest), is when she adds in random scientific or historical stories and facts (such as the whole story about the blind patients early on in the book). They are an interesting contrast to her nature writing. Yet at the same time they connect perfectly. This blend is what I think makes the book special. It's not just a stream of conscious on nature, it's trying to make sense of the world (the natural one granted)in many different ways.
ReplyDeleteI really love Dillard's descriptions. She absolutely doesn't hold back-which at some times can be a little too much-but most of the time is really cool. I feel like if she wanted to tell you she was looking at a piece of paper she might take 50 words to describe the blank white sheet, but for certain things, the descriptions are really amazing. I also really like her tone, because even when she's talking about a heavy subject, I'm not terribly bored of it and I want to see what she has to say. She has some very interesting points about life and death but her points aren't morbid. So far, so good with Pilgrim!
ReplyDeleteI don't especially like this book or Dillard's style that much. I find her descriptions interesting but the way in which she writes them is a bit strange.
ReplyDeleteI find Dillard's metapors a little hard to follow because they can extend for many pages. I feel like her descriptions could be appreciated more for their beauty if there were not fifty other sentences like it on the same page. My favorite description in the book, that was also a percussive element, was the description of the bug that sucks out the frogs insides. Even though it was gross, Dillard presented the event in a different way than most people would see it.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Dillard's style, but her writing tends to be a little too wordy for me. She describes nature beautifully, but the descriptions could be a little shorter. I like how relaxed the book is, but her metaphors extend for so long. She has a way of describing normally percussive things (like the frog that gets eaten by the water bug) in a way that's informative, not too percussive. I feel like I'm waiting for a plot twist that just isn't going to happen. It's a different type of book than I've ever read.
ReplyDeleteIt's a little weird to read because it's so stream-of-consciousness. I like her descriptions, too, even though she can go on for a while about pretty small things. it's an interesting way of seeing things; the wonder almost reminds me of a little kid's reaction. Reading the book is really relaxing, too, like meditating sort of.
ReplyDeleteI love her style of writing. She writes how I think, so I can follow her crazy rants and extensive descriptions. My writing has always lacked organization so this is my preferred form of writing. Her descriptions of nature are fantastic and the tangents she goes on are even more interesting, like the one about blind people.
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand this book at all, it seems that instead of adding plot, Dillard just has tons of metaphors about life to fill the space. Some of the metaphors are really good, but I just feel like her story just goes around in circles. The stream of conscious is definitely unique, and it will be really hard to write an essay in this style.
ReplyDeleteSo far I think the book is very interesting. The language and the metaphors about life make up for the lack of a plot. It is very thoughtful and talks about the world in a way that it is not normally seen.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say this is not my type of book. The lack of plot really bothers me and also the surplus of metaphors just seems overdone to me. I do however like the stream-of-conscious because its a new style of writing to me and definitely unique. I feel like the essay will really prove a struggle...at least for me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick completely. While some of her metaphors are beautiful, to me, most are dragged out too long and are hard to follow. I also think that her stream of conscious is unique. Last semester we saw a little bit of SOC in Hemingway's writing, which I enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I did not like the book when I first began reading it. I found the book strange and did not particularly like the style- or lack of style. However, with some time, I started to appreciate the book for what it was and stopped criticizing it for what I'd wanted it to be or what I expected it to be. All in all, it is definitely not one of my favorite books but I find it interesting and I am glad I read something like this.
ReplyDeleteThis book is different from anything that I have ever read. It is both beautiful and complex, it requires a certain mindset to understand. Different authors have different methods of conveying their emotions and perceptions, Anne Dillard opts for a total stream of consciousness. Entering someone's mind for an entire book is a difficult task, one that most people may not be able to handle. I personally found it challenging to following the arbitrary path that the narrative takes but the writing and style are certainly powerful.
ReplyDeleteUnique, is the word that comes to mind as I read Anne Dillard's novel. Its really rather remarkable that she actually managed to write an entire book in this style of writing, while still retaining complexity and thought provoking passages. In my opinion the book is rather dry for a young reader, although i must confess the section on the blind was fascinating. Her use of rhetoric can bring even the most boring description to life, and this is crucial when most of the book is a keen analysis of natural phenomenon. For me, personally, the reason it can be boring to read is the slow nature of the book. The book moves very very slowly (perhaps Anne purposely matched the pace to that of grass growing).
ReplyDeletePilgrim is a completely different style of writing for me. After preparing for the exam and working on perfecting organization in my own writing, its a complete contrast to her style. I feel like she just writes what she feels; like a stream of conscientiousness without much organization. I feel like the writing is more free flowing and more true to the author since it wasn't altered too much by an editor, which I like. However, without the editing, she tends to ramble. Although her tangents are interesting, it is frustrating because she takes so long to describe one event.
ReplyDeleteI didn't particularly like Annie Dillards style of writing in pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Many of my classmates have indicated that her style is one you either really like or really dont like. I was in the latter category. I found many of her extended descriptions to be endless, unnecessary, and towards their conclusions i felt my understanding of the metaphor was vague at best. In addition, I found her connections between life and nature were outlandish, forced, and often innaccurate. The style of the book was interesting in the sense that Dillard was highly observatory. In comparison to some of our other novels, I liked this a little more, but still not much.
ReplyDelete