In your own words, what is Thoreau's view on man's relationship with nature? Can we see this philosophy in any of the Romantic poetry we've read in the class so far?
Sometimes I just wish I could connect with these writers. Thoreau to me is particularly difficult (though not quite as hard as Emerson). Yeah, I know his other works are different, but it's hard to take it when a writer is so insensitive to the limitations that he himself isn't subject to. Still, I guess I should give the guy some credit; he wasn't rich or anything--quite the opposite from what we heard in class--but I'm so not impressed by his ability to take daily four-hour walks. I saw the English Romantics as pretty out of touch with reality, but they've got nothing on the Americans, as far as I can tell.
But, please, forgive me. I'm currently dealing with real life, which, quite frankly, sucks.
So. Thoreau.
I guess his view of man's relationship with nature is pretty good compared to Emerson's. Though there is this myth building and the implications of potential exploitation, I don't think he really planned it out that way. I think he honestly does see unspoiled nature as important in and of itself, but he expresses his appreciation in terms of conquest because that's the language and mentality he's familiar with.
His is a more engaged approach to nature than that of the British Romantics, from what I can tell. In America, it's apparently all about getting your hands dirty. The Brits, on the other hand, seem more detached in their appreciation and perhaps more self-conscious of their invasion when they do interact, as in the nutting poem. Thoreau seems to take it as given that he belongs there; the British poets appear less sure.
I don't know. That's really all I can say right now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The Brits seem more self-conscious in their invasion? Hmmm. I'm not sure what to make of that. On the one hand, I suppose I would agree that the British are always very aware of what they're doing - especially when it comes to invading something. But I don't know that they'd call it invading. I imagine they'd come up with a better term for it (one that makes it look better). I'm thinking of British imperialism, which always seems to me to be accompanied by a genuine belief that it's "for the best". And yet there's no arguing with the language in Nutting. So perhaps it's a question of two very different approaches to the British point of view. I mean sure, you don't really have many of the main imperialist players sitting down to write romantic poetry, but what happened to all that business of the poet articulating something for the rest of the populace?
that's an interesting distinction that you make between the Americans and the British and their approaches to nature...i'm not an expert in colonialism by any means, but i've noticed a similar difference (huh. weird.) between American and British colonial attitudes (though i guess in America we call it "expansionism"...spoonful of sugar and all that...). what i'm getting at amidst all the parenthesis is that the British seem generally fairly self-aware and occasionally self-conscious about their imperialism, whereas the Americans are pretty bullheaded and uncritical of themselves (at least when it comes to taking over the west). it's odd, because you'd think if anything it would be the other way around since the British empire came first and ideally the Americans could have "learned" from their example...
Post a Comment