This section in Weschler made me contemplate two different theories, among other things. Towards the beginning of the book—primarily when he focussed on ants’ spores—many of the class, including myself, thought of it as fictional writing. It was only when the museum aspect was revealed that all of us began to believe his tales. My theory is this: As with all tales, they are stories told from the eye of the beholder—or in this case, the author. Is there something wrong with amping up description to please readership? This is something I would like to bring up while in-class.
The second is that Weschler comes off as a bit bipolar and sporadic to me. When discussing Columbus, his journey, and the math and science behind it—page 81—he is obviously illuminated, using exclamation points, run-on sentences with phrases such as “wondrous prospects,” or words such as “phantasms,”—almost living a child-like dream. These portions tend to draw me in more so than the paragraphs where Weschler drones on and on—such as when he recounts “The Tradescants”—stating facts that don’t add to his portrayal of this place. Back to the idea of fiction vs. nonfiction, I think Weschler remains a bit confused whether or not he is telling a story, stating facts, or writing a historical documentation.
Well, because of Weschler’s own backstory, Wilson’s character, and so on, we can rule out cut and dry historical documentation, but is he telling an enticing story? At the moment I remain unconvinced.
No comments:
Post a Comment