I stated at the end of my last blog that I felt Dillards conclusion of accepting the world we live in, despite the excess and growth of fecundity, the cycle that continues through all life. My interpretation of the conclusion of Dillard can be described as life being ever so fragile, beautiful, and special. The appreciation needed to live happy comes with that of understanding that nothing is a given everything can be taken away just as quickly as they're given. This also gives our lives meaning, if we were to never die we would be numb to things that bring us joy daily as they would become too routine and dull. We have one life and that gives us power to live it to the best of our ability, do what you want with that information.
In comparison to Dillard, MacFarlane seeks to explore and understand the deeper existence of humans, physically, mythologically, in history and literature. He talks about the life underneath as Dillard did describing the millions of organisms within the soil where she sat. MacFarlene however goes to take a step further than Dillard by traveling outside of a controlled area and going to places like France and Italy.
Carson in comparison to Dillard is much more activistic and scientific. Carson explains more of an environmental conscious as Dillard takes in the
environment from her perceived conscious. Two very different ways off understanding and I would argue that Carson is much more empathetical being able to place herself in a variety of different viewpoints, where Dillard is more linear explaining her understanding of the natural world.
Comentarios