Here are the guidelines:
- Reading responses must be AT LEAST 250 words.
- Include your full name at the end of your comments. Unnamed comments will be deleted.
- From the "Comment As" drop-down menu, choose Anonymous, then click "Publish."
- Reading responses are due by midnight on the night PRIOR to our discussion of the required reading
I would question Moore that out of all the places in the world and the US, he decided to visit the Rio Grande River. I would also ask: “What was your purpose to take a canoe trip here in Texas? As comparing your experience and Solnit experience, do you believe Solnit was exaggerating her own trip to the Rio Grande River and why?” The essay makes me think that some writers have their good days and bad days within their non-fiction essays. And at some points, they pretty much say that their experience exploring or learning sucked. Or they would overly sugar coat their excitement and possibly kill the essay.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I would talk about a portion of my life living in a military base, such as Fort Polk, Louisiana. I would either write about how peaceful and safe it was to live in-base, the forests that spread all around neighborhoods or barracks, and the tax-free stores and their items. Or I could get down to how the Louisiana weather is terribly humid and muggy, floods are a constant threat, winters are the worse, lack of street light posts that brings concerns of safety on-foot, and live weapon discharges or cannons going off in unexpected times.
From the beginning of our class, one of my peers mentioned that creative non-fiction essays may not always tell the truth and would over exaggerate their reality. Solnit shows this sort of behavior. Where ever Moore lives, having to spent his time riding down the Rio Grande River, only to show Solnit that her experience was just because she started her day and trip feeling miserable. Yet I don’t think you need to go to an extreme length to correct someone by visiting where the writer had went because everyone's experiences and their ideas are different.
Hector Dimas
In the journal, he uses his travel essay of the Rio Grande Valley as an example for what to do and what not to do when writing one. He corrected himself in many things, it was a good thing that he mentioned how when you’re explaining about what you saw “you want to make sure the reader can see what you saw” and so on. I think that would help a lot as a reminder to think about the reader as you’re explaining everything that went on in the trip I see that helping me. Throughout his travel essay an article by Rebecca Solnit is mentioned more than once. Its mentioned because of the way she wrote the article based off her experienced at the Rio Grande Valley. As I read along it was upsetting of what she had mentioned. Her whole experience throughout was horrible as she kept mentioning things she saw like “just about every type of pollution imaginable” as for Dinty’s travel essay he kept comparing his experience to hers and describe how most of what she claimed to saw was not as horrible as she had put it, “I see no clots of foam, just of cool, quick mud-colored water”. I think from what I understood is that its best to describe everything to the reader can picture what you’re saying as make it seem like if they were there experiencing that adventure with you. As well as that every adventure that you read from a travel essay is different from others some might have amazing journeys while others won’t.
ReplyDeleteMonika Gonzalez
In Dinty Moore’s essay, “A Closer Look: ‘Ah Wilderness!’ Moore dissects not only the environmental poetry of essayist Rebeca Solnit, but the trends of environmental poetry. Moore guides the reader through the experience of traveling the dangers of the Rio Grande River, taking the time to establish for the reader what it felt, looked, smelled, tasted and heard in order to make the reader feel as though are experiencing it themselves, as well as framing the situation and essential characters blending so effortless into the story, they become part of the setting as well creating the groundwork for points of interest that will drive the conflict. Each piece of information given is strategically included in the essay by Moore, whether it be the equipment, behavior or something as simple as dropping a water bottle, to push the story or to establish what would later push the plot and/or conflict. At no time in doing so, does she paint the environment as bleak just to obtain attention like other environmental essayists tend to resort to. Moore on the other hand intended to reveal the reader the facts as they were revealed to her, leaving it up to the reader to interpret the information as they would. At no point does Moore claim to know all the facts, while allowing person opinion to be utilized as a tool in which the reader may be able to understand the conflict in a much more personal way from her point of view without Moore needing to craft the essay to emphasize the conflict in way of painting the world with a bleak nature.
ReplyDeleteSomething I rather enjoyed in Dinty Moore’s essay, “AH, WILDERNESS! HUMANS, HAWKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CORRECTNESS ON THE MUDDY RIO GRANDE” where his small detours, or interruptions, that sort of reflected on what he was writing, and gave us, the reader, an insight to certain stylistic choices he made, and why he made them. One in particular that stood out to me a bit more, was the one where he purposely makes fun of himself to appeal to the reader’s pathos, and earn some empathy from said reader. He writes, “I am willing to to point out my own stupidity… and that I hope will keep the reader on my side (Moore 119).” I feel like this point goes back to the first reading, where he also stated that it’s important to make the reader feel something, something that will further emotionally invest the reader in your writing. Furthermore, another point I took from this essay was that Moore; where he was highly critical of Solnit’s essay, was that she didn’t right the truth, she wrote something that she thought could be true, something that could possibly true in years to come, she implied too much; whereas, Moore only wrote what he actually saw, and not what could or not be assumed. Again I feel like this is an especially important point because if a piece of writing is supposed to be truthful, like Solnit’s article, you can’t let personal beliefs or even spiritual beliefs influence your writing; because, in this case, it might sway people who do read these types of articles from visiting sites like the Rio Grande River, as it was in this case.
ReplyDeleteJesus Garcia
As I read Moore’s essay, I started thinking that even though people assume Texas doesn’t have beautiful places, or places to explore, Moore described to us the beauty that we can find in our state. Yes, there are places where he could’ve traveled to, but he decided on Texas. I think that is something one can be proud of. I have visited other places and I can honestly say I love Texas, it’s people and the diverse tradition that we have and are developing as the years go by.
ReplyDeleteI liked the fact that he was explaining the process of his essay as he went along. It gave it an in-depth explanation that us as the reader, could intake those strategies and use it to make our essays better. Through this chapter I was able to learn some new techniques. For example, he mentions how one should describe the scenic place of the essay to the point where we can let the reader not only imagine the place, but also make them feel as if they were there. That is one technique that I believe is very important in any essay.
Another key point that is interesting is, when he is describing the attitudes of the characters in his essay. He describes them in such detail that it made me think of new ways to describe the character in such detail that the reader will be able to almost feel like they are the characters themselves. Over all this is a very helpful chapter in writing creative pieces, and it had very important points.
Celica Chavez
Moore’s essay is a great example on how one should write a travel/nature essay along with the don’ts about writing one. His essay is a combination of nature and travel which is inspiring me to try and write my essay this way but I don’t think I have the, I guess I could say optimism because I can’t find the right word, and also the experience to try it. Moore’s little side notes during his essay helps us see the choices that he makes while writing his essay while also educating us into why he did this and how it helps the readers see, smell, taste what he or us experienced during that time. It also helps push the plot of the story and encourages the reader to continue by setting the stage in the beginning and introducing key figures that will continue to appear throughout his essay. I also found it intriguing how he was able to implement his thought and where he stood towards another essayist, Rebecca Solnit, in his essay. It surprised me to see that he was against this essayist who he admired highly and added some of her work in his past essays. He compares his essay to that of Solnit to show the different experiences that they had for she saw the trip as a polluted area that she seemed to expect as she went along her travel while Moore saw it as something else entirely. After reading this I want to see how it actually looks like and at the same time wonder why Solnit wrote what she did about the place.
ReplyDeleteAdrian Gonzalez
Moore in this chapter reminds us that a nature essay could be a wild one, hence "wilderness". He claims that one should bring out an interest to reel in the reader at the beginning of our essay, which is true for most essays. Unless you have a special interest or a need to criticize the author then you wouldn't travel trough bland writing. I think that particularly for nature essays, if one doesn't have a similar image of what nature can be then it is your duty to show them your experience, whatever that might have been. Moore claims to admire Solnit, but he does not agree with her essay. I find that to because he might of traveled to the same nature scene however, he had a different experience from nature. This can be difficult when you have had a previous experience at that same location at it doesn't correlate to that of what you are reading, and that's okay. When this happens, it is like Moore describes, you need to paint the picture for them as real as possible. Not only real, but that which is truthful. If a reader knows what is true in nature than it can be hard to validate the essay as one of nature. You must be honest and creative not only in your writing but with creativity, not jump into the fictional realm. I could see how with nature you could bring life to something that isn't there, but because it's possible it doesn't give the writer the right to mother the nature.
ReplyDelete-Elizabeth Diaz
This essay is a perfect balance of nature and travel. Moore takes us on a journey through the Rio Grande River, and really brings the reader to the muddy waters filled with plenty of wonders. As the journey progresses, we can notice that there has been somewhat of a character development. Through simple dialogue (and lack of), we can note the transition of attitude within the group as they get deeper into the canyons. The mood turns more solemn as the group continues to deal with the ruthless wilderness. No matter how prepared you come to this adventure, you can never really anticipate what nature must offer. I thought it was interesting how Moore mentions the “Canyon Effect”. Everyone remains silent, stuck in their thoughts, as though they are all going through the same epiphanies about what life and this journey is about. I imagine everyone else was thinking similarly as Moore, never having been removed from civilization and becoming aware of their own “smallness”.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Moore really admires Solnit’s work, he is not afraid to disagree with her account of the Rio Grande River. By taking on the adventure to the river, his opinion becomes just as credible as Solnit’s. His perspective on the Rio Grande River was a lot more pleasant than Solnit’s. Moore respects the difference of opinion, but also wants to try his best to show her what it is he experienced through his eyes. That is what truly leads to a genuine essay, the truth of your emotion and experiences. Moore accomplishes that with his vivid descriptions of newly-discovered insects and the sensation of fear, as well as making a fool of himself to his audience when he describes his tumbling into a narrow river. Although it was somewhat comical, it provokes a deeper point. The topic of man vs nature recurs throughout the entire essay, and though Moore is fine with a little bit of both arguments (being able to be a part of nature without overdoing it), he acknowledges it is not the place for man. “We have found nature, debated our place in it, and found little common ground”.
-Damaris Cantu
What I really enjoyed about his essay was that he was more than willing to go back and point out places where he messed up or was being biased, but he also made it a point to explain why he made some of the choices he did. On this note, it was also great to see how he used his bias to counter Solnit’s own biased opinion, because while the Rio Grande isn’t always picture-perfect, it is still nature and is still beautiful in its own right (like Moore said.)
ReplyDeleteOn another note, the way Moore described the scene and the whole trip through this essay was really fluid and natural, and it really does help give insight as to how a travel essay can be written. Instead of trying to keep up a voice that was a better version of himself, he kept it real and it is definitely felt in the tone of the essay. His tone also helped him deliver the rest of his groups personalities in a way that made them feel like actual people rather than characters he could have made up just to make his trip interesting. Overall, this really helped give a sense of what kind of direction we’re supposed to take with a travel essay.
Something else I noticed was that he wasn’t afraid to show the many different types of conflicts that occurred on the trip. I feel like most writers new to this specific type of essay would be unwilling to admit that they stirred up some conflict in the group. So, I thought it was great that he was willing to not only call out other problematic group members, but himself as well.
Ayesha Crutchfield
One word; exaggeration. The author compares his nature/travel essay with Rebecca Solnit’s essay and found it to be far different of what he experienced.
ReplyDeleteThe author really prepared himself for the trip as described in detailed in his essay. He described everything he encountered in detail and even the things he
thought he would encounter based on the essay of Solnit. After I was done reading I put the book aside of my bed and I asked myself, “Are writers or story tellers just like filmmakers or reporters?”
I watch a film and there is sense of exaggeration. It doesn’t matter if they say that its based on a true story, it is still a movie.
I am a filmmaker and I see every movie differently. Before I study filmmaking to me movies were magic. I learned how movies were made and that took the beauty out of it.
Same with the news. I took a communications class. We were thought words or phrases that had a sense of urgency or exaggeration.
The news package had to be made in way of interested even if the piece was not called for. The
Now with what I read where the author makes a canoe trip and wanted to experience what Solnit experienced. I won’t believe everything in an essay or a written piece.
I will probably read it, structure it differently in my mind or even doubt it.
-Luis Rodriguez
In chapter 10, A Closer Look: “Ah, Wilderness!”, Moore shows us an excellent example of a nature/travel essay. One of the main things I really liked about this chapter was how he inserted little notes in between his essay talking about why wrote what he wrote. For example, He begins comparing himself to Annie by saying how well-equipped she is and he isn’t. He states that he keeps “dropping [his] empty Gatorade bottle into the mud.” This detail, although minor, can say a lot of things about his character. It shows that he is not experienced in being out in the wilderness compared to his peers, i.e. Annie. Early on we can already tell that this is probably Moore’s first time canoeing down the river. It could also say that he may not be as serious and/or rigid as Annie is. There is also another aspect that really stood out to me in his essay. It is the idea that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” He begins referencing Solnit’s essay and how negative it was toward the Rio Grande River. Sonilt “[felt] threatened” while Moor only saw the Rio Grande’s beauty. I really like how he compared two completely opposite perspectives. Lastly, he talks about conflict. In order to have a great story there must be some sort of conflict and some sort of resolution or it will just “drift into static mode.” The conflict Moore incorporates is his opinion versus Sonilt.-
ReplyDelete-Raychelle Altamirano0
What I like most about Moore’s essay was I really felt like he painted a picture in my head of the entire experience. I could really feel like I was actually there in the canoe on the Rio Grande River. His style of writing and his goal with his writing is to make you feel like you are actually on the canoeing trip and you are actually experiencing this in real like. I also really liked the way he described the characters, I felt like I could see them, for instance Annie I felt like I could really see her, I had a perfect picture of her painted in my head. I also found it very helpful when she compared it to Solnit’s work you sort of go two different point of views. I feel like Solnit’s Essay paints a really good picture of what most people think about the Rio Grande River unlike Moore’s essay which gives you a whole new perspective. When he talks about the advice from Phillip Lopate I think that is very helpful and very true. Conflict is what makes a story or an essay interesting. His tips about arguing are very helpful as well because I feel like it’s really difficult to argue you idea without using your opinion and just being formal. The way he talks about facts I feel like I can really relate because I am the type of person that likes my facts to prove them self. If I wrote a well enough essay and really executed all the things I wanted to then I feel like I will get my point across and lay on the facts on the table.
ReplyDeleteJessica Young
This is my response
ReplyDeleteI found it extremely odd at first that Moore would take his time to go to a place and find all the things wrong with Solnit’s essay. It was interesting I had never encountered an essay like this reading before. In the end I can see why Moore went on this expedition and found all the wrong with her essay. I mean why not. He is giving the readers a different perspective and views from this canoe adventure. I also felt intrigued with the essay because it was somewhat close to home. Although it was just the Rio Grande River, not the valley. I think my mind always goes off and I come up with all these ideas. It’s funny how this experience for them was about nature and rocks and so on. Imagine they came and canoed on this side of the Rio Grande River, they would be surprised and Solnit wouldn't have to exaggerate as much as she does in her essay. I also found it scary how Moore went out to criticize her work. I think everyone has good work and sometimes you will have the no so good work. I do question what exactly what his intentions, like what do you get out of doing this? I think it's good to get feedback, but this to me was a little extreme, I would have to agree with Hector.
Lizette
There are a few positions I hold after my reflections. In the response to Solnit's essay, Moore employs a type of rhetoric that deflates the exaggerations of Solnit's position. He refers to her environmental position as "eco-extremist" (131) and calls out direct contradictions in her piece. His positions is not directly confrontational as a full on assault of her writing but a position in which he humanizes himself as an ordinary person with limited knowledge of the outdoors and one that is able to appreciate the experience rather than feeling "threatened every step of the way" (120). This contrasts in experiences gives the reader a choice of where their rational alliance should be. With a rational everyday person or a tin hat wearing dooms day prepper. He down plays his scrutiny of the man made contributions to damaging the earth, but also highlights his experience in nature into something meaningful and appreciated. This balance of creating a rational outlook on a specific area that was previosly considered to be compared to a toxic waste dumping ground, discredits Solnit in many ways. He does this by statements like "Solnit worries in print about the Sierra Blanca nuclear-waste dump. The proposed facility is not even open at the time she is writing (nor is it now)…" this causes a rational reader to reevaluate the position in which Moore is counter arguing and even without reading Solnit's essay, it discredits her and her views as biased. I say that because that's how influential that statement is to a fact-based reader, like myself. Overall, I liked the ways in which he was able to incorporate both genres of writings into a fun adventure type story that he enriched with his characters. I'm not sure how "fun" it would have felt without those contributions had it have only been Moore on the trip.
ReplyDelete-Amanda Gonzales
This was my first look at a travel essay. I didn’t know what to expect but it was interesting, and very detailed. It had my attention going throughout. It had a little bit of drama which is always good. Speaking of drama, that was one of the things that caught my attention. It was during one of Moore’s “breaks” in the essay, he takes this one to talk about conflict as an essential part of an essay. It struck me as curious because is a conflict really necessary to make an essay interesting and well executed? That’s one tip I had never heard of, but definitely willing to consider using in future writings. Other than that I really liked the point he was trying to make in this essay. I felt he wasn’t being biased or harsh on Rebecca Solnit, he was sharing that someone who is not an environmentalist can find beauty in nature. You don’t have to be well educated on the land and nature in order to appreciate it for what it is. I felt like Annie and Rebecca were almost the same. Her intensity and bluntness reflected off of Rebecca’s writing. I enjoyed his conflict, he had his internal conflict along with his external conflict with Annie. It seemed like Annie didn’t take him seriously because he wasn’t an environmentalist, he had something to prove to them and himself, that just because he wasn’t like them didn’t mean he wouldn’t appreciate the scenery and beauty of nature.
ReplyDelete-Bibi Ann Gonzalez
In “A closer look “Ah Wilderness””, Moore goes off about how one of his favorite writers writes about the Rio Grande Valley and doesn’t like how she describes the place at all. And decided to take the journey himself and see if it’s as bad as she makes it seem.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Moore the valley isn’t as bad as some people make it out to be. There are some really beautiful places that a lot of people don’t even know about. There are couple places which if you went, you wouldn’t realize that you’re still in the valley.
I like Moors essay it’s funny and entreating. Along the way, he explains how he wrote the essay a certain way and what he felt he needed to add in order for it to flow better. I liked that; the only thing I didn’t like is that there are too many interruptions in between his sort of long essay that are just too distracting. I also liked how he gave name descriptions to people. Like “Tall Doctor Dave”, I feel that it gives it a bit more meaning and you keep track as the reader of who is who.
Stephanie Cisneros