Response to: Annie Dillard: “Weasel is Wild”

Annie Dillard takes a much more vivid and violent approach to essay writing in "Living Weasel is Wild". In this passage, Dillard describes a small confrontation between herself and this rodent, referring to them as "two lovers, or enemies". To begin her account, Dillard describes the preying of a weasel; how he "stalks" and kills "more bodies than he can eat warm". Although, the author contradicts this strong interpretation of a weasel by proceeding to an anecdote about Ernest Thompson Seton. Seton says that a man "shot an eagle out of the sky" and "found the dry skull of a weasel fixed by the jaws to his throat". By choosing to share this with the reader, Dillard explores the idea of the weasel as a victim. Dillard then states that these ponderings featuring weasels were inspired when she "saw one last week" "near [her] house in Virginia" by Hollis Pond. She goes on to produce a detailed description of the pond and her meeting with the "arrowhead"-like rodent. Dillard felt as though this experience were as if she had "been in that weasel's brain for sixty seconds". This experience causes the author to examine life through the eyes and mind of a rodent. She realizes the value of "mindlessness" and the "purity of living". Dillard then toys with the idea of fully embodying the creature and "live for two days in the den" and living where "the mind is single". In her final thoughts, Dillard leaves the reader to ponder the idea of "living at every moment to the perfect freedom of single necessity".

        I truly can never say I wanted to step into the mind of an animal. (I read Anamorphs as a kid, and I think they may have ruined that whole super power for me.) Although, I can say I have always felt a strong connection to animals, mostly my pet dogs. I was bullied throughout elementary school, and therefore, I did not feel as though I had many friends. This may sound sad, but that is where my dog came in: Jake. Jake was a black Labrador retriever who my parents had had since before I was born. He was my pet, my companion, and my best friend. I could talk to him about anything (no judgment); cuddle all over him, and play; all things and struggling nine-year-old needs. If I could have jumped within Jake's brain all I could hope to find was the same amount of love for my family and me as we had for him. We loved Jake as a member of our family, when I was twelve, he passed away. I can honestly say, that is the most emotional I have ever been. Losing Jake was like losing my best friend, but I knew, from the way Jake had always been, that he would have wept the same way over losing one of us, as we did over losing him.

        Once again, I find myself questioning Dillard's purpose in writing this passage. How did this experience affect her life in the future? And why did Annie feel it was so significant she felt the need to reflect back on her feelings after time had gone by? I am also curious about her use of such violent and, frankly, gross language. How was she hoping this language usage would affect the readers? Although, I personally enjoy a darker take on description, use of words and phrases such as “carcasses” and “splitting the jugular vein” could have easily turned off the more innocent reader. This change in writing style from “The Chase”, was welcomed in my mind, but could be considered shocking in others. I can hope that as we continue to read Annie Dillard’s essays, she does not sugarcoat her descriptions, although, I must ask, if these artistic choices were ever second-guessed by the author. 

Response to: David Sedaris: "That's Amore"

David Sedaris's "That's Amore" primarily focuses on Helen. Helen is Sedaris's elderly and spunky neighbor while he and his good friend and writing partner Hugh lived in a dodgy New York apartment building. The essay goes on to describe Helen in great detail as an "Arrogant, pushy, proudly, almost fascistically opinionated" woman with an extremely quotable personality. On Hugh's first encounter with Helen she immediately insists that he carries her groceries for her, no questions. Upon Sedaris's first encounter with the woman, she tells him, "Mess with me, and I'll stick my foot so far up your ass I'll lose my shoe.'" Although from the outward appearance, Helen appears rude and unpleasant, Sedaris describes his relationship with her as if she were a "grandmother". Sedaris found that when he didn't get his always daily interaction with her he "missed her, or at least missed someone [he] could so easily drop in on." The author found that the “beauty of Helen" was that "she was always there, practically begging to be disturbed." At times he would call her a "friend" but quickly second guess his choice of language with statements like "Was that a friend, or had I chosen the wrong word? What was the name for this thing we had?" Helen is once described by a short anecdote explaining how she would stubbornly only give gifts to those who do not ask for them. It is obvious that Helen must also see a friend in Sedaris as she calls him one day when she has "taken three strokes" and again when, with some humor on Sedaris's part, she asks him to fetch her dentures from the "planter in front of [the] building". Nearing the end of his essay, Sedaris seems to have some guilt about the end of his relationship with Helen. One day, Helen asks the author to put some shoe polish on a stain on the ceiling of her apartment. For unknown reasons, Sedaris quickly tell her "tomorrow" and leaves. Later that day, Hugh hears a crash in Helen's apartment. She had tried to apply to polish to her ceiling herself and fell off the stool, resulting in a broken hip. While in the hospital, "the problem wasn't her broken hip, but the series of strokes that followed her operation." At her funeral, Sedaris meets many of Helen's friends and family and they reflect on the hilarity of Helen's life. In a final reflection, Sedaris thinks back to a day when Helen was feeling some pain in her shoulder. She had asked him to rub some Tiger Balm on the area and he obliged.

            There is this woman, her name is Carol, and I have been performing in shows with her since I was a sophomore in high school. While reading David Sedaris’s essay, all I could think of was this woman and they way I felt about her. It is uncannily similar to Sedaris’s relationship with Helen. No, Carol is not an eighty-year-old senile woman, although she shares many characteristics with Helen. She is so very stubborn. She is also a complainer. Oh my, I could go on for hours about how negative Carol is. She is about sixty-years-old, and therefore, is always cast as the mother or grandmother in all the show’s I have been in with her. Every time, without fail, Carol will feel the need to complain how the director sees her as old or doesn’t think her acting capabilities are good enough for a more “important” role. Deep down, I believe, Carol understands why she is given these roles, but she enjoys the complaining regardless. Although, I am not a big fan of negativity (especially in the theatre), I still find myself loving Carol as if she were a close family member of mine. I feel I can speak for the rest of our past casts by saying each of us has had an encounter with Carol and her complaining, and each of us has just stood there, listened intently and enjoyed our conversations with Carol. She has an infectious and engaging personality.

            I would like to ask the author why he felt the need to explain so many similar anecdotes to the audience instead of just describing the woman in detail. Sedaris seemed to let the audience make their own judgments of Helen, based on the stories he told. Did he mean to use so much negative connotation? Or were those the honest descriptions of the events? I cannot pinpoint how the author managed to make the reader still have a fondness for Helen, despite the annoying stories he told about her. I must also always ask why the author found Helen a significant person to write about.