Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Ecocriticism

I hope you all gleaned something regarding "ecocritical approaches" to literary analysis yesterday from Earl's presentation. Also, last week, we endeavored to detect the "environmental" ethos within certain essays (and I explained that "ethos" in this regard is not quite the same as the rhetorical appeal "to ethos" with which some of you are familiar). Our good friend Wikipedia tells us that "ethos," in the sense that I am using it to investigate literary texts, means "the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community, a nation or an ideology." So, certainly, while Earl did not say this directly, he was investigating Dan O'Brien's "environmental ethos." This "environmental ethos" was informed by a comedic approach to the natural world, according to Earl. What else did you learn from Earl's ecocritical project about Dan O'Brien's "environmental ethos"? What makes it, according to Earl, significant and interesting?

11 comments:

  1. Earl seemed to point out that the "environmental ethos" of O'Brian is unique because of the approach taken by O'Brian. This special approach to the environment seemed to be based off a comedic approach (according to Earl) and not the form of a tragedy or other work of fiction. O'Brian apparently focused on placing nature in a comedic regard, rather than focus on nature being destroyed by humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The biggest idea in regards to environmental ethos that struck me was the concept that humanity is a part of nature, when it usually is seen as the enemy or abuser. In most cases of environmental activism, the human race is seen as these viruses that are infecting the natural processes. While it is impossible to disregard the degree to which humanity is exploiting the envirnment, the idea that a sultion is as simple as understanding how to live alongside nature, instead of the usual enemy approach. This ethos, if taken in th emore general definition, makes the audience, and me, think that humanity is compltetely capable of learning our place in nature. This time as an integral part and not a abusing foreman.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What I learned from Earl's well orchestrated presentation was also what made the presentation so interesting. From the start of his paper, Earl emphasized the fact that O'Brien didn't write these series of stories to be a vessel for environmental activists. Therefore, not only were these stories comical, but with an open mind and a appreciation for good writing and the environment, a reader will be able to see how these short stories can convey an immediacy for environmental awareness and treatment...

    ReplyDelete
  4. From what I understand, Earl thought that Dan O'Briend was a large contributor to the world of environmental rhetoric because of his unconventional view of the relationship between humans and nature. Earl said that Dan O'Brien believes humans and nature should coexists because they help one another, as evidenced by various example stories in O'Brien's writing. The reason why this is contributive to environmental rhetoric is because eco-critics typally side with nature, saying humans are nothing but destructive and nature doesnt benefit from having a relationship with humans. I thought Earl's presentation was engaging because his paper had an element of eloquence. My favorite part of his paper was when he describes inheritance as "arbitrary". Although he didn't elaborate on it as much as I wished he would've, that phrase really stuck with me and it's been on my mind for a while now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with the other bloggers that Earl thought that what made O'Brien's arguement so effective was his rather unconventional responses to the balance between humans and nature. While most environmentalists take a rather serious approach the topics, O'Brien tends to use humor in his work. O'Brien also tended to drift towards the middle of the agruement, not really going towards either side of the arguement, which was another one of his ethos, not really going to one side or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What I learned wasn't quite as broad or smart-sounding as everyone else's comments, but it was specific and intrigued me. He mentioned that O'Brien uses a scene of a sunset with smoke from a bulldozer in front of it to symbolize human's and nature's balance. I found that immensely interesting because that was not how I would have interpreted the scene. It was an interesting twist, which is what I believe everyone else is mentioning: that Earl found an interesting approach to O'Brien's writings.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The strongest point that I think Earl made about Dan O'Brien's writing is that humans are just as part of the natural world as anything else. Although I am a firm believer in the necessity to reduce the level of damage that people inflict on the environment, I also think it is important to realize that we are not altogether harmful towards it. Collectively, people have become much more environmentally conscious and caring. As long as we continue on this path, Dan O'Brien's view will remain true-- humans can coexist and grow with the natural world.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The strongest point O'Brien's work brings up is our relationship with the idea of environment. When people talk about "The environment" they are almost hallways referring to natural ecosystems. But the word environment is very broad term that refer to any number of things. A city is as much an environment as a forest. O'Brien realizes this and is then able to present very different story's of environmental conservation. Saving a junkyard does not sound like a typical environmentalist piece but a junkyard is an environment like any other. O'Brien reminds us that the environment is not something that can ever be destroyed. It can only be altered (possibly to a point of inhospitableness like the environment on Venus). By examining non-biological environments O'Brien is able to catch us off guard and present ideas as to what an environment means to people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Earl's presentation showed that O'Brien's environmental ethos was unique compared to many views of human interactions with nature. Usually human actions are seen as going against nature, but O'Brien inadvertently makes it appear that human actions work with nature. According to Earl, O'Brien's ethos is interesting because of the rarity of this kind of viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with dingo. Often in the English language words are thrown around wthout their true context being considered before just being interjected into a sentence. We need to be careful with the words we say and the connotations that back up those words. Because of this, O'Brian does a good job of explaining his views in a way that isn't problematic in terms of word usage. This, according to Earl, helps make O'Brian's argument effective.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I also agree. His word choice definately added to the whole context of his overall paper. Educated words added to an intellectual paper help to prove the argument presented and to influence the reader to follow the ideals of the writer.

    ReplyDelete