*Note: Sorry this post is a day late. I was really sick yesterday and was unable to finish it.
“How can an old world be so innocent?” asks Annie
Dillard (Pilgrim at Tinker Creek 43).
Read out of context, one would have strong grounds to argue with her. “Haven’t
you glanced at a newspaper headline or flipped on a news station lately? You
don’t have to look far to conclude that the world is very much not an innocent place.” And yet, Dillard
asks this question after perusing the
newspaper and noting the annual photographs of cute animals, the cliché Valentine
or proposal, and child waiting for a push down the hill on a sled. Perhaps
Dillard means that the world is not so much “innocent” as that it looks for innocence, or a fresh take and
angle on something that would give respite from all the drudgery and gloom.
One of my
favorite bands is Switchfoot, and they wrote a song called “The Shadow Proves
the Sunshine.” (The chorus is basically the title, ha). But after watching this
music video that some of Switchfoot’s fans created, I was reminded of Dillard’s
chapter titled “Seeing” and her mention of the experiences of previously-blind
people when they gained their sight. If you watch this video, try to watch it
in terms of the “color-patches” that Dillard describes. At least for me, the
video really did seem to illustrate a confusing mass of color-patches and
disorienting lack of spatial reference points—which helped me better sympathize
with those people who newly received their sight.
I promise I’m
not mindlessly rambling; here’s my point: we can interpret Dillard’s story of
the “color-patches” and “seeing” as a metaphor for people’s search for
innocence. If shadows prove the sunshine, then perhaps we can seek hope behind
the seemingly unending scenes of hopelessness. Dillard writes, “But the
color-patches of infancy swelled as meaning filled them” (32). We’re so used to
encountering articles which are swelled with “meaning”—with agendas of all sorts.
What is more agenda-less than a picture of “an utterly bundled child crying
piteously on a sled at the top of a snowy hill” and captioned “‘Needs a Push’”?
At first glance, maybe not much. But then again, what if the photographer means
to spread awareness about parental abandonment or to promote familial values?
How might we interpret the photo as a symbol for a political statement or
issue? What if the photo implies the changing trends of technology and how most
children entertain themselves nowadays?
And so we search
for the sunshine casting the shadows, for the color-patches free from agenda,
for a reversion back to our nostalgic idea of idyllic, childhood “happiness.” But “[y]ou have never had it. All the things that have ever deeply possessed your soul
have been but hints of it—tantalising glimpses, promises never quite fulfilled,
echoes that died away just as they caught your ear. But if it should really
become manifest—if there ever came an echo that did not die away but swelled
into the sound itself—you would know it” (C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain). We search anyway. I think perhaps this is why
science features on animals are so popular. Yes, these animals are fascinating,
but the features don’t often have a “so what” in terms of how this information
affects people personally. Case in point: when trying to YouTube a video of the
“giant water bug” Dillard writes about (8), I discovered a video on the sidebar
called “Biggest Snakes in the World! SnakeBytes TV.” Upon finishing that video,
I seriously watched probably four or five other videos from the same channel
(this is why I typically don’t go on YouTube). The entire time I was thinking, “What
am I doing? I am wasting so much time! All these videos are basically about the
same thing: showing the viewer different snakes and explaining the genetics
behind each. And besides, I’m scared of snakes!” But I kept watching. Why? Well…the
snakes were pretty cool-looking. And maybe I was drawn to the color-patches
which weren’t really color-patches at all. At any rate, I thought the “search
for innocence” might be yet another reason (among the myriads) why people are
drawn to science writing.
Sadie, this is a really interesting post. I think the idea of innocence you’ve picked out is fascinating. I think it’s a really good lens through which to read Dillard. Anjeli also mentioned Dillard’s child-like curiosity in her post. I keep thinking of the story about the Polyphemus moth and how the narrator describes her innocence being crushed. This was clearly a big event for her, and it manifests in her fascination with newly hatched mantises and cadisfly larva. It seems like she’s attempting to reclaim that innocence, in almost a regressive way; her scientific curiosity always spins into a grappling with her own psyche: “All right then. Pull yourself together. Is this where I’m spending my life, in the ‘reptile brain,’ this lamp at the top of the spine like a lighthouse flipping mad beams indiscriminately into the darkness, into the furred thoraxes of moths, onto the backs of leaping fishes and the wrecks of schooners?” (95). This is clearly a personal battle as much as it is a self-discovery through awareness of her environment.
ReplyDeleteI think your connection between the color patches and innocence is right on. It compliments what I was saying in my post about the color patches being a celebration of reduced perspective, “both visual and conscious.” I must be a pompous ass for citing my own blog, but I think there’s a connection between a celebration of innocence and a celebration of reduced perspective.
Liam