Annie Dillard, "The Wreck of Time: Taking Our Century's Measure," and:

• David Abram, "The Ecology of Magic" and Ellen Dissanayake, "The Art of Making Special"
• Jasper Becker, "Selections from Mao's Hungry Ghosts"
• Jon Krakauer, "Selections from Into the Wild"
• Frans de Waal, "Selections from The Ape and the Sushi Master"

Annie Dillard's "The Wreck of Time"

In many ways, Annie Dillard's "The Wreck of Time" defies our common expectations about what a piece of writing should do: the essay has no clear thesis statement; it has no marked transitions between the paragraphs; it provides no obvious connection between its various subsections. Indeed, upon first reading Dillard's piece, one might be tempted to conclude that it's little more than the recitation of a series of unrelated statistics and the posing of a series of unanswered questions. What is it that Dillard wants us to think about while reading her essay? It isn't immediately clear.

This does not necessarily mean that "The Wreck of Time" is an example of failed writing, however; one could argue that Dillard has extended an invitation to her readers to participate in her project of "taking our century's measure." To be sure, Dillard demands a great deal from her readers: we must make the connections, fill in the blank spots, respond to her many unanswered questions, draw our own conclusions. Dillard's readers must work with her, making sense of the statistics she presents, answering the questions she poses.

For your first writing assignment, I would like you to take up this invitation. What does "taking our century's measure" mean for Dillard? Does Dillard have an argument to make about "our century"? What are you, as a reader of Dillard's essay, supposed to do with the information, the observations, and the juxtapositions she has brought together for your consideration? With these questions in mind, compose a 3-4 page essay that discusses Dillard's project in "The Wreck of Time." Make certain that you cite from Dillard's essay at least three times.

Richard E. Miller, Spring 2000

Back to top

The Place of Human Community in Dillard, Dissanayake, and Abram

On first reading David Abram's "The Ecology of Magic," one may be tempted to dismiss him as some "New Age" guru, hawking mysticism to the gullible masses. For his part, Abram distinguishes himself from those in the West who turn to shamanism in hopes of learning more about "personal insight and curing" (21). Abram goes on to write:

These are noble aims, to be sure, yet they are secondary to, and derivative from, the primary role of the indigenous shaman, a role that cannot be fulfilled without long and sustained exposure to wild nature, to its patterns and vicissitudes. Mimicking the indigenous shaman's curative methods without his intimate knowledge of the wider natural community cannot, if I am correct, do anything more than trade certain symptoms for others, or shift the locus of dis-ease from place to place within the human community. For the source of stress lies in the relation between the human community and the natural landscape (original emphasis, 21).

What does Abram mean when he alludes to "the relation between the human community and the natural landscape"? Where does the shaman fit into this relation? What is his "intimate knowledge of the wider natural community"? And, since Abram rules out "mimicking the indigenous shaman's curative methods," what would Abram have those who are interested in escaping the "stress" of modern life do?

After you've read Abram's essay and considered these questions, I would like you to write an essay that discusses how "the relation between the human community and the natural landscape" is understood in the writings we've read by Dillard, Dissanayake, and Abram. How do these authors characterize this relation? What forces are responsible for creating it? What forces cause this relation to be disrupted, distorted, destroyed? What relation do the authors feel is ideal? What, if any, purpose does this relation serve? And, of what use is it to write about such matters?

Richard E. Miller, Spring 2000

Back to top

Dillard and Becker

Dillard's "The Wreck of Time" and Becker's "Hungry Ghosts" both address the facts surrounding the deaths of millions of people. Dillard, of course, is less concerned with any one event than she is with other people's reactions to the events, while Becker focuses specifically on Mao's "Great Leap Forward" during the years from approximately 1956 to 1962.

In these two essays, what is the nature of loss? How can loss be measured? Do those measurements matter after the fact? How might Dillard interpret the long list of facts that Becker presents?

Marisa James, Fall 2000

Back to top

Krakauer and Dillard: The Significance of Death

Jon Krakauer tells us that Chris McCandless died in the Alaskan wilderness. What is the significance of that death? After all, as Annie Dillard quotes murderer Ted Bundy, "there are so many people" (194).

Krakauer tries "to make sense of McCandless's . . . death, yet his essence remains slippery, vague, elusive" (439). Dillard asks, "How can an individual count?" (195) For this paper, I would like to discuss what makes a human death significant or insignificant. As always, your paper should be built around your own argument about this topic as it emerges from your consideration of the readings. Thus three perspectives on how a death can be meaningful or meaningless -- Krakauer's, Dillard's, and your own -- should be put into dialogue in your paper.

Circle or underline your thesis in both your rough draft and final paper. This should be one to two sentences long and should appear on the first page.

Before you turn your paper in, make sure all of the following are true:

1. My essay analyzes the readings rather than merely summarizing them.
2. I have included effective and correct uses of quotation in every paragraph.
3. I have avoided repeating grammatical errors I have made in previous essays.
4. Each paragraph meets the paragraph checklist.
5. I have presented and argued a thesis.

Craig Eliason, Fall 2000

Back to top

Dillard and de Waal: Distress and Other Responses to Another's Pain

"Down with Dualism" concludes with de Waal's assertion "that distress at the sight of another's pain is an impulse over which we exert no control." In "The Wreck of Time," Annie Dillard reflects on major events in the last millennium, including great tragedies that involved the deaths of untold numbers of innocent victims. Do the stories that Dillard has to tell support de Waal's argument about nature or Huxley's? If "moral emotions" are part of the genetic makeup of humans, then how can we account for the disasters that Dillard describes? And how do we account for the fact that some, perhaps including Dillard, feel so little distress at learning about the pain others have experienced?

Back to top