Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Annie Dillard, Harper Perennial Modern Classics New York,NY:1974 2/2

Through out her book Annie Dillard was very descriptive of nature. It makes me wonder how she would observe a city. I feel like she wouldn't be able to stand it. At times she would interact with nature but most of the time she would observe. She follows nature through out the seasons. She explores many different beliefs, like the Roman belief that bees can be killed from a persons echo. She isn't afraid to question humans and to try and be one with nature. Her stillness, patience, and watchfulness are very rare especially today. The book is basically full of her observations and beliefs. I honestly can't read through description that long so I had to take it one step at a time. Maybe to her, that would say something about me. How I could never see what she saw or heard what she heard. I'm too comforted by the continuance of noise among other things. The whole book makes me wonder what it would have been like had Adam and Eve not eaten the fruit. Would we have named a tree a tree? Would we be on the same level as nature? I also wonder if people are offended by this book. It did talk of God but of Allah as well and it talked of various traditions/sayings by people. She also compares humans to nature, but one comparison that got to me was one she made on humans and mosquitoes. She labeled us as parasitic like them. We nibble away at things and I guess in a way we do. We kind of suck everything dry if not accounted for. Maybe the Earth would be better off with out us but would the solution be to get rid of us or simply be shown the way to in Annie Dillard's eyes correctly handle nature? I guess that would depend on your beliefs because in the Bible God put Adam in charge of naming all the animals and what not. which actually brings me back to the wondering whether or not we'd be on the same level if he hadn't eaten the fruit. Now she'll always have me wonder if I would've seen a squirrel or a tree differently. Now when ever I see a tree I think of the tree with lights in it.

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Annie Dillard, Harper Perennial Modern Classics New York,NY:1974 1/2

Before I begin I'd like to note that for some reason, as I read the book, I kept thinking the writer was male. I kept wanting to call her him and I'm not exactly sure why. Maybe it's her style of writing. I'm not use to reading a book with so much description of surroundings. Some parts I found boring, but I got through it. Getting through the first chapter was the hardest for me, but once I did it got a little better. Dillard sees the world as something we can never fully comprehend. The reason we can't comprehend it is because we aren't equal with nature. We aren't equal with all the animals. Of course this happened because of Adam and Eve. She wonders how we would view the world if they didn't obtain the knowledge that God had. That's another thing she puts into place a lot, biblical references. Her main thing on religion seems to be of course the Earth was created by some higher being, look at how complex it is. This book makes me think, it makes me wonder what it would feel like to be blind, to be equal with animals. Not every one can observe and get the beauty of nature over all. The complexity of it is fascinating. Being human, we can only try to understand what we see, what's really happening.What really caught my eye was the thing on cataracts. It must e cool to not be able to see and after surgery you see everything. i never thought that they wouldn't know what things are, that they would be comfortable with their disability that they wouldn't like being "normal" when they first opened their eyes. I like the way they would describe colors and things because they hadn't grown up learning it. I wonder how exactly you would end a book like this, the chapters are labeled as seasons or an adjective describing a part of nature. Maybe she'll end with a season.

The Stand 1/3 analysis

In the book The Stand by Stephen King, a modified version of the flu virus leaks out of a military base. Made for biological warfare, the strand of the virus does it's job, wiping out most of the American population as it spreads. The government is determined to cover their own ass, as they have broke a treaty and if other countries knew, then they too might create their own. Introduced are many characters, that are or eventually will be affected by the virus in some way whether it's from them dying or some one close to them. As people die, the government lies saying the rumors of biological warfare aren't true as they continue to try to cover their ass. They say they have a vaccine, and that everyone must remain calm, and anyone who spreads this truth is "dealt with". Among the dying are some survivors immune to the virus and people that have given up hope as society falls apart. Soldiers are forced to shoot unarmed citizens and under pressure some soldiers go awol and open fire on their own. This book shows a society that at first, though it has it's faults, doesn't seem like a dystopia, but as secrets kept from society leak out of the government, many lives are lost. The world can change at a drop of the hat and human error is overlooked as people try to advance technology, even if it may kill them. Biological warfare, once released, can't be controlled, so it's a perfect example of technologies reign over humans. Everything in it's path will die and the government is seen as an enemy that can't be trusted. Before it was what kept society together. This also feeds into the obstruction of power and how humans eventually can't handle all the power and it crumbles under them. The unknown destroys them and though the truth is out, the government is cold-hearted and determined to deny the obvious costing so many lives. This feeds into the idea of society being destroyed by what it doesn't know.