"I think that the most important requisite in describing an animal, is to be sure to give its character and spirit, for in that you have, without error, the sum and effect of all its parts, known and unknown.  You must tell what it is to man....  What is most interesting in a dog, for example, in his attachment to his master, his intelligence, courage, and the like, and not his anatomical structure or even many habits which affect us less."

What do you think about this statement, especially as regards Eckstein's "Two Lives" and perhaps John James Audubon's "White-headed Eagle" and Pandeya's fact sheet "Rough-legged Hawk"?
 
 

Hillary:  I agree with him that its important to capture the "spirit" of an animal rather than just describing it physically, but i don't think an animal's realtionship or importance to humasn is its most important aspect. Animals have value separate of what they mean to humans. IN the dog example, i think a dog's "intelligence and courage" are more important in capturing the essence of a dog than its "
Nelson:  I believe that an important part of an animal to understand is how it interacts with its own kind.  I think that shows a lot about the "nature" of the animal.  You cannot judge a person by how it interacts with a dog.
Mel:  I think it is interesting that man must describe everything in relation to how it affects his or her life. I agree that the animal may become more meanngful when described as "what is is to man", but I think it also losses some of its beauty as a natural animal.  Does man only love the dog becuase it is attached to his master, or do we love them for other reasons also?
Sylvie:  I agree with this passage that animals cannot be described simply by their anatomical structure or scientific name.  For animals, like humans, have an inner being that is most important.  Without describing this quality, the description is impersonal and unrealistic.
Nelson:  I agree with the first person.  A dog's interaction with a human only shows one side of the animal - and not necessarily the most important.
Nelson:  By describing and relating only to the physical aspect of an animal is superficial like it would be to only look at the outside of a person.
Sylvie:  I think that an animal's relationship to man may not be the most important aspect to an animal.  Most definitely not.  However, in order for mankind to appreciate animals the most, it is important to identify this relationship
Nelson:  Sorry about that last comment - it's not phrased well.
Mel:  I agree with the importance of looking at the dog's interactions with other dogs also becuase that relationship shows the true character and spirit of the animal.
Nelson:  My last comment
Nelson:  It is important for people to recognize the relationship between a dog and man, but that says nothing about the dog's personality.  What about it's relationship to squirrels?
Hillary:  I think "Nelson" made a really good point about how an animal interacts with its own kind showing its true nature. I also think its interesting that Thoreau wrote this considering that he is known for his appreciaion of nature.
peewee:  I really liked reading two gardens.  I think Pollen effectively used the space of the two gardens to convey a larger message about the structure of society and the expectations that are imposed on members of it.
Mel:  Once the relationship is defined between man and animal, it somehow sets limitaions to what that relationship can be. Looking at the essay from Mommaday, once the white settlers decided that their relationship to the bullls was to kill it and use it for money, they lost the beauty and apprecitaion for the living animal. The defined relationship lead to the destruction of a species.
peewee:  I think that when we write personal narratives or whenever we have the chance to add a subjective view in our descriptions, there tends to be an automatic association with our personal experiences.  The reason why we think dogs are worth writing about is because we see the importance of its relation to us as human beings.  I think the same holds true for all objects of our description.
Mel:  I liked two gardens also becuase it showed the way inwhich humans use nature and apperance of nature to define who they are.
Nelson:  I agree with Mel about the idea of the connection about man and animal.  Animals have lives which we are not necessarily, and most likely, are not a part of.  By ignoring the main. daily interactions of dags and other animals with their "friends" then it is not complete writing.
Hillary:  I liked two gardens a lot too. It kind of surprised me. I definately didn't think thats whrer he was going to go after the watermelon tragedy in the beginning. I think it conveyed the innocence of childhood through the little boys value of the garden and thesad contrast with the adults value of the gardens - as an economic investment and a symbol of social status.
Sylvie:  I think in writing about animals, It's important to include both relationships of animals... between other animals and also humans.  This is the only complete picture of an animal, you can not exclude either because both relationships show different qualities.
Mel:  I agree that it is easier to write about things which come into our daily contact becuase we understand them better. And that a personal narrative should use those daily experiences. But it seems that it would be just as an amazing essay to talk about something that we have always loved even if not in our daily lives.
Nelson:  I liked 2 Gardens, too.   The peice would be so different if it was written from an adults point of view.
peewee:  As much as we try to address the bigger picture of observing animals or something like gardens without attaching human experiences, it is almost inevitable that we attach human aspects to it.  bye!