E-226 Literature and Nature

In this essay I will look at the use of language and imagery in literary works where nature

writing is found. I will examine how authors like Henry David Thoreau, Herman Melville,

John Muir and Emily Dickinson describe nature and how they relate to nature in their

works, more specifically if they describe it accurately in a representational way or

metaphorically. In my discussion I will apply concepts of Laurence Buell and his “dual

accountability” in order to explain the paradoxes found in nature writing. In this essay my

main focus will be how the accuracy of nature writing is achieved in different ways. In

addition, I will look at how this creates alienation or familiarization, distance or closeness

between the reader and nature through the use of anthropomorphisms, personification,

gendering and “naturalization”.

Nature’s inexpressibility

“Nature” is a very vague concept and is widely used in many contexts, from human nature

to brute nature. What is natural and what is unnatural? Herman Melville tried to be very

precise in his depiction of nature, more specifically the marine nature, nature at sea, in his

monumental Moby Dick. Not only did he attempt to describe sea life in specific detail, but

also the whole nature of whaling did he venture to describe in meticulous detail. This

attempt to represent nature as truthfully as possible is a problematic one as seen in the

following passage from the novel, which could also be regarded as a metaphor for the

mysterious feelings we have for nature. It is a relationship with mixed feelings of

admiration and hesitant fear of the unknown:

Almost forgetting for the moment all thoughts of Moby Dick, we now gazed at the
wondrous phenomenon which the secret seas have hitherto revealed to mankind. A
vast pulpy mass, furlongs in length and breadth, of a glancing cream-color, lay

1
 E-226 Literature and Nature

floating on the water, innumerable long arms radiating from its centre, and curling
and twisting like a nest of anacondas, as if blindly to clutch at any hapless object
within reach. No perceptible face or front did it have; no conceivable token of either
sensation or instinct; but undulated there on the billows, an unearthly, formless,
chance-like apparition of life.
(Melville, Moby Dick, “Squid”, 261)

In this passage Melville tries to describe a sea creature identified as a gigantic squid.

Interestingly he makes use of words and phrases like “the secret seas”, “innumerable”, “no

perceptible face”, “blindly” and “unearthly”. Nature is almost portrayed as something that

cannot be described. The “secret seas” possess creatures with no human feature, no firm

body but “a vast pulpy mass” with no face and “no conceivable token of either sensation

or instinct”. Moreover it seems like this creature of the depths is a “chance-like apparition

of life”, it is part of the unpredictability of nature. In its extreme paradoxical sense it

appears to be almost “unnatural”, which complicates even further the conception of what

nature really is.

Henry David Thoreau also finds it difficult to portray nature at Walden Pond

accurately to his readers in Walden, although he depicts nature as truthfully as he can

throughout. Nevertheless he makes use of anthropomorphisms and religious imagery in

order to communicate the beauty of nature to the reader: “A lake is the landscape’s most

beautiful and expressive feature. It is the earth’s eye; looking into which the beholder

measures the depth of his own nature” (Walden, Chapter 9: “The Ponds”, 1866). Thoreau

makes use of anthropomorphic imagery to express the inexpressible.

The inexpressibility of nature and the impotency of language are expressed in some

of Emily Dickinson’s poems. Language is impotent in describing nature accurately to the

reader because of the cultural constructs that bind language. Emily Dickinson arrives at

2
 E-226 Literature and Nature

this conclusion in her poem “668”: “Nature is what we know/Yet have no art to say/So

impotent Our Wisdom is/To Her Simplicity”.

Dickinson’s poem expresses frustration because we cannot use language to

describe nature in perfect detail due to its insufficient means of representation. Her

attempt to make nature familiar through language fails. She can only experience nature

accurately through her senses, or intuition. To some extent we can say that nature, or the

meaning of it, is inexpressible. Melville and Thoreau would both perhaps agree to this.

The Idea of Accuracy

Nevertheless, nature writers do try to communicate their experience with nature in their

respective works. Thoreau does it in his detailed description of Walden Pond and Melville

through Ishmael in Moby Dick. Melville becomes almost scientific when he lets Ishmael

explains the tail of the whale:

The entire member seems a dense webbed bed of welded sinews; but cut into it, and
you find that three distinct strata compose it: - upper, middle, and lower. The fibres
in the upper and lower layers, are long and horizontal; those of the middle one, very
short, and running crosswise between the outside layers. This triune structure, as
much as anything else, imparts power to the tail.
(Melville, Moby Dick, “The Tail”, 347)

Almost like a marine biologist Melville lets Ishmael cut through the sinews and skin of the

whale with words as his tools with a clinical precision in this passage. The accuracy is

extreme and Melville makes every layer of the tail “visible” to the reader without using any

metaphoric language of any kind. With the precision of a doctor he cuts through the skin

in an attempt to portray the workings of the tail, as a pathologist would show how a

3
 E-226 Literature and Nature

human organ works. Thoreau is rarely as “scientific” but he too attempts to describe

nature in the manner of a naturalist:

At length the sun’s rays have attained the right angle, and warm winds blow up mist
and rain and melt the snow banks, and the sun dispersing the mist smiles on a
checkered landscape of russet and white smoking with incense, through which the
traveler picks his way from islet to islet, cheered by the music of a thousand tinkling
rills and rivulets whose veins are filled with the blood of winter which they are
bearing off.
(Thoreau, Walden, Chapter 17: “Spring”, 1927)

Both writers treat accuracy from two different viewpoints in these quotes, both the

“scientific” and the “poetic”. Melville presents the seascape with many poetic renderings in

Moby Dick and Thoreau displays “scientific” ways of presenting nature, especially in the

case of the temperatures of the lake.

Lawrence Buell’s coined the expression of “dual accountability” which is applied

“to matter and to discursive mentation” (Buell, “Representing the Environment”, 92),

where the narrative intention is to describe nature as accurately as possible, but

simultaneously construct its meaning or attribute a certain philosophy to it. Buell presents

the idea of “dual accountability” as a relation between representation and construction

where “literature’s referential dimension” (86), in which emphasis emphasize is on the

accuracy of representation, is interconnected with the “poesis, textuality, ideology, the

unconscious” (92) of the constructive element in literature.

The concern with representational accuracy, then, is found in both Melville’s

clinical precision and Thoreau’s poetic portrayal of spring at Walden Pond. Thoreau uses

quite neutral words like “warm” and “melt”, but he makes use of anthropomorphisms such

as “the sun smiles on a checkered landscape (…) smoking with incense”. Notwithstanding

this stylized image, Thoreau both represents and constructs nature because his ambition is

4
 E-226 Literature and Nature

to “put the reader or viewer in touch with the environment” (Buell, “Representing the

Environment”, 97). Basically, when discussing the idea of accuracy in nature writing one

needs to take in consideration the idea of “environmental art as a deliberate dislocation of

ordinary perception” (104), which essentially serves the purpose of bringing the reader

closer to the subject matter of the text.

Anthropomorphism

In the works in question the authors often ascribe human characteristics like evil and good

to animals and natural phenomena. It is especially interesting how Melville portrays the

sharks in Moby Dick. They are presented as malignant creatures with blood thirst and

represent the dark side of Darwinism, and may be compared to the way in which Thoreau

writes about the brutality of the ants (Walden, Chapter 12: “Brute Neighbors” 1888-). The

sharks seem to be presented as embodied evil:

They viciously snapped, not only at each other’s disembowelments, but like flexible
bows, bent around, and bit their own; till those entrails seemed swallowed over and
over again by the same mouth, to be oppositely voided by the gaping wound. Nor
was this all. It was unsafe to meddle with the corpses and ghosts of these creatures.
A sort of generic or Pantheistic vitality seemed to lurk in their very joints and bones,
after what might be called the individual life had departed.
(Melville, Moby Dick, “The Shark Massacre”, 283)

In this carnage, where sharks flock around a whale corpse that hangs from the ship,

nature’s darker sides are depicted with vivid gruesome detail. Melville describes them as

vicious, acting in the unrestrained manner of a mob. Furthermore, he writes that there

seem to be a “Pantheistic vitality” that lurks “in their very joints and bones”, which could

imply that they are part of the unpredictability of nature’s law. We could also observe the

amorality of nature in Dickinson’s poem “328” where she describes a bird: “A Bird came

5
 E-226 Literature and Nature

down the Walk/He did not know I saw/He bit an Angleworm in halves/And ate the fellow,

raw” (Dickinson, “328”).

In another passage Melville describes a gigantic sperm whale that “lay rolling in the water

like the capsized hull of a frigate, his broad, glossy back, of an Ethiopian hue, glistening in

the sun’s rays like a mirror” (“Stubb Kills A Whale”, 266). This use of

anthropomorphisms, like “the hull of a frigate” with an “Ethiopian hue” makes the sight of

the whale more familiar to us as readers, but how accurate is it? As with the malevolence

of the sharks, we can also picture a capsized frigate at sea, but does this image bring us

closer to nature? Melville continues to describe the whale as “a portly burgher smoking his

pipe of a warm afternoon” (“Stubb Kills A Whale”, 266). This is yet another

anthropomorphism of social life used to describe the tranquility of the whale.

Such a use of anthropomorphism is very problematic because it may complicate the

image we get of the whale. Melville’s use of images like “a frigate” or “a portly burgher

smoking his pipe” could distract and alienate the reader from the objective of the passage,

namely to describe a nature scene where a whale comes to the surface. Why does he use

these cultural-linguistic phrases? His intentions may produce different reactions in the

reader. On the one hand the reaction may involve a feeling of detachment from the whale,

but on the other hand the reaction may lead to familiarization and identification with the

whale. Melville creates a familiar image of “a portly burgher smoking his pipe” which

humanizes the whale and this essentially reinforces the drama a few passages later when

the whale is attacked: “The red tide now poured from all sides from the monster like

brooks down a hill” (“Stubb Kills A Whale”, 269). A serene image is suddenly turned into

a bloody slaughter and Melville has created a violent opposition between the initial

6
 E-226 Literature and Nature

presentation of the whale through anthropomorphism and then the sudden manifestation of

the whale as a “monster”. In a way we can assert that Melville employs cultural-linguistic

phrases in order to create a dynamics between closeness and distance to the whale, which

ultimately results in a violent reaction with the reader since a familiarity is established prior

to the forthcoming bloodshed.

In an excerpt from John Muir’s The Mountains of California Mount Ritter, located in

Yosemite National Park, is depicted with human features. As Muir makes his way through

“the yawning chasm of the foot” and onwards to “the mouth of a narrow avalanche gully”

where he encounters “the mountain face” (Muir, “The Range of Light”, 253). Muir applies

much religious anthropomorphism like “cathedrals”, “turrets” and “spires” as well (255-

256): “Colossal spires 200 feet in height waved like supple goldenrods chanting and

bowing low as if in worship, while the whole mass of their long, tremulous foliage was

kindled into one continuous blaze of white sun-fire” (Muir, “The Range of Light”, 260).

Surely, this religious anthropomorphism had another impact on contemporary readers in

Muir’s time than in our times where religious references may not “help” the reader to

picture the landscape. This use of anthropomorphism may very well distract and distance

the modern reader from the subject matter.

Notwithstanding religious imagery Muir applies well-known anthropomorphisms

that has become worked into our language when we speak of nature, as in the “shoulder”

or the “foot” of mountains. These kinds of anthropomorphism assist us in relating to

nature and this is how Melville, like Muir, tries to communicate the sight of a scene in

nature, be it a mountain or a whale. The poet, or the writer, uses a language to connect us

as readers to the subject matter. By using anthropomorphisms both Melville and Muir

7
 E-226 Literature and Nature

make a connection between human culture and nature’s “massive picture” (Muir, “The

Range of Light”, 252).

Melville’s cultural-linguistic construct of the whale as a “frigate” is intended to

familiarize the reader who has never seen a whale, but knows how a capsized frigate looks

like because that may feel more familiar in society. In the same way Muir represents the

mountain as something human in order to make it familiar, but one could also argue that

he de-naturalizes it by humanizing it. In other words he makes the mountain more of a

cultural phenomena than a natural one, which may create an unintended distance to the

subject matter and the idea of presenting nature accurately. Indeed, whether

anthropomorphic language distracts or familiarizes the reader with nature is essentially a

question of connotation and interpretation.

Thoreau makes use of anthropomorphisms in Walden when he writes about on how the

leaves turn in the fall: “And gradually from week to week the character of each tree came

out, and it admired itself reflected in the smooth mirror of the lake. Each morning the

manager of this gallery substituted some new picture, distinguished by more brilliant or

harmonious coloring, for the old upon the walls” (Walden, Chapter 13: “House-Warming”,

1893). Indeed, this is another example of how the author humanizes natural objects and

grants them an identity, which displays unity with nature and a respect for it. Thoreau feels

close to the trees and eagerly observes the change in color of their leaves.

In Walden there are also examples of “naturalization” where Thoreau identifies

himself with nature and attributes natural phenomena to himself: “I grew in those seasons

like corn in the night” (Walden, Chapter 4: “Sounds”, 1827). This type of imagery works

in the opposite way of anthropomorphism, but has the same purpose of bringing the nature

8
 E-226 Literature and Nature

and man closer. One could argue that there exists a paradoxical relation between the

distance and closeness created by “naturalization” as well, which even so leads to an

understanding of nature. However, “naturalization” takes nature as its point of departure;

it attributes nature to man and thus make the unity between them more striking. Nature is

where Thoreau feels like he belongs: “I go and come with a strange liberty in Nature, a

part of herself” (Walden, Chapter 5: “Solitude”, 1836). Indeed, human nature is inevitably

part of nature and through the means of language we try to relate to it and express this

relationship.

The Gendering of Nature

The gendering of nature is found in all our works of nature writing. This is another

example of how the poets try to connect nature with man and make it familiar. It is

especially obvious how Melville ascribes femininity to the sky and masculinity to the sea in

Moby Dick:

It was a clear steel-blue day. The firmaments of air and sea were hardly separable in
that all-pervading azure; only, the pensive air was transparently pure and soft, with a
woman’s look, and the robust and man-like sea heaved with long, strong, lingering
swells, as Samson’s chest in his sleep. Hither, and thither, on high, glided the snow-
white wings of small, unspeckled birds; these were the gentle thoughts of the
feminine air; but to and from the depths, far down in the bottomless blue, rushed
mighty leviathans, sword-fish, and sharks; and these were the strong, troubled,
murderous thinkings of the masculine sea.
(Melville, Moby Dick, “The Symphony”, 490)

The feminine features are “pure and soft” as in “the snow-white wings of small,

unspeckled birds” or like the air which is filled with “gentle thoughts”. The masculine

features are “robust” and “murderous” as in violent and phallic references such as “man-

9
 E-226 Literature and Nature

like sea heaved with long, strong, lingering swells” or “rushed mighty leviathans, sword-

fish, and sharks”. These are well-known divisions of femininity and masculinity. When

used in nature writing violence and malice are usually attributed to the male sex, whilst

maternity and tenderness is attributed to the female sex. In Dickinson’s poem we see

explicit examples of this where she speaks of nature as «the Gentlest Mother» who has

«Her Golden finger on Her lip/Wills Silence - Everywhere-» (Dickinson, “790”), whereas

and the masculinity is portrayed with something frightening and with sexual undertones: «I

dreaded that first Robin, so/But He is mastered, now, I’m some accustomed to Him

grown/He hurts a little though» (Dickinson, “348”).

If one could say that this division of femininity and masculinity is a sexual one as

well Thoreau has another example of gendered anthropomorphism which presents us with

different associations as he depicts nature as: “A ruddy and lusty old dame, who delights in

all weathers and seasons, and is likely to outlive all her children yet” (Walden, Chapter 6:

“Solitude”, 1841). Nature’s “lustiness” not withstanding, more than anything else this line

gives connotations of security and care of a grandmother. Nature is likened to something

we all associate with protection and nurture, and thus appreciate.

Gendering as a literary technique works in both directions of familiarization and

detachment. As human beings we can relate to gendering and sexuality in nature and this

can make us familiar with the “gentility” of the female or the “robustness“ of the male. On

the other hand gendering bases itself on cultural stereotypes. These stereotypes are one-

dimensional and thus create a very one-dimensional view of nature. In spite of the

biologically and historically concept of the “brutality” of men and the “sweetness” of

women this may not necessarily bring one closer to a precise description of nature and its

phenomena.

10
 E-226 Literature and Nature

Distance or closeness to nature

In my discussion I want to see if the use of anthropomorphisms in nature writing creates a

sense of closeness between nature and man. In the examples I have used above there are

attempts to make nature familiar, which often is the intention of anthropomorphism,

whether or not that familiarity relates to sweet or disturbing aspects of nature. Ahab

makes Moby-Dick into something evil, but as Starbuck tells him: “See! Moby Dick seeks

thee not. It is thou, thou, that madly seekest him!” (Moby Dick, “The Chase - Third Day”,

516). Ahab makes Moby-Dick embody total malice and devotes his life to pursue and kill

it. In the end this leads to Ahab’s doom; he brings the rest of the Pequod’s crew with him

into the depth of the sea, except Ishmael whose life is spared so he can tell the story of

human monomania. Nature is what it is, namely nature, and we are part of it. We need to

acknowledge this or else will we feel detached from nature and disillusioned like Ahab.

In his chapter “Brute Neighbors” Thoreau recounts a scene of battling ants as if it

were a war report. There are “legions” of ants that cover the surrounding hills, which are

“strewn with the dead and dying”. Thoreau likens the “internecine war” to a “battle”

between “red republicans” and “black imperialist” (Walden, Chapter 12: “Brute

Neighbors”, 1888). He ascribes human history and politics to the ants, which represent the

brutality of nature. Interestingly war is often called “barbaric” and “uncivilized” and

attributed to our natural, brutal instincts, but Thoreau employs cultural-linguistic

constructs of war to describe the ants’ actions. Thoreau makes the account of the battle

very vivid to us as he “enlarges” it into a human perspective by using anthropomorphisms

like “war” and “battlefield” or references to The Iliad and the Trojan War. In a sense it can

be regarded as “the macrocosm in the microcosm”. Thoreau’s interpretation of the ants as

11
 E-226 Literature and Nature

brutally “battling” is similar to Ahab’s rage against Moby-Dick as a malicious agent,

although Ahab is literal and serious and Thoreau is humorous. Descriptions like the one in

“Brute Neighbors” is ultimately also an interpretation of nature, where “linguistic

inventiveness” (Brøgger, Handout, 10) makes the scene more familiar and easier for the

reader to understand.

We can never be free from our own interpretations; they can even capture us and

become our doom, like in the case of Ahab and the Pequod. Our conceptions of nature are

never objective. Everyone perceives the world differently, depending on individual

interests. A mountain could be a maternal god, a forest pond could be a mirror and a bird

could be an uncaring fellow. But does such a constructionist position introduced by Kant,

where everyone perceives the world subjectively, bring us closer to nature or does it create

a cultural-linguistic barrier between nature and us?

The Neo-Platonic philosophy of essentialism, where the meaning of nature is immanently

given is presented in Emerson and to some degree in Thoreau. For some readers this

attribution of essentialist notions to natural phenomena could create a distance to the

nature descriptions.

In Moby Dick Ishmael tells of the closeness he feels with nature, through very

accurate and vivid imagery:

At such times, under an abated sun; afloat all day upon smooth, slow heaving swells;
seated in his boat, light as a birch canoe; and so sociably mixing with the soft waves
themselves, that like hearth-stone cats they purr against the gunwale; these are the
times of dreamy quietude, when beholding the tranquil beauty and brilliancy of the
ocean’s skin, one forgets the tiger heart that pants beneath it; and would not
willingly remember, that this velvet paw but conceals a remorseless fang.
(Melville, Moby Dick, “The Gilder”, 449)

12
 E-226 Literature and Nature

Ishmael expresses an awareness of the ambiguity of nature in this passage. Beneath the

surface, or “this velvet paw”, is concealed “a remorseless fang” which could also very well

be a good metaphor for nature itself, the unpredictability of its sudden storms,

catastrophes and disasters. The scene of a smooth sea is beautiful, but could in hours

change into a terrifying scene with storms or a gigantic squids that surface at sea. We do

not know what lies beneath the surface and we cannot easily predict nature. “I believe that

men are generally still a little afraid of the dark” (Walden, Chapter 5: “Solitude”, 1837),

writes Thoreau and states human beings` fear of nature’s unpredictability.

One could argue that the ambiguity that Ishmael expresses in this passage is also a

result of a projection of his “interior landscape” onto nature, where the narrative

construction works as what Barry Lopez thinks of as “a kind of projection within a person

of a part of the exterior landscape” (Lopez, “Landscape and Narrative”, 65). Furthermore,

Lopez may applaud the ambiguity of the passage, as he believes that “the truth reveals

itself most fully not in dogma but in the paradox, irony, and contradictions distinguishing

compelling narratives” (71).

Nevertheless what makes these passages so intriguing is that they create precision

in what they aim to describe. This precision creates closeness and may make the reader

acknowledge unity with nature though the familiarity created. Although cultural-linguistic

constructs are employed in achieving this exactness precision is the main objective.

Therefore is “linguistic inventiveness” often necessary as a literary technique in order to

achieve this precision.

Obviously, this kind of precision created by cultural-linguistic constructs may cause

both familiarity and alienation. Nature is not immanently good, or bad. Nonetheless, it is a

question of interpretation of nature and a sense of ambiguity is expressed thematically.

13
 E-226 Literature and Nature

This ambiguity emphasizes the relationship between what Lopez calls the “interior

landscape” and the “exterior landscape” (65). In the end we could conclude that both

formative precision and thematic complexity helps creating closeness through precision.

Conclusion
In my discussion on accuracy in nature writing I have looked at how writers like Melville,

Thoreau, Dickinson and Muir have tried to describe and present nature in literature. Their

attempts at precision are both scientific and poetic. Formatively speaking precision creates

closeness, which Buell refers to as “literature’s referential dimension” (86) and is

elementary in nature writing.

My discussion has also involved great focus on the use of anthropomorphism in

nature writing. Seeing nature in human terms helps the reader to relate to what is being

presented in this kind of literature. Gendering, “naturalization” and anthropomorphisms

are means of bringing us as readers closer to an understanding and awareness of nature. It

is a way in which the writer brings the reader and the subject matter of the text closer to

each other through identification, but essentially it is a question of interpretation whether

this leads to distance or closeness.

Thematically we can speak of a certain lack of respect for nature that can lead to

alienation and distance when reading nature-related literature. The aim of accuracy in

nature writing focuses often on the project of awareness of nature as something we should

respect and acknowledge, like in the texts of Thoreau and Muir.

In order to overcome the “inexpressibility” of nature the author needs to make use

of “representation’s power to invent, stylize and dislocate” (Buell, “Representing the

Environment”, 99). This is the advantage of literary geniuses like Melville, Thoreau and

Dickinson. They attempt to create “harmony between the two landscapes” - the exterior

14
 E-226 Literature and Nature

and the interior one (Lopez, “Landscape and Narrative”, 68). Ultimately, any nature

writing is interpretation. Through “linguistic inventiveness” (Brøgger, Handout, 10) nature

is depicted accurately, but also attributed with cultural constructs.

Nature writing has a dual function of representing accurately and constructing by

use of anthropomorphism and other cultural imagery because this creates awareness in the

reader and nature’s presence as well as its multiple and complex signification.

Bibliography
Brøgger, Fredrik Chr. Handout: “Theory of the Study of Nature Writing”, University of
Tromsø, 2002

Buell, Lawrence. “Representing the Environment”, The Environmental Imagination:

Thoreau, Nature Writing, and the Formation of American Culture, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995

Dickinson, Emily. The Poems of Emily Dickinson, 1960, in The Norton Anthology of
American Literature, fifth ed., vol. 1, gen. ed. Nina Baym, W.W. Norton & Company, New
York, 1998

Lopez, Barry. “Landscape and Narrative”, Crossing Open Ground, Vintage, New York,
1978

Melville, Herman. Moby Dick, 1851, in Moby Dick by Herman Melville, ed. Charles Child
Walcutt, Bantam Books, New York, 1981

Muir, John. “The Range of Light”, The Mountains of California, 1894, in The Wilderness
Reader, ed. Frank Bergon, NAL, New York, 1980

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden, or Life in the Woods, 1854, in The Norton Anthology of
American Literature, fifth ed., vol. 1, gen. ed. Nina Baym, W.W. Norton & Company, New
York, 1998

15