UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04tqk1n

The Living Mountain: A Cairngorms Journey
Secret Knowledge Episode 12 of 12

A forgotten literary masterpiece celebrating the majesty of the Cairngorm mountains is the subject of a new documentary presented by travel writer Robert MacFarlane.
The Living Mountain, written by Scottish poet and novelist Nan Shepherd in the 1940s, recounts her experience of walking in the Cairngorms during the early years of the Second World War. When Robert MacFarlane first discovered it he found it to be one of the finest books ever written on nature and landscape in Britain.
This love letter to the Cairngorms instantly challenged his preconceptions about nature writing. Unlike other mountaineering literature that focused on a quest to reach the summit, this remarkable book described a poetic and philosophical journey into the mountain.
Now Robert MacFarlane retraces Nan Shepherd's footsteps, exploring the Cairngorms through her thoughtful and lucid descriptions, in an attempt to discover what she called the living mountain: "So there I lie on the plateau, under me the central core of fire from which was thrust this grumbling mass of plutonic rock, over me blue air, and between the fire of the rock and the fire of the sun, scree, soil and water, grass, flower and tree, insect, bird and beast, wind, rain, snow - the total mountain."
This film brings the story of Nan Shepherd and her little-known work to a new audience, and along the way offers a moving and memorable tour of the Cairngorm mountains, seen afresh through the passion and poetry of her writing.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

sounds very like the radio programme he made a year or two ago. No doubt I won't be able to see it from France but maybe my sister can record it for me.

The bl**day man's everywhere. Can he not get on with his own drivellings and leave us to enjoy Nan's wonderful writing without his unnecessary mediation?
What is it with some academics? Do they think we proles can't enjoy fine writing without them presenting and interpreting it for us?

In reply to redscotti:

Part of me tends to agree....

In reply to redscotti:

Don't watch it then.

I think this programme has been shown before. I thought it was rather good. Actually, come to think of it, it may have been a radio programme, but the "word pictures" of both Nan Shepherd and Macfarlane were so good that I remember it in pictures. Thery are both very fine writers.

In reply to redscotti:


Did he do the intro to the kindle edition? If so I agree wholeheartedly. The intro was rambling, academic pish and about the same length as the book. It speaks of a massive ego if you think people want to read your shite instead of the book they actually bought.

In reply to DaveHK:


Don't read it then.

It's not exactly uncommon for books, especially new editions, to have introductions like this. I found Macfarlane's interesting. FFS, anyone would think that any comment on any book was automatically some sort of crime against literature.

Macfarlane has done his best to bring Nan Shepherd's wonderful book, which clearly means a lot to him, to a new readership. He doesn't deserve this sort of slagging.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Agree. I'm not a particular fan of MacFarlane's writing, but if it hadn't been for his radio programme I'd never have heard of Nan Shepherd's book.

I reckon it might be worth the risk of watching the programme.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I didn't but when I buy a book it's to read the author. I don't like to think I'm paying for some portentous piggybacker too.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Careful with your extrapolation there Robert...

Comment is fine but his sort of self indulgent waffling is indeed a crime against literature. Nan Shepherd's light and lucid prose just needed setting in context. Maybe he just got carried away. A good editor would have sorted it.

In reply to DaveHK:



Well I enjoyed it. I like both writers and found Macfarlane's take on Shepherd illuminating. Your loss.

Anyway, how do you know it was self indulgent waffling if you didn't read it? Prejudice?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Or perhaps just a difference of opinion?

In reply to Robert Durran:
>

Speedy edit there...

I started reading it and gave up. When a book has a clear theme (the beauty of the mountains in this case) I don't think it's worth reading stuff that takes you away from that.

In reply to DaveHK:

That seems a rather simplistic to me. And, I think, Macfarlane.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If you want to read analysis then you can seek it out.

In reply to redscotti:

I think part of the issue for me with R MacF. is that my experience of 'mountain' is intensely personal.
If someone such as Nan Shepherd's writing stokes that particular fire, I'll probably sense some shared intimacy between us. Maybe the thousands of other readers get a similar frisson.
Yet when someone appears to speak with a sense of authority on the cherished writing, the relationship changes. Introduction of an intermediary, such as R MacF, somehow emphasises the vicarious vicariousness of it all. Then , the intensely personal dissolves, and the message is cheapened and bastardised, rather like classic FM's treatment of musical riches.
I've enjoyed reading, say, Ruskin on Turner. But the visceral connection isn't there, much as I admire both writer and subject, and so I can happily defer to the greater intellect. Whereas MacF just gets in the way.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Thanks for bringing this programme to my attention. I'll have to schedule it to record while I'm away in Manchester next week.

In reply to llechwedd:

I think in the end it comes down to personal taste and who and who's writing you connect with. And no-one has to watch the programme or read MacFarlane's introduction if it doesn't add anything to the experience of reading Shepherd. Macfarlane certainly does seem to polarise people though. Personally I love his writing; I can relate more to his than to Shepherd's. Reading "The Wild Places" was almost a life changing experience for me (his attempt to intellectualise the visceral experience adds something for me) but, much as I loved the book, I could not say the same about The Living Mountain.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

On a slightly different note: does anybody know what the song at the end is called?

In reply to Skipinder:


I don't know, but I wonder if this might have been appropriate
http://abcnotation.com/tunePage?a=thesession.org/tunes/9500.no-ext/0001

Only kidding, Robert D.

In reply to llechwedd:

LoL

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I hadn't heard of either of them before hearing about the program, I found his commentary to be rather grand and unnecessary. He seemed to want to apply an academic "authority opinion" to the book and the mountains themselves, which I found really irritating.

I thought the camera work was too artificially "arty", as was his commentary at times (another alliteration anyone?!?), though other times he sounded like he was trying to channel David Attenborough. It gave the program a very confusing message, half book analysis, half nature program, failing at both.

The program did make me want to read the book and go to a couple different places in the Cairngorms though, so I guess it did what he intended...

In reply to Bob_the_Builder:

I find all these comments utterly baffling. I thought he presented a celebration of both Shepherd's writing and, through it, the mountains simply and effectively. I really don't know what more one could ask for.

I must read the book again.

In reply to llechwedd:

My computer refused to play it!

In reply to Robert Durran:


Having now watched the prgramme, I have to agree. As you said higher up the thread, Macfarlane may not be to everyone's taste (though I find his presenting style a lot less grating than say Paul Murton or Cameron McNeish) but I couldn't see anything in the programme to justify the description of the commenatry as "grand and unnecessary", nor the camerawork as "too artificially 'arty'".

Mind you, Bob the Builder does have a track record of concocting the flimsiest excuses to lay in to the BBC in the most apoplectically coruscating manner.