This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I've reviewed it for UKH. Some positives, but overall it's left me pretty cold: http://www.ukhillwalking.com/gear/review.php?id=7278
I liked Mountains of the Mind, but to me his subsequent books just echo that model; too much style, not enough substance, and it's got a bit old.
But he still gets a lot of plaudits. So am I just wrong?
I liked Mountains of the Mind, but to me his subsequent books just echo that model; too much style, not enough substance, and it's got a bit old.
But he still gets a lot of plaudits. So am I just wrong?
1
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
"...speak of the lure of language, and their love of words. Words, said in a way that's somehow... Welsh."
"...speak of the lure of language, and their love of words. Words, said in a way that's somehow... Welsh."
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
i enjoyed it as book of the week: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k9q6j
i enjoyed it as book of the week: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k9q6j
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
I quite like his writing about other writers - if nothing else, his books tend to function as pretty good reading lists!
Something that wound me up quite a lot about The Old Ways was the fact that he goes on about the interactions of people with the landscape and so on, but whenever he actually goes anywhere the only people he talks to are artist / poet / philosopher mates of his - modern local people who still interact unselfconsciously with the landscape are conspicuously denied a voice. It's particularly noticeable in the chapter about the guga hunt. There's a bit of the all-too-common sense that the places like the Scottish Highlands are basically just somewhere for middle-class Englishmen to go and have profound artistic experiences. Is he still on that here? I can imagine a book about dialect words being particularly bad in that respect...
I quite like his writing about other writers - if nothing else, his books tend to function as pretty good reading lists!
Something that wound me up quite a lot about The Old Ways was the fact that he goes on about the interactions of people with the landscape and so on, but whenever he actually goes anywhere the only people he talks to are artist / poet / philosopher mates of his - modern local people who still interact unselfconsciously with the landscape are conspicuously denied a voice. It's particularly noticeable in the chapter about the guga hunt. There's a bit of the all-too-common sense that the places like the Scottish Highlands are basically just somewhere for middle-class Englishmen to go and have profound artistic experiences. Is he still on that here? I can imagine a book about dialect words being particularly bad in that respect...
2
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
I must admit I've been disappointed with it. I loved Mountains of the Mind, and really enjoyed The Old Ways, but this one has the feel of someone who has run out of things to say and is giving a lot of academic padding to a few lists of words.
Having said that, I love the word 'pirr'.
I must admit I've been disappointed with it. I loved Mountains of the Mind, and really enjoyed The Old Ways, but this one has the feel of someone who has run out of things to say and is giving a lot of academic padding to a few lists of words.
Having said that, I love the word 'pirr'.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I'm currently reading 'The Old Ways' and completely agree.
If anyone is looking for a great little 'outdoorsy' book, try Tristan Dooley's 'The Natural Navigator' or 'The Walker's Guide to Outdoor Clues and Signs'
> I quite like his writing about other writers - if nothing else, his books tend to function as pretty good reading lists!
> Something that wound me up quite a lot about The Old Ways was the fact that he goes on about the interactions of people with the landscape and so on, but whenever he actually goes anywhere the only people he talks to are artist / poet / philosopher mates of his - modern local people who still interact unselfconsciously with the landscape are conspicuously denied a voice. It's particularly noticeable in the chapter about the guga hunt. There's a bit of the all-too-common sense that the places like the Scottish Highlands are basically just somewhere for middle-class Englishmen to go and have profound artistic experiences. Is he still on that here? I can imagine a book about dialect words being particularly bad in that respect...
I'm currently reading 'The Old Ways' and completely agree.
If anyone is looking for a great little 'outdoorsy' book, try Tristan Dooley's 'The Natural Navigator' or 'The Walker's Guide to Outdoor Clues and Signs'
In reply to Ramblin dave:
His writing strikes me more as a sort of literary criticism than nature writing per se, which I guess echoes your thoughts.
Landmarks is mostly about other writers too, there's not much room for 'normal' people. Except I guess as original sources for some of the words
His writing strikes me more as a sort of literary criticism than nature writing per se, which I guess echoes your thoughts.
Landmarks is mostly about other writers too, there's not much room for 'normal' people. Except I guess as original sources for some of the words
1
In reply to tony:
Agreed. The glossaries are the best bit, there's some smashing stuff in there (albeit mostly unusable by modern day metropolitan anglophones, unless they want to come across as totally pretentious). The quasi-academic filler in between the word lists however I can more or less take or leave.
Agreed. The glossaries are the best bit, there's some smashing stuff in there (albeit mostly unusable by modern day metropolitan anglophones, unless they want to come across as totally pretentious). The quasi-academic filler in between the word lists however I can more or less take or leave.
In reply to tony:
I thought Mountains of the Mind pretty poor; just a rehash of well known mountaineering history with nothing new to say. However The Wild Places is one of the very few books which I could describe as life changing. I have The Old Ways sitting ready to read - looking forward to it and Landmarks.
> I loved Mountains of the Mind, and really enjoyed The Old Ways, but this one has the feel of someone who has run out of things to say and is giving a lot of academic padding to a few lists of words.
I thought Mountains of the Mind pretty poor; just a rehash of well known mountaineering history with nothing new to say. However The Wild Places is one of the very few books which I could describe as life changing. I have The Old Ways sitting ready to read - looking forward to it and Landmarks.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Mountains of the Mind was a history of the place of mountains in western thought and literature, rather than a history of mountaineering per se.
Mountains of the Mind was a history of the place of mountains in western thought and literature, rather than a history of mountaineering per se.
In reply to John2:
Ok, it is a while since I read it, but, if that aspect eludes me now, it suggests it had little impact and not much to say, at least for me. My main memory is of churning through all the Whymper stuff again! I read The Wild Places six years ago and it still sends tingles up my spine.
> Mountains of the Mind was a history of the place of mountains in western thought and literature, rather than a history of mountaineering per se.
Ok, it is a while since I read it, but, if that aspect eludes me now, it suggests it had little impact and not much to say, at least for me. My main memory is of churning through all the Whymper stuff again! I read The Wild Places six years ago and it still sends tingles up my spine.
In reply to John2:
but still a rehash of old ideas (see eg Simon Schama's Landscape and Memory) . I've always been surprised that Mountains of the Mind was such a success.
but still a rehash of old ideas (see eg Simon Schama's Landscape and Memory) . I've always been surprised that Mountains of the Mind was such a success.
In reply to John2:
Yes, and that had all been excellently covered in Marjorie Hope Nicolson's 1959 Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory, a.o., of which Schama was just a shameless rehash.
> Mountains of the Mind was a history of the place of mountains in western thought and literature, rather than a history of mountaineering per se.
Yes, and that had all been excellently covered in Marjorie Hope Nicolson's 1959 Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory, a.o., of which Schama was just a shameless rehash.
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
No, I don't think you're wrong. Andrew Greig in the Literary Review in March agrees with you. And the review of one of his books in the most recent Alpine Journal also agrees with you.
But he is one of those writers some competent-to-comment people love, and others dislike. Not sure I'm competent to comment (!) but I'm in the latter category. Silly nature worship for atheists, and far too self-consciously literary. Andrew Greig's "At the Loch of the Green Corrie" is much, much better in every way.
> But he still gets a lot of plaudits. So am I just wrong?
No, I don't think you're wrong. Andrew Greig in the Literary Review in March agrees with you. And the review of one of his books in the most recent Alpine Journal also agrees with you.
But he is one of those writers some competent-to-comment people love, and others dislike. Not sure I'm competent to comment (!) but I'm in the latter category. Silly nature worship for atheists, and far too self-consciously literary. Andrew Greig's "At the Loch of the Green Corrie" is much, much better in every way.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I love his writing but he seems too much like a tourist. I found nothing new in Mountains of the Mind, and bits of Landmarks are plain irritating. There's a bit where he talks of male mountaineers being focused on the summit, which is jarringly out of place with the modern climbing experience; I'd be interested if any Gaelic speakers supported his translation of moine dubh "heavier and darker peats which lie deeper and older into the moor". I have a feeling that I'm most upset because I find his mountain experience so alien from my own and his writing, to me, at least, disappointing as a result.
I love his writing but he seems too much like a tourist. I found nothing new in Mountains of the Mind, and bits of Landmarks are plain irritating. There's a bit where he talks of male mountaineers being focused on the summit, which is jarringly out of place with the modern climbing experience; I'd be interested if any Gaelic speakers supported his translation of moine dubh "heavier and darker peats which lie deeper and older into the moor". I have a feeling that I'm most upset because I find his mountain experience so alien from my own and his writing, to me, at least, disappointing as a result.
In reply to dmhigg:
The Wild Places opened my eyes to a new way of seeing and changed my own mountain experience.
> I have a feeling that I'm most upset because I find his mountain experience so alien from my own.
The Wild Places opened my eyes to a new way of seeing and changed my own mountain experience.
In reply to Solaris:
I'm interested in how you think atheists should worship/experience nature. In a purely unemotional way? In a less silly way?
Equally good in it's own way!
> Silly nature worship for atheists.
I'm interested in how you think atheists should worship/experience nature. In a purely unemotional way? In a less silly way?
> Andrew Greig's "At the Loch of the Green Corrie" is much, much better in every way.
Equally good in it's own way!
In reply to Solaris:
Do you know if that's on line anywhere ? - tried searching but could only get the contents page of the magazine
> No, I don't think you're wrong. Andrew Greig in the Literary Review in March agrees with you.
Do you know if that's on line anywhere ? - tried searching but could only get the contents page of the magazine
In reply to Robert Durran:
It might be better to continue this discussion via PMs, but since I've written provocatively and publicly, I owe you an answer.
By "worship" I mean to adopt an attitude or disposition (intellectual and/or affective) towards "nature" that finds in it a source of ultimate meaning and value. There is then the question of whether such a form of worship is appropriate towards "nature". There is a strand in contemporary attitudes to "the natural" that tends to sacralize it, and I find that tendency in RM. "Silly" was put in for rhetorical effect: I don't think it really adds anything to my opinion since I think all nature worship is silly. Or perhaps I should have said "*largely* for rhetorical effect": it's not clear to me that if one is an atheist, it makes sense to adopt a stance of worship (as I've defined it) towards anything.
However, all that said, I don't think it's silly or a form of worship to be moved to intellectual and affective wonder, awe, and puzzlement by "nature" and humanity's place in it. Nan Shepherd captures that, for me, as do McCaig and Greig, and I can see that other people can read RM without finding tendencies to nature worship in his writing.
It might be better to continue this discussion via PMs, but since I've written provocatively and publicly, I owe you an answer.
By "worship" I mean to adopt an attitude or disposition (intellectual and/or affective) towards "nature" that finds in it a source of ultimate meaning and value. There is then the question of whether such a form of worship is appropriate towards "nature". There is a strand in contemporary attitudes to "the natural" that tends to sacralize it, and I find that tendency in RM. "Silly" was put in for rhetorical effect: I don't think it really adds anything to my opinion since I think all nature worship is silly. Or perhaps I should have said "*largely* for rhetorical effect": it's not clear to me that if one is an atheist, it makes sense to adopt a stance of worship (as I've defined it) towards anything.
However, all that said, I don't think it's silly or a form of worship to be moved to intellectual and affective wonder, awe, and puzzlement by "nature" and humanity's place in it. Nan Shepherd captures that, for me, as do McCaig and Greig, and I can see that other people can read RM without finding tendencies to nature worship in his writing.
In reply to Doug:
Sorry, I came up with a similar, miniscule preview on the Journal's website. Public library, perhaps - if the Tories haven't destroyed your local. (Oops, there's me being provocative again!)
Sorry, I came up with a similar, miniscule preview on the Journal's website. Public library, perhaps - if the Tories haven't destroyed your local. (Oops, there's me being provocative again!)
In reply to Solaris:
I'm really not sure that you understand that Mountains of the Mind was fundamentally an attempt to describe the place of mountain landscape and mountaineering experience in western literature and thought. Macfarlane wasn't attempting to 'worship' mountains himself. And I know Simon Schama covered much of the same ground, but Macfarlane is a talented writer and he brought a deeper personal experience of mountaineering to the subject. Here's a review which I think describes the book pretty well - http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/may/11/guardianfirstbookaward2003.gua... .
I'm really not sure that you understand that Mountains of the Mind was fundamentally an attempt to describe the place of mountain landscape and mountaineering experience in western literature and thought. Macfarlane wasn't attempting to 'worship' mountains himself. And I know Simon Schama covered much of the same ground, but Macfarlane is a talented writer and he brought a deeper personal experience of mountaineering to the subject. Here's a review which I think describes the book pretty well - http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/may/11/guardianfirstbookaward2003.gua... .
1
In reply to John2:
I wasn't referring (principally or explicitly) to "Mountains of the Mind", and I agree with you. Nor am I suggesting that he was "attempting to 'worship' mountains" in it. But I think that his subsequent writing has contributed in a significant way to the burgeoning literature that comes close to, if not actually, sacralizes nature.
My dislike of his style is a separable issue, though given his subject matter, I see it as being closely related. I find him (far too) self-consciously mannered and literary in his (quasi-priestly?) evocation his "personal experience" of landscape. For me, it's a bit too much like he's watching himself watching "nature" – which is not real thing. McCaig, on the other hand conveys the ironies and paradoxes in that, and with deceptively simple, unliterary unphilosophical diction.
I wasn't referring (principally or explicitly) to "Mountains of the Mind", and I agree with you. Nor am I suggesting that he was "attempting to 'worship' mountains" in it. But I think that his subsequent writing has contributed in a significant way to the burgeoning literature that comes close to, if not actually, sacralizes nature.
My dislike of his style is a separable issue, though given his subject matter, I see it as being closely related. I find him (far too) self-consciously mannered and literary in his (quasi-priestly?) evocation his "personal experience" of landscape. For me, it's a bit too much like he's watching himself watching "nature" – which is not real thing. McCaig, on the other hand conveys the ironies and paradoxes in that, and with deceptively simple, unliterary unphilosophical diction.
In reply to Solaris
I don't think I saw The Wild Places as adopting such an attitude. I simply appreciated his description of his visceral way of experiencing nature at every scale and took away from it a greater awareness of detail and abilty to observe and immerse myself in nature.
> By "worship" I mean to adopt an attitude or disposition (intellectual and/or affective) towards "nature" that finds in it a source of ultimate meaning and value.
I don't think I saw The Wild Places as adopting such an attitude. I simply appreciated his description of his visceral way of experiencing nature at every scale and took away from it a greater awareness of detail and abilty to observe and immerse myself in nature.
In reply to Robert Durran:
I enjoyed Wild Places much more than Landmarks, and I'm going to have to revisit Mountains...I still had a lingering feeling that the Macfarlane vision of being in the hills is as an observer, rather than "being" in the hills and "doing" things, with the landscape as an integrated part of the experience. I sometimes feel the same way about hill running or climbing vs walking: in the former the environment (to me) is much more deeply ingrained within the activity, while as a walker seeing and observing becomes more important as the activity becomes less intense.
I enjoyed Wild Places much more than Landmarks, and I'm going to have to revisit Mountains...I still had a lingering feeling that the Macfarlane vision of being in the hills is as an observer, rather than "being" in the hills and "doing" things, with the landscape as an integrated part of the experience. I sometimes feel the same way about hill running or climbing vs walking: in the former the environment (to me) is much more deeply ingrained within the activity, while as a walker seeing and observing becomes more important as the activity becomes less intense.
In reply to Robert Durran:
OK, fair enough - "adopting" might not have been the most apt verb for RM, and nor would 'promoting": his proximity to eliciting worship isn't a conscious thing on his part.
But I do think that the RM view of "nature" can contribute to a mood, a subterranean disposition, that amounts to, or can amount to, finding/seeking ultimate meaning and value in "nature". I react to his style partly because it feels to me that it's going in this sort of direction, but I acknowledge that he can be seen as a good, literary writer. I don't like Wagner's music, but I can appreciate why many people think so highly of it.
I'll see if I can get round to scanning the reviews I mentioned earlier, and will post when/if I have put them on Dropbox.
OK, fair enough - "adopting" might not have been the most apt verb for RM, and nor would 'promoting": his proximity to eliciting worship isn't a conscious thing on his part.
But I do think that the RM view of "nature" can contribute to a mood, a subterranean disposition, that amounts to, or can amount to, finding/seeking ultimate meaning and value in "nature". I react to his style partly because it feels to me that it's going in this sort of direction, but I acknowledge that he can be seen as a good, literary writer. I don't like Wagner's music, but I can appreciate why many people think so highly of it.
I'll see if I can get round to scanning the reviews I mentioned earlier, and will post when/if I have put them on Dropbox.
In reply to dmhigg:
I find this a helpful analogy, though my use of it is different from yours, I think. The only time I've nearly had a serious accident fell-running was leaping downhill through a heather covered minor boulder-field off the back of the Carneddau. I suddently found myself thinking "Ah! This is what I was made for." And as I focussed, momentarily, on that thought, I incurred a thankfully minor sprain to one of my ankles.
What had happened? I had watched myself running and broken my concentration on simply running. For me, RM's prose demands that I break my concentration on what he's writing about and focus on the writing itself. Nan Shepherd's "Living Mountain" doesn't have this effect on me.
> I sometimes feel the same way about hill running or climbing vs walking: in the former the environment (to me) is much more deeply ingrained within the activity, while as a walker seeing and observing becomes more important as the activity becomes less intense.
I find this a helpful analogy, though my use of it is different from yours, I think. The only time I've nearly had a serious accident fell-running was leaping downhill through a heather covered minor boulder-field off the back of the Carneddau. I suddently found myself thinking "Ah! This is what I was made for." And as I focussed, momentarily, on that thought, I incurred a thankfully minor sprain to one of my ankles.
What had happened? I had watched myself running and broken my concentration on simply running. For me, RM's prose demands that I break my concentration on what he's writing about and focus on the writing itself. Nan Shepherd's "Living Mountain" doesn't have this effect on me.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...