Meta Post

Of the launch posts and comments posted there are some interesting ideas regarding David Gessner's presentation.

The first launch post dealt mostly with the way David Gessner is disgruntled with the fact that much of nature writing is done in a way that is spiritual in meditative.  The writer pointed out that David Gessner thinks nature writing should be more true to life, avoiding certain characteristics, descriptors, and undertones.  The writer asks people what they think about this idea.

The second launch post dealt mostly with the way David Gessner thinks nature writing needs to be loud rather than hushed, and the writer of this post seemed to question David Gessner a bit more by asking questions such as, "... can any topic really become outdated?" and "How should we be looking at nature if not as something religious."

Responses to the second launch post differed a bit.  The first commenter did not see nature as old news, yet agreed with Gessner's idea that we need to write about nature in a way that includes all of its messiness.  The second commenter also believed the topic of nature is not outdated, and even argued that it never can be.  This commenter also felt nature should be held in reverence but could be talked about more boldly.

Overall the group really dug into Gessner's statements of how we should write about nature.  Opinions were mixed, and I, personally, believe that is a good thing.   What is writing about nature if not allowed to be free of constraints?