Debris Romanticized to Excess

There are times when it is fruitless to consider pine cones. Much depends on perspective. After a while one grows tired of exploring the excesses of hyle, of matter, the matter of trees, of the too-small differences between details, and in the moment it becomes obvious that the familiar is inescapable, one thinks rather grimly, nothing is lavish when everything is. Even the high style of botanical naming loses its charm: Strobilus, non-serotinous, Araucariaceae, galbulus, bract, ovuliferous… let the pine cones and their allies be what they are. Just pine cones.

Happily this is not one of those times. Larch, loblolly, lodgepole, lebanese cedar. Baroque in the best sense. Spruce, cypress, sequoia, Sciadopityaceae. Names pile up with the details that mark the categories they distinguish. Detail in the language of pine cones is a kind of conceptual debris not unlike the physical debris that pine cones find themselves a part of. It is amazing the way heaps and piles obscure their contents – how the brain elides visual details, perhaps for the sake of a portable whole. This morning I looked closely at a small mess of needles and cones and discovered that my idea of a cone was impossibly vague, and even now after trying to memorize the features of a cone, I can not draw one accurately without reference to the real thing. The real thing is an artwork.

The excess stuff of trees and waves is very often of remarkable quality. The jetsam of forests turns out to be precious; a forest can be combed as well as a beach. Bioluminescent fungi. Fissured barks.  A wealth of fallen leaves. And on the best days when some unseen magician is pulling breeze after breeze from his sleeves and throwing great handfuls outwards like silk – well! Or contra the magician, wind is just abundant libations. Let the spirits flow! Wind is alcohol! Or wind is perhaps a thing like the forests of fairy tales, which knights invariably got lost in, and which dwarfed lumberjacks, who hacked away and never had to wonder if the woods would grow back. Or wind is something still incomprehensible after much study – incomprehensible with slight and mesmerizing variation, like the torrent of my friend Jan’s German (we are sitting in the Biblio at UVic; he’s skyping as I’m typing): a rush of syllables bubbling with fricatives.

When you are attuned to a fine level of detail – when you are ready to seriously consider pine cones – you are in a position to appreciate muchness.


3 thoughts on “Debris Romanticized to Excess

  1. Heidi says:

    Have you read Annie Dillard’s book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek? She talks about the beauty and excess of nature (and uses her observations to ponder writing and religion). Highly recommended.

  2. jemzlinde says:

    Nope! Sounds interesting though; I’ll check it out.

  3. jemzlinde says:

    Just rediscovered a relevant blurb in my readings. Alexander Galloway, discussing different modes of mediation: “the rainbow in the sky emits an immense surfeit of expression in order to say something that is already quite obvious, that it rained. Or consider the examples of the iris of the eye or the iris flower. With their pure unmotivated beauty, both say ‘too much’ in order to say very little, that there is splendour in the world” (44, from “Love of the Middle”).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s