Oct 30, 2008 17:45
so i'm currently reading watership down, and i've noticed something that stood out to me a few weeks ago while reading savage sam by fred gipson: there's a heck of a lot of plant life casually mentioned in both books. and for the most part there's no description given...both authors just seem to take it for granted that everyone knows exactly what cenizo and dog's mercury and bee myrtle and figwort and loosestrife and fleabane and butterbur are and just leave it at that.
on the one hand, i find this incredibly frustrating: just say 'a small shrub with purple flowers' please; your readers probably aren't local horticulturists (or psychic). on the other, i find it a bit wistful. judging by these two examples alone, it would seem that people were a lot more connected to the natural world some forty or fifty years ago than we are today.
is it just me? i'm really very fond of plants and would love to know more about them, but unfortunately they weren't considered vital to preparing me for a future career when i was at school and we never learned about the different varieties and their properties and things.
thoughts?
Q
watership down,
book slut,
grumble,
thinkerings,
looks like we got ourselves a reader,
book lust