Sunday, March 1, 2009


If you are reading Always, Rachel, add your comments here.


  1. I perceive a strong current of loneliness and isolation throughout the letters, which makes Dorothy's friendship so important to Rachel. She writes of the "crushing burden" of creative work and how Dorothy sustains her. This feeling comes across in her nature writing too--at least in what I've read so far. The writing is beautiful, breathtaking in its appreciation and awe of the inter-relationships of nature. But behind that is a wistfulness, a longing. I've often thought that many nature writers and other people well known for their connection to nature as well as their creative work, seem set apart from human society in some way. I'm thinking of Diane Fosse, who had many human interactions, but found peace only with her gorilla "family," and voluntary separation from "desperate" society was a running theme through Thoreau's work. I think this is one reason I'm so drawn to nature writers and nature myself. Is this a characteristic of most nature lovers?

  2. This resonates with me: From letter to Dorothy Nov 4, 1957
    " I consider my contributions to scientific fact far less important than my attempts to awaken an emotional response to the world of nature."
    Anyone else? Hello are you out there?