And other thoughts on nature.
As I drive home from work, the Rocky Mountain range in the backdrop of Stoney Trail appears as a symbol. The blueish-grey blobs of peaks and crests appear like silhouettes against the otherwise clouded sky. For a moment, I understand why people are so moved by the Earth's natural artifacts. Rivers, oak trees, canyons: they are reminders that the Earth is not an inferior rock, a basking place for slimy, destructive humans: instead, Earth is an architectural fist, and we lay curled in its palm.
I tried reading Where the Crawdads Sing and got bored by the nature descriptions before I even got to the plot. Marshes are marshes, and trees are trees. The other day I discussed this with a coworker, but I realized, Despite how boring I view nature descriptions, there is still an infinite way to describe trees. And perhaps although trees, to me, are just a simple, boring thing that I take for granted - as are many of the gifts the Earth provides to me - there must be some combination of words out there that transform a tree from a standalone, sentient object to something complex and alive.
Maybe this world needs another Toy Story, except where there are trees instead of toys. The Lorax is on the right path, but it still reduces trees to silent (and rather dull) victims of environmental destruction and capitalism. I want a movie, story, or poem where a tree is vengeful and shocking. This is what I want: a story about an emotionally destructive tree.
I want a story where trees have a revenge arc. Whenever a tree gets chopped down, it develops a personal vendetta against said lumberjack, everyone who paid the logger, and everyone who used the tree's paper and sap. The trees are scary (think of the ones from Lord of the Rings) and are faster at moving than humans are, but they don't have eyes and mouths. The beauty of the rageful tree rests in the fact that it doesn't have to take on animalistic features for the audience to develop empathy for it. The tree is just a tree, rather than some humanoid version of one. It doesn't need eyes to convey emotions; it is understood by looking at this tree that its deep trunk bares centuries of pain.
Then I think: do I need to watch a portrayal of trees bearing emotions to empathize with their suffering?
According to The International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, studies have shown that preschool children can develop empathy for non-human beings. On field trips to the forest, they were instructed to bond with their natural environment by hugging tree trunks, building leaf piles, and listening to the different noises. By doing this, they developed "empathy and environmentally friendly values," including an "ecocentric orientation," meaning they recognized that non-human entities can still have needs.
Non-human entities can still have needs? What? Perhaps my need for a suffering, grieving tree killer movie stems from this concept. When I view a tree as just an object in my sightline rather than something more profound, it erases the historical, physical, and spiritual elements that trees represent.
For many Indigenous cultures, trees are held in respect and esteem - they are viewed as living plants that can provide teachings and spiritual guidance. For the Roseau River Anishinaabe First Nation, trees are seen as listeners and partners rather than simple objects. The people's relationship with the trees revolves around mutual respect and favours - for example, when creating medicine from the trees, they will give tobacco as an offering in return. In the article, Charlie Nelson, Elder of the First Nation, states: "We are one with the tree, partners with the tree, companions with the tree. No matter what issues people deal with, there is love in nature waiting for you."
By spending quality time with nature, we can try to see the world from the perspectives of trees. But not just trees - the Rocky Mountains in the skyline as I write this, or even the boring marshes I hated reading about. Perhaps if we were to view everything, including trees, with love, it would deliver us from our current apathetic path of mass environmental destruction.
Nature, at first glance, may seem tedious, as are the droning descriptions of it within novels. But in reality, nature represents that life is far greater than humanity alone, and we, as people, are only a drop within a much bigger landscape.
Is a tree really just a tree?
Comments