Kathleen Norris in her writing explains why she has chosen to live and stay for so long in South Dakota when the majority of people would never wish to live there or even visit. Norris' reason for staying seems to be due to a spiritual, heritage and environmental connection she has made with the land. Her spiritual connection she describes as "I had to build on my own traditions, those of the Christian West" as she compares herself moving to Dakota to the monks that moved to the deserts of Egypt. Both very inhospitable places where they made a spiritual connection with the land and saw its beauty. Norris also uses heritage to explain her reasoning for living in South Dakota as this is where her family has made home as they are now living in their grandparents home. She also draws upon the beauty and vastness of the environment that is truly breath taking as she describes it as almost holy a place where angels live, however she does have great respect for the land as she understands the dangers it possesses. These connections Norris has made with the Dakotas is what enables her to write.
Even with her attempts to explain why she has chosen to live here she still can't fully explain as she doesn't truly know the answer. Which is why the quote from the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz seems so suitable for Norris "of course I cannot understand it, if your heads were stuffed with straw like mine, you would probably all live in the beautiful places, and then Kansas would have no people at all, it is fortunate for Kansas that you have brains." My question is what is Norris trying to accomplish by writing this? Is she trying to get people to visit or move to the Dakotas since she was describing how the population is always declining which puts the Dakotas in harsh economic times. Or does she just want people to have a higher respect for the Dakotas and for those who live ther?
I don't believe that Norris is lobbying for tourism in the region, or even convincing people to hold a higher respect for the Dakotas. What I think Norris is trying to express is the fact that although barren, downtrodden, and economically unstable, the Dakota region was responsible for the formulation of her spiritual geography, and as such, she has become embedded in western South Dakota. Her reference to the Benedictine monks' vow of stability is especially poignant. Although threatened and fearful of the region's habitual loss of life, these monks vowed to remain faithful to one place and one place only. The same could be said for the "next-year country" farmers, who, year after year, vowed to move after their current harvest had been completed. Did they ever move? They never stepped foot outside of the Dakota region, a testament to the fact that they, too, were bound and embedded within the land of the Plains. Norris' reference to St. Hilary brought the point home. Hilary wrote that "Everything that seems empty is full of the angels of God." I think this quote ties in with Dillard's paradoxical notion of believing, while at the same time doubting and holding reservations against what one actually believes in. Surely, the barren Plains of the Dakota region do not exude the presence of angels, or beauty in any way, shape, or form, or even happiness. But, according to Norris, there is "something" there. That something is an unknown variable. What is apparent, however, is the fact that inhabitants of the Dakota region feel a certain tie to their land, a "spiritual geography," that would otherwise be extinguished if they ever were to be extracted from the land.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Bryan, I do not think that Norris was trying to attract people to the Dakotas, but just explaining how it has become such an important place in her life. She obviously established a very strong spiritual connection to the land and I think that is very personal and specific to her. If someone else came to the Dakotas, they might see and observe the same things as Norris, but they might not get the same spiritual connection to the land as she did. I think when she talks about the area in the Dakotas that she moved to and compared it to the monks moving to the deserts of Egypt, she is trying to show that both places are very deserted and almost isolated from the world around you. I think she uses this comparison because she is trying to say that sometimes in separating yourself and going to someplace deserted, you are able to focus on different things, the things that are truly important in your life. Norris had just been living in New York City, which is clearly a very busy, and fast paced city. In coming to the Dakotas she was able to focus on her life and spirituality and do the things that she really wanted to do. I think that what should be taken out of this, is that sometimes people need to separate themselves from their daily lives to be able to focus on their spirituality and connection with God, weather it be and isolated spot, or just somewhere where you can really focus.
ReplyDeleteI felt like Norris was promoting the courage that Dakota carries with it. She mentions the turn-offs like "counterculture," lack of identity and "where angels go to drown." But to the reader (in the case of... me), she presents these ideas to make herself seem brave and more willing than the rest of America, the people of which are scarred to live in a desolate area without hustle and bustle and will not appreciate open spaces or story telling. Her "Christian west" identity is the only thing mentioned along the line of religion. However, spirituality and environment are brought up constantly. Cattle, stars, and plains are just a few physical features of this planet that Norris seems to appreciate while the rest of the world doesn't. She sees beauty in what other Americans see a source of consumption. To Ms. Norris I say, "get it girl." She's representing what she finds meaningful despite where she had come from (America's brain and America's beauty in New York and Hawaii). Her new home has what most people find disturbing yet is something people shouldn't take for granted: quaintness
ReplyDeleteI think that it is really interesting how Kathleen Norris, while telling how she has a spiritual connection and emotional attachment to her family’s home and its landscape in “Dakota,” she also says that it is “a painful reminder of human limits.” It seems to me that she almost has a love/hate relationship with her motherland. While she feels the pain and isolation of the people that live there she also feels a sense of growth and regeneration within herself. In this text she clearly addresses the problems that Dakota society faces, such as the passing priests, and the lack of business. I feel she does so in a way that doesn’t beg for pity or invite tourism, but moreover in a reflecting tone to explain the nature of the people there, and their uneasy hospitality. As she says that Native American culture survived through story she tells the story of her people grow and carry on with the seasons. In reading this I think that everyone has their own sense of personal limitation in their hometown or their spiritual place. Wherever there is home there is also emotional attachment and subsequently sorrow. As the little boy she quoted at the end of the chapter said; “This is where angles drown.”
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Norris was not trying to lure people to Dakota. She was just relating her experiences in the Dakotas and justifying why she chose to live there to her audience and how she had a spiritual connection to the place. She talks about how she learned to live and interact with people in different ways than those who she experienced growing up with from other areas of the world including Virginia, Hawaii, etc. She is analyzing all of the different aspects of living there and in turn kind of becoming a philosopher when she raises questions for her audience to think about like “Where is spirituality to be found?”
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this piece as it changed my opinion of the area completely. Like Kathleen Norris's New York friends, I too would have initially questioned leaving the "artists' and writers' community", the "diverse and stimulating environment of a great city for such barrenness" and while I still have no desire to move to such a place, I can understand and accept how this is her place of spirituality. The story she tells about the fourteenth century monks caught my attention because it explains faith in a way. People always are given the option as to where they will reside. Sometimes when things get hard (economical pressures, no jobs, low salaries, etc.) its easy to say you want to leave the place, but actually making the move is much easier said then done. I believe Norris is trying to show this through the farmers who never fully lose hope because this place that has done them wrong is also the place they call their home.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority of the posts that Norris was not trying to promote tourism in North and South Dakota by writing this particular piece. This writing seemed personal, as if she was writing solely to explain her decision to reside in the Dakotas to herself. I found it intriguing that she could not come to a conclusion, which shows the spirituality of the piece. She cannot perfectly word her love for the barren land in which she resides and she can only reiterate the deep connection she feels to it. SHe mentions her family connection to the region, but I am still left curious as to why she did not develop such a connection to Hawaii, if that is where most of her family is now, and where she grew up. It seems she cannot come to terms with this idea either and that is where spirituality comes into play. She divulges the holy beauty of the land, the barrenness and peacefulness of the Dakotas and this seems to be her greatest explanation for why she choses to live there. She is spiritually connected with the environment, which I believe is something she and Annie Dillard share.
ReplyDeleteI too am in agreement with the majority of the posts that Norris is not trying to promote tourism in any way. I found that after reading this I was able to perform my free write on my spiritual place alot easier. Her descriptions of nature got me thinking about a place that is spiritual to me also because of nature. As much as we never really think about it until a natural disaster occurs, nature is a very powerful thing, that we also don't have all the answers too. I find that interseting because we have been talking about subjects that we want answers to but who knows if we can attain them. We also look for answers in nature through scientific observations, but then again there is a whole other side to nature that seems to capture the spirit like Norris talks about. This got me thinking about the coexistence of religion and science. To me, it seems possible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the posts above mine. Norris is not trying to lure anyone to come to the Dakotas. Norris finds spiritual meaning in the Dakotas. She mentions that she and her husband moved their from New York City and planned to live there for only a few years. However, as time went on they never wanted to leave. She finds inspiration in the Dakotas and a sense of peace and self-consciousness. The Dakotas are her spiritual safe haven that keep her in sync with nature and the environment around her. She finds a deeper meaning in the Dakotas than most people do. These days people are so urbanized that they forget the peace and tranquility that lies within nature. This is what Norris is trying to emphasize.
ReplyDeleteWhat I first found intriguing about Norris’ piece was the fact that she moved away from major U.S. locations like New York and Hawaii, rather than running towards them, like we see in so many other pieces of writing, films, and poetry. The overall idea of finding religious or spiritual meaning from geography or a place is such a new concept to me, and one that I find intriguing. Norris mentions that she has “wrestled [her] story out of the circumstances of landscape and inheritance,” and that she has “made a counter-cultural choice to live in what the rest of the world considers a barren waste” (2, 3). In her description of the area that seems almost bleak and barren, Norris is able to point out the positive, even sometimes simple, pleasures and benefits of living in an area like the Dakotas. I agree that she is not trying to promote this area in any way, but instead potentially redefine someone’s opinion about living in areas like the one she has chosen to spend her time in. Her willingness to share without converting is a style that I appreciate and enjoy, and although I would still choose city life over miles of seemingly empty land, I can better understand the why living there would be cleansing.
ReplyDeletePhilip Tateyama
ReplyDeleteYes I don't think she was trying to promote tourism but I still think she was looking for a greater respect to be associated with the Dakota's. Even though this is a very inhospitable place to live she does have a meaningful connection here. And being an artist/writer moving leaving New York to the Dakotas people would find her crazy. So I do think she is somewhat trying to change the view people may have of the Dakotas.
So even in this barren landscape one can find immense beauty. And this relationship Norris has made with her environment is what gives her inspiration for her writing and art. I wonder how her writing and art has changed from when she was in New York to now being in South Dakota?
Similar to many other opinions posted in the comments, I feel that the focus of Norris' writing was upon her own connection that she had with the Dakotas rather than building a connection between the reader and the her home state(s). I understood the chapter as Norris' way to express her feelings regarding what she considers home. However, I noticed that throughout the chapter she almost seems to justify her moving to Dakota in order to convince the audience that what she was doing was not absurd. She recalls her family nearly abandoning her grandparents' house and her friends' surprised faces and yet continued to follow her life back to what she knows in Dakota. As a California citizen who has grown up in a suburban area her whole life, I did not relate to her warm regard for the wide open plains and farmlands; however this did not prevent me from understanding her feeling of belonging. Norris emphasized the universality of a home and the acceptance that that home offers. While she sees the grasses, the pelicans, and deer, I think of sand, blue skies, and palm trees. Although one may differ from the author when he considers what makes a house a home, Norris and the audience are both able to appreciate what their hometowns have to offer.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't really a fan of this reading because I couldn't help but feel she didn't make a convincing argument, i was never really sure if she was trying to convince me to come to south dakota or trying to show me how much I should respect the people who live in dakotas because of the tough conditions. I understand that she has a deep emotional connection with the place she lives, as I am sure we all do, but when I started reading I couldn't help but feel that she was going to make a strong argument oneway or another but i feel like she just kind of wafered in the middle
ReplyDeleteI, as well, was confused as to what Norris was attempting to accomplish with this piece. Although I do not believe she was lobbying for the Dakotas in particular, I definitely am not jumping to go there after reading her description. This, however, lends to a greater point about meaningful places. Spiritual places don't necessarily have to be aesthetically pleasing or culturally inviting to have personal meaning. I also think it makes a lot of a sense that a lot of her artistic epiphanies arrived once she moved to the Dakotas. Sometimes it takes a lack of culture and turmoil to find your true personal realizations. Solitude can definitely be conducive to creativity.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Norris was trying to advertise the Dakotas at all. Kathleen Norris's Dakota revealed a lot about the intimate relationship between humans and the land they grow up in. Even though Norris is fully aware of the lame images her New York City friends have of the barren and deserted location, Norris cannot deny a particular emotional pull that motivates her to move back after years of living in an urban center. Despite the fact that she and her husband spend their days in Dakota living "small", they are able to find themselves at peace with their surroundings. She traces back to Dakota's history with the Native Americans and farmers not just to give insight to the reader about her hometown's background, but to also offer up the connection she has with the place and the importance of geography to generations of people and her family. Throughout the telling of turmoil, suffering, and labors of those who lived there before her, she is making the place even more united to her identity. "As it turns out, the Plains have been essential not only for my growth as a writer, they have formed me spiritually." I think this passage portrays how places (no matter how mundane or unfashionable they may seem in the eyes of an outsider) can be an integral part of a human's character and holistic growth. On a little side note, the entire piece reminded me of the movie Far and Away, in which the Irish immigrants Joseph and Shannon constantly emphasize their fervent desire for "free" land in the West because land is what makes man complete. There is some attachment that man has to land, as evidenced by Norris's piece (and hundreds of wars in history).
ReplyDeleteAlong with the many posts above mine, I too believe that Norris is not promoting the Dakota’s as a place everyone must visit. Rather, she is explaining her personal connection to the unique geography of the land. She describes that, “the so-called emptiness of the Plains is full of such miraculous ‘little things’”. To Norris, these little things are significant to her in that they make her a human being. Norris says, “As it turns out, the Plains have been essential not only for my growth as a writer, they have formed me spiritually. I would even say they have made me a human being.” In response to Phil’s question, I believe that Norris is not praising the Dakota’s as states, but rather explaining the importance of her spiritual connection to the landscape. Somehow, Norris interacts with the environment to achieve a type of ecstasy that confirms her existence as an individual. What Norris is really advocating, is that it is essential to establish close connections to an environment that means something to you. Where one finds this connection does not matter, but, it is truly comforting to know a place where you can find peace.
ReplyDeleteThis passage correlates well to the thesis I used in class the other day that raw facts are the only way to possibly help describe the metaphysical to its potential, yet as we all just read, is impossible to fully translate the meaning of a spiritual place into text. Although I could never move to the middle of no-where purely for spiritual reasons, I respect Norris' decision to do so and applaud her for her courage. She allows the void around her to force her to look more internally rather than at the world around her. This new sense of spirituality that she developed is incredible. It's awesome she found her place of peace in the middle of no-where.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most everyone's remark that Norris wasn't trying to say that living in the "plains" like the Dakotas is better than living in the city. She herself lived in both the city and the plains and found that she was more content and more herself in the plains. She mainly is describing the beauty of the plains and how even though not everyone has to live there and love it, most people just drive on past it and do not even give the beautiful topography and second look. She loves the plains and its a spiritual place for her to be herself and find out who she is.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Norris didn’t exactly deliver a strong opinion, but I don’t believe that she was trying to promote tourism. I think she wanted to present what’s thought as a “lifeless” and dull region as a place that is really alive with a spiritual presence and meaning. She’s emphasizing the idea that a simple lifestyle allows one to find beauty in the ordinary, and even in the unknown, which led her to discover her sense of spirituality.
ReplyDeleteRather than trying to lure people to the Dakotas, I think she was trying to make us aware that such places exist. Although this may sound obvious and unnecessary, sometimes we do need to be reminded. While reading Kathleen Norris’s text, I realized that the Midwest seemed almost illusory to me, and trying to picture it, I did not know if I should visualize “cowboys or farmers,” as she shrewdly mentioned. She states that, “This book is an invitation to a land of little rain and few trees…” It is not often we step back from our noisy cities long enough to acknowledge the fact that this lifestyle is not one’s only viable option. She repeatedly mentions her “circumstance of inheritance,” and this particularly struck me because it led me to think of my own. It seems that there are countless factors to one’s inheritance, but Norris identified hers broadly and simply as a “Western Christian” one. When considering such concepts, especially in the context of the natural and open plains, one can not help but feel ignorant in being enthralled in the preoccupations that accompany city life. Thus, I can see why Terrence Kardong named the plains, “a school for humility.”
ReplyDeleteI really like the way Kathleen Norris describes her spiritual journey. The way she writes is similar to Annie Dillard, but Norris' style is more straight forward and less confusing. I agree that Norris is not trying to promote the Dakotas as a great place to live. She wrote the piece to explain how living in the Dakotas has shaped her spiritual journey. Like Dillard, Norris focuses on the paradoxes in her experiences. She talks about how the Dakotas have been called both the Sunshine and Blizzard states. Paradoxes seem to be a common theme when talking about religion. This speaks to the complexity of religion itself. Everyone that studies it seems to end up with a series of paradoxes, which by nature can never really be figured out.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Philip's original question, Norris is not trying to advocate moving to the Dakotas. In fact, I think she would say it's a bad idea unless the individual shared a similar personal connection. What the overarching message in this passage implies is that the individual should reflect on the things that have brought success or happiness so far. In doing so, Norris realizes that the Dakotas are uniquely strange compared to the rest of urban America. She goes so far as to say, "I make no attempt in this book to resolve the tensions and contradictions I find in the dakotas between hospitality and insularity..." This acknowledgement indicates that the lessons she had learned from her experience in the Dakotas overwhelm the oddities and plainness of her home. What this brings her is a sense of comfort, as Eric alluded to above. The ultimate goal was to find comfort in order to organize her thoughts and spirituality. She returned to her place of origin in order to find spiritual comfort, just as the Monks in Egypt did. Additionally, the uncertainty of Dakota life, which she points out (droughts, crop safety, wind, and storms), fuels her motivation for spirituality. This uncertainty of life in the Dakotas is similar to the uncertainty of her search for spiritual truth. As I read this passage, I could actually empathize with many of her feelings. For example, living in Las Vegas for 18 years I had no idea why I liked it--it's either really hot or cold, it's mostly a city for adults, and people there aren't necessarily the nicest. However, I still feel that sense of comfort in being able to properly assess my spirituality by visiting my roots. One's sense of environment is very important in simply finding a place that allows for self-exploration.
ReplyDeletePhilip Tateyama
ReplyDeleteI think it's safe to say that we all agree that Norris is not trying to advertise the Dakota's in anyway. As she understands that the Dakota's is not suited for a majority of people as there are only a few people who have found themselves at home here. Norris is one of these people and in her writing she describes the spiritual connection she has made with the land as she has discovered herself. Does anyone else have a new perspective on the piece since we are all kind of reiterating the idea that she is not advertising the Dakotas
I would definitely disagree that Norris is trying to get people to move to Dakota. I don't think that is even close to her motives. She is telling about a place that means something to her. This could never be the same for everyone even if they did go there because I think that you need to be at a certain point in your life to find this place. You can't always find this connection just because you want to. From living in the rushed New York city to a isolated land where you had time and silence to think. I think it made her feel as though she could focus on the larger picture of life rather than the things she needed to worry about finishing in the next few days. It is rare that we can ever do this in day to day life. I was able to relate to her as she wondered what about the Dokatos she really liked. Growing up I couldn't wait to move to a more populated place but once I was finally planning to leave everything seemed so much more beautiful. I never expected to miss that little town so much and I'm not sure why I do as much as I disliked living there for so long. Everything has two sides, especially the topic of religion.
ReplyDeleteIn this opening section, Kathleen Norris is by no means attempting to solicit Dakota as a place for people to visit, or even live. Instead, I feel as though Norris is simply attempting to describe the mystique that keeps her, among others (especially the monks), in Dakota. As she describes, most people who have a rural upbringing want to experience what they think will be "bigger and better things," and move away in an attempt to find which type of setting is best for them. Through her vivid imagery, Norris is able to depict why those who remain choose to live in a place which can cause so much strife. Even after living in the city for some time, she has voluntarily chosen to stay in Dakota, which shows that certain people are just made for certain environments; Norris is particular is drawn to the nature aspect of the location. While doing my free-write assignment, I realized that not everyone is able to experience the beauty that some I can see, and unfortunately take advantage of, every day. Therefore, the major thing that I learned from this that I should really take advantage of my surroundings, and see the beauty of the world as it was created to be.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this reading as Norris describes the evils or the purgatory of the Dakotas. She makes it sound like time just stops in this place and that no other exterior elements can penetrate the plains’ deep traditions, secrets, and way of life. She personifies the area mentioning that Dakota “is a painful reminder of human limits,” and treats the land like it is a god in and of itself, having a mind, temper, and feelings of its own, while having to treat it with respect. I thought it was interesting that she never wanted to return, however she ended up spending a large part of her adult life there with her husband. I don’t recall her mentioning why she disliked Dakota initially, however her opinion of the area shifted throughout the text and throughout the years she spent there. She employs a tone of disgust as she described Dakota, which creates a question in the reader as to why she stays, even through all of the “quietness” and absence of human noise aspects that she adores. The mention of Kardong, the monk is an interesting piece as he is a the city on the hill or light in the midst of darkness image. His belief of the power of the Plains to stimulate inner geography ties into our assignment of writing on spiritual places. This contrast between our life here in the city and the monk’s in the reading allows me to think about where I might find a location to stimulate inner geography, and the process of doing so. Overall, Norris’ personification of the Plains of the Dakota was sincerely heartfelt and powerful to the reader as she described the selfish intentions of a seemingly simple piece of land.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the posts above me have stated. The passage offers a timeless tribute to a place in the American landscape that is at once desolate and sublime, harsh and forgiving, steeped in history and myth. Norris seems to give the reader a place to being and assurance that wherever we go, we chart our own spiritual geography—and urges us to find that place. She also touts the rewards of monastic life, which leads her to a deeper understanding of herself. This self-knowledge heightens her appreciation of the concept of community, both social and spiritual, and of how we might apply monastic values to daily living in order to attain a stronger sense of community and of self.
ReplyDeleteI have to be completely honest, I am one of those people who can not tolerate being isolated. While on a family vacation to the Grand Canyon, we drove through the rural area of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. I could not even begin to fathom how a person could live like that. But to some people, this slowly paced life is what they crave. Connections between nature and the people around you are easier to make when life is manageable. I am so used to the hustle and bustle of life in a city that it would be a culture shock to move to a rural area. Although I personally could never live in an area such as the Dakotas, I understand the beauty and majesty that Kathleen Norris sees. I am also a strong believer that by slowing down your life, you can form a better relationship with God. This is a reason why spiritual retreats are most always in the wilderness. Her life style enables her to have closer connections with the people around her, a rewarding experience to all.
ReplyDeleteI think Norris is using the landscape and characteristics of her environment to make a surprising note on the contradictory nature of the Dakotas, at least when compared to the "big city" of the people who don't live there. She loves the fact that the land is filled with such extremes and polarizations, and uses it as a reflection of the people who do live there and the people who don't. She mentions how outsiders are given a mix of "hospitality and insularity," as they are uncomfortable with the set-in-stone lifestyle of the homogenous people of the Dakotas; she speaks of "change and inertia" how the land can choose to be both filled with sunshine or freezing cold depending on the season, as well as how the crops can choose to be fruitful or not; and she mentions "possibility and impossibility" to touch on how the people who have settled there see endless possibilities in the land, whereas people who visit see nothing but a barren wasteland. It is interesting to me that she can see all these things, and take note of them, probably because she is from the Dakotas, but has also spent time away fromt them.
ReplyDeleteI loved the way Norris described the Dakota Plain. I understand where she is coming from since my own favorite place is also isolated. She is very discerning between barren and devoid of human presence when describing the plains. Her narrative speaks to the gains a person can make when they are not surrounded my activity and people, all vying for our attention. When there is no longer endless activity surrounding each of us the imagination is the limit and can truly be unleashed. As for the "uneasy mix of hospitality and insularity," this is understandable. If a new person where to come into a small town and make fast friends with the neighbors and decide the place wasn't for them, the loss could be devastating. Over time, this ebb and flow of people would be emotionally taxing to the people. Norris was very good at describing the life and how wonderful it was when she opened herself up to it.
ReplyDelete