Arne Kalland’s thesis in “Culture in Japanese Nature” is that Japan is not a country that loves nature despite the image of Japan that many Western countries have. He theorizes that the Japanese love of nature in literature is metaphorical, rather than literal, and argues that “the Japanese try to control nature, or ‘conquer’ it by the process of taming (Kalland 243),” and that “only by idealization, or ‘taming’… does nature become palatable (Kalland 246).” However, he presents his argument as if there is a present movement to tame the wilderness; this is untrue. The Japanese “abhorrence toward ‘nature in the raw’ (Kalland 246),” is created by a long literary tradition that glorified and embellished the landscape and scenery regarding the meisho,
…show more content…
Wilderness refers to nature in its pristine state and includes a sense of rawness. Wilderness, though men can visit it, must be entirely separate from society and civilization. Wildness, however, is nature that is connected and present within civilization. Here, man and nature share space rather than being entirely separate. Wilderness is the antithesis of a city whereas wildness is an intermediate. In the passage where Masako and Chieko visit Kitayama, Kawabata initially characterizes it as wilderness by introducing it to us as a pure place that Chieko uses as a retreat from the city, emphasizing that Masako and tourists don’t visit, and creating the image of a relatively untouched mountain and forest. He describes Kitayama in beautiful, poetic detail, stating that “the steep mountains pressed against the banks of the Kiyotaki River (Kawabata 64),” showing reverence. Lastly, he describes the men who cut the trees for wood as “jumping from the top of one tree to the next like monkeys (Kawabata 68),” thereby removing some of their humanity in favor of comparing them to animals. All of these descriptions show an attempt to make Kitayama feel like relative wilderness (especially compared to Kyoto), however, the existence of Naeko’s town means that by definition, Kitayama is not
Wilderness refers to nature in its pristine state and includes a sense of rawness. Wilderness, though men can visit it, must be entirely separate from society and civilization. Wildness, however, is nature that is connected and present within civilization. Here, man and nature share space rather than being entirely separate. Wilderness is the antithesis of a city whereas wildness is an intermediate. In the passage where Masako and Chieko visit Kitayama, Kawabata initially characterizes it as wilderness by introducing it to us as a pure place that Chieko uses as a retreat from the city, emphasizing that Masako and tourists don’t visit, and creating the image of a relatively untouched mountain and forest. He describes Kitayama in beautiful, poetic detail, stating that “the steep mountains pressed against the banks of the Kiyotaki River (Kawabata 64),” showing reverence. Lastly, he describes the men who cut the trees for wood as “jumping from the top of one tree to the next like monkeys (Kawabata 68),” thereby removing some of their humanity in favor of comparing them to animals. All of these descriptions show an attempt to make Kitayama feel like relative wilderness (especially compared to Kyoto), however, the existence of Naeko’s town means that by definition, Kitayama is not