Where
do you stand on walking and talking?
On rambling
and ranting?
On orating
and hiking?
I’m
more of a Hazlitt strider myself:
‘One of the pleasantest things in the world
is going on a journey; but I like to go by myself. I can enjoy society in a
room, but out of doors, Nature is company enough for me. I am then never less
alone than when alone … I cannot see the wit of walking and talking at the same
time … “Let me have a companion of my way, “ says Sterne, “ were it but to
remark how the shadows lengthen as the sun declines.” It is beautifully said:
but, in my opinion, this continual comparing of notes interferes with the
involuntary impression of things upon the mind, and hurts the sentiment … ‘
I
know what Hazlitt means:
Wordsworthian
pantheism,
Or
William Blake flights of fancy,
Or
psycho-geographical musing,
Or
Zen-style footfall mindfulness,
Are
often inhibited by the clang of voices,
And
the din of conversation;
But on
other occasions, it’s true
That
the knowledge of a companion
Can
act as a stimulus to a new understanding,
Or a novel
re-creation of a landscape;
And,
sometimes, of course, we need to catch up
On
‘news’ with friends or family –
It
is all, I suppose, a matter of balance:
A
dynamic harmony of opposites
Helps
make for an enriching walk in company -
Sometimes
alone, and sometimes alive
To
conviviality and congeniality,
And
sometimes finding empathy,
Shared
meanings and understanding
When
exploring the land in shared silence -
Followed
by a post-ramble sharing
Of
individual and collective experience
In mutual discourse on how we read our walk,
A
deconstruction and re-creation
Of
how we made sense of it all;
For
as William Hazlitt put it:
‘I am for the synthetical method on a
journey in preference to the analytical. I am content to lay in a stock of
ideas then, and to examine and anatomise them afterwards. I want to see my
vague notions float like the down of the thistle before the breeze, and not to
have them entangled in the briars and thorns …’
No comments:
Post a Comment