Dillard’s “In the Jungle” was most striking to me in its use of juxtaposition between the purity of the nature in the jungle with the poisonous and greedy deeds of the oil company, Texaco. The essay begins with an idyllic recollection of a night on the Napo River. Dillard recounts the Jesuit’s music, the fireflies, and the way “[e]ach star…seemed to tremble and stir with my breath” (72). The entire scene seems to embody the untouched innocence of life in the jungle. Quickly, however, the tone shifts from peaceful and picturesque to violent as the narrative jumps forward in time, discussing Texaco’s future infractions against the almost-sacred jungle. This contrast between the pure and impure serves to amplify the extremes on both ends. It makes …show more content…
Because of the graphic and horrifying descriptions of the deer tied to the tree, I initially thought that Dillard was trying to elicit sympathy or pity for the helpless animal. However, her emotionless reaction to the torture led me to believe otherwise. When the parallel was drawn between the deer’s torture and Alan McDonald’s similar torment, I began to question the intention of essay, unsure of whether her point was that the world is cruel and we must cope with it, or whether she was challenging the cruelty of the world. Toward the end of the essay she begs someone to, “please explain to Alan McDonald in his dignity, to the deer and Providencia in his dignity, what is going on? And mail [her] the carbon copy” (84). After reading this line I was more confident that she was challenging the universe or God’s gratuitous cruelty. However, the last line of the essay, in which she calls the deer a “poor thing”, but remarks that “it was a ridiculous thing to say,” once again caused me to question the meaning of the story. After reflecting on it more, I realise the connection to theodicy, and I am inclined to believe that she accepts that there is cruelty in the world, but maybe has a difficult time reconciling it with the supposed perfect nature of