Response to "Skunk Dreams"

Maybe it was the way Louise Erdrich's ideas jumped around without warning, maybe it was the way her piece seemed to lack a concrete theme--something to connect her many anecdotes, or maybe it was just the noisy teenagers outside my window slamming doors and screeching their tires into the wee small hours of the morning while I was trying to read this essay; whichever of those three (or whichever combination of the three) it was, something about reading "Skunk Dreams" really ticked me off.

It took me way too long to get through this essay. I found myself reading a portion (let's say the one about Erdrich's adult life in North Dakota), moving on to the next (after North Dakota would be the one about New Hampshire), and having to go back to the previous section to make sure I didn't miss the part where she transitioned or things she was referring back to. Turns out that, more often than not, she didn't transition and wasn't referring back to anything (at least nothing I had thought was important enough to be a main idea the first time I read it). A good number of my annotations ended with "WTF, lady?!" I just couldn't see where she was going with the writing.

Honestly, I'm still not totally sure that I understand Erdrich's point in the essay (if she even had one). She would choose to be a skunk? That's about all I can confidently conclude after reading this. There were plenty of times when I thought she was on to something else, but she usually managed to confuse me just a few sentences later. For example, on page 345 she included a large portion about the obstacles involved with getting what we desire in life, how those obstacles often disappear in dreams, and how obstacles can define us when we overcome them. I thought this part was interesting and, in turn, tried to ignore the fact that one of the only times I could relate to what she wrote was when she was quoting someone else. I even gave her credit for bringing up dreams for a third time and for relating back to the obstacle (the fence) from her dream in North Dakota (even though I was still trying to link that back to her skunk experience on the football field). I thought to myself, "Could this be some sort of unifying idea?!"

A person might assume so. . .at least up until page 347 when her newest focus seemed to be on her internal debate about whether Corbin's Park is a blessing (for preserving the land) or a curse (for locking up the wilderness and its animals and seeking pleasure through killing those animals). Though I wondered where the dream theme went, I was totally on board with this Catch-22 idea. I thought maybe Erdrich would finally impress me and go on to say something about being glad for the skunk in the football field because he didn't have to deal with being a resident at Corbin's Park at all. He was free to roam without fences. Without obstacles.

I thought she might also say that discovering Corbin's Park (a place that was very similar to somewhere she visited in a dream that she may or may not have had. . .seriously, I won't go all psychology buff on your hindquarters, but it's very possible that Louise Erdrich has a false memory on her hands) reminded her that we are the ones to decide our obstacles. Maybe I'm being too picky. It's not her fault she doesn't think like me. Still, this idea seemed to make a lot of sense to me because while Louise Erdrich is still deciding how she feels about Corbin's Park, the animals have already shown their contentedness with living there in how they don't try busting out through the flimsy areas in the fence--they don't see it as an obstacle. I guess this wasn't where Erdrich was going with the story considering she didn't touch the idea. . .

The one thing I actually wouldn't hesitate to commend Louise Erdrich on was her incredible way of explaining things. Her word choice was really creative and always painted a perfect picture in my head. If nothing else Erdrich's beautiful way of depicting details was the redeeming quality of her writing. However, it still bothers me that I had trouble finding a common thought among the sections of her essay--as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing other than coincidence linking the author's life in Valley City to the one she had in the Northeast. I know that there are some people out there who are so brilliant that they don't need a unifying idea for their work, but, in my (somewhat harsh) opinion, Louise Erdrich is not one of those people.