John Vaillant has written for The New Yorker, The Atlantic, National Geographic–Adventure, Outside and Men’s Journal. He lives in Vancouver with his wife (an anthropologist and a potter) and their two children. 
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
"The Golden Bough"
John Vaillant has written for The New Yorker, The Atlantic, National Geographic–Adventure, Outside and Men’s Journal. He lives in Vancouver with his wife (an anthropologist and a potter) and their two children. 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Vaillant's story focuses on one mans' decision to cut down a famous tree. At first reading this, I thought "So what? It's just a tree." This is where his research comes in handy. Vaillant provides useful info about the tree, including the scientific reasons for why it is that color. This research helps to provide meaning. As the reader, I now know why this tree was so important.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to researching the tree and its significane, Vaillant also does a lot of background research on his main "character," Grant Hadwin. We begin to get insight into his personal life. We begin to understand why he did what he did. Hadwin was not just cutting down some old tree. He was revealing our hypocrisy. We, as a society, allow millions of trees to be cut down. In cutting down the "Golden Bough," Hadwin reveals that hypocrisy.
Vaillant's story would be meaningless without its research. It really gives the reader a thorough understanding of the main character's personality, life story and motives behind his actions.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Vaillant might have gone too far with his research about the tree or perhaps he could have written about it differently. Midway through his piece I found myself confused wondering what exactly this was about, the tree or the man?
Before Vaillant described the tree's history for two pages I had already understood how meaningful, beautiful and unique it was. His research then seemed a little redundant.
The research is what makes you care. The scientific background on the tree establish the setting both aesthetically and its place historically. The primary sources' (the residents) description of Hadwin's action emphasize the emotional loss of a key piece of oral history (i.e. "It was like a drive-by shooting in a small town.") The detail on Hadwin's background offer insight into his action and opinions, painting a vivid image of this individual's life, personality and consequential behavior. Researching and articulating his milieux contextualize his action, whether or not it is correct.
ReplyDeleteVaillant's research is pretty extraordinary. He had to research dendrology, the history of the islands, the history of the Native Americans (yes, it's still part of the Americas) that inhabited the islands, and Hadwin's personal life. Vaillant did something that I seem to come across in many great feature pieces. While Hadwin obviously wasn't available for comment, Vaillant's interviews created a sort of mosaic of the kind of person Hadwin was without going to Hadwin himself. I think that sometimes writers try to take the "easy way out" and interview the almighty source (aka the person they're writing the story about), but I think it's much more effective (at least for me) to hear about the person and their life from other people. Not only do you get the story, but you get their feelings and reactions to certain events that make it more personal to you.
ReplyDeleteVaillant does a fantastic job of blending “boring” environmental science with feature story writing. Using scientific language, like in paragraph two, mixed with common language helps the reader to understand the uniqueness of the golden spruce. When he used local people to help unfold the personality of Grant Hadwin it gave the story a more interesting viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Cory posted and to expand on that... Vallaint's research was great because not only was the historical information on the golden spruce valuable, the way he went about giving description of Hadwin was seamless. It wasn't until the very end of the story (literally when Vallaint tells us that Hadwin has disappeared or may be dead) when I even realized that nothing from the story came from Hadwin himself. While I enjoyed the "Hadwin" side of the story more than the "golden spruce" side of the story, without knowing the importance behind the tree and what it meant to the community that literally centered themselves around it, Hadwin's actions would have had no impact. It was knowing how rare and special the tree was that gave interest to Hadwin and his chainsaw.
ReplyDeleteI think Vaillant's use of description and metaphors about the tree make the story much more compelling to read. It obviously took a great deal of research to be able to describe it that precisely. He describes the tree's demise as a "drive-by shooting," which really sends home the message of how important this tree was to the local community. He also uses quotes from observers of the tree, like a woman who called it an “ooh-aah tree” and the comparison to a bright Christmas tree. The reader gets a good sense about Hadwin as well and why he would do such a horrific thing as cutting down this special tree. We gradually learn this through the biographical narrative of his life. Hadwin is a very suspicious character, making him an intriguing person to read about and paralleling the intriguing nature of the tree.
ReplyDeleteThe research, like mentioned before, is really the lifeblood of this feature. The first page is a compelling story in itself, but you don't realize the gravity of the situation until the rich history of the tree and Hadwin himself are slowly revealed. It's apparent Vaillant has done some heavy duty, nose in the books type research for this piece. He digs deep into the complex world of scientific theories and transforms his efforts into easy reading while still conveying just how much of a natural phenomenon the tree really is.
ReplyDeleteThe same goes for his own crafting of Hadwin's character. At first he's painted as the bad guy, evil just for the sake of being evil. But, as Valliant slowly reveals (what I'm sure is a fraction of) the information he's collected on him you see there's depth and many facets to Hadwin's character that pushed him to do what he did.
The research makes the story. The unveiling of Hadwin's life is extremely well done, almost to a point of perfection. The reader hears from family, friends, neighbors and co-workers for a well rounded, accurate description. Hearing from others was by far the most intestesting part of the story for me. The research of the trees, islands and Hadwin's life supports the main storyline with background information and a reason to care about the story as a whole- it makes the pieces fit together.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Vaillant made an ordinary story about a tree seem extraordinary. Despite the different shifts in time following Hadwin, I never felt lost as a reader. Even though the main idea of the story is presented at the beginning 'Hadwin cutting down the tree', the pieces seem to all fall together as the article progresses.
ReplyDeleteThe research is abundant about the tree, the town, and Hadwin the man, but that's what makes this story what it is. Without this extensive research, who would want to read a run of the mill article about a tree being cut down...?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(sorry guys, I lost everything I wrote... so here we go again, maybe not with the same inspiration this beautiful piece asks for!)
ReplyDeleteIn news reporting we learn how importan it is to have at least two sources or sides of a story. In this piece, Vaillant's research shows that we can have as many sources as our research can go.
That means to be fair. First I thought Hadwin was just another bad guy cutting the rare tree... But later he becomes as unique as the tree, and just as human as we are.
Vaillant's research gives the feature story a complete structure. Without making the information a heavy burden on the reader, he weaves the facts into the story that still maintains the tree's historic, scientific, and human significance. The flow was perfect; I didn't need to stop and ask myself "why" or "how" about the tree's bioluminescence, for example. When I don't need to question the tree's scientific facts, it was easy to face the story with an emotional approach toward Grant's passionate life mission and the tree's "death." Thus, Vaillant focuses on the rarity of an individual and makes the reader care. The balance was created when he dissected Grant's personal life and history as if he was the tree itself. Therefore, emphasizing a "tree = person" idea.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I agreed with the earlier class discussion about Grant faking his death. At the end of the story, we read about the tree's successful growth and I felt that Grant too had an epiphany or a "rebirth," if I may say.