While reading “The Art of the Essayist,” by Arthur Benson, two quotes jumped out to me. The first comment is the following. “One does not go to an essayist with a desire for information, or with an expectation of finding a clear statement of a complicated subject … What one rather expects to find is a companionable treatment of that vast mass of little problems and floating ideas … evoked by our passage through the world… and above all by our relations with other people.” (40)

I found that this quote parallels with Annie Dillard’s reactions and descriptions following the phenomenon that occurred in “Total Eclipse.” Instead of giving sums of information or an elaborate scientific description of a total eclipse, Dillard provides several statements that summarize how the event made the people involved feel. Her descriptions depict relatable scenarios within ourselves and between humans, rather than providing complex information that actually portrays what an eclipse is.

Following the event, Dillard explains how she was still in awe, and at a loss of words. People in the hotel were saying “Did you see…? Did you see … Then somebody said something that knocked her for a loop.” (10) The student simply stated that the “little white ring … looked like a Life Saver.”(10). Dillard then goes on to say how she could not write a sentence, let alone use a word to describe what she had seen. She was “dumbstruck.” However, something so simple and unexpected brought her back to reality. I note this section because Dillard uses “companionable treatment” of an amazing event.

Dillard also does this in the last paragraph. Once again, instead of concretely describing the event, she explains how the event made her feel. For the reader, this is a much more relatable and sociable description. We may not know how an eclipse is formed, but we have a firmer grasp what it’s like to view an event. We can picture how astounding, shocking, scary, and draining a total eclipse is. Dillard states that as they drove away,

“We never looked back. It was a general vamoose, and an odd one, for when we left the hill, the sun was still partially eclipsed – a sight rare enough, and one which, in itself, we would probably have driven five hours to see. But enough is enough. One turns at last even from glory itself with a sigh of relief.”(13)

The second comment Benson made is that “The essayist is the opposite of the romancer, because his one and continuous aim is to keep the homely materials in view; to face actual conditions, not to fly from them.” (42) Throughout the essay Dillard depicts the events with a gloomy realism.

“The world which lay under darkness and stillness following the closing of the lid was not the world we know. The event was over. Its devastation lay around about us. The clamoring mind and heart stilled, almost indifferent, certainly disembodied, frail, and exhausted. The hills were hushed, obliterated.” (7)

This scene is by no means romantic, beautiful, or portrayed to in an attractive form. It is barren, raw, unpleasant, but accurate way. This is a trait true to the essayist. This style is continually depicted throughout the essay, but another good example is found later in the story. “The white ring and the saturated darkness made the earth and the sky look as they must look in the memories of the careless dead.” (9) Overall, Dillard seems to use the qualities of an essay displayed in the previous two quotes by Benson.