Keeping in mind the Benson reading, with his emphasis on the essayist meaning to “interpret” a lived life, instead of recounting events simply as they happened. This is ever present in the section where she describes seeing a rather odd piece of painting, a clown constructed of vegetables. She goes on to mention how “I have forgotten, I assume, a great many things I’ve wanted to remember-But I have not forgotten that clown painting or its lunatic setting in the old hotel”(97). Normally its mention would not raise any flags, but when thinking about Benson we can see Dillard exercising a more experienced part of her life than, as she admits, other more immediately important aspects. As an essayist this is very import to keep in mind. Putting forth a feeling rather than a recount and drumming up a loose connection between “fiction” and “non-fiction”.

Benson goes on to say an essayist is not a romantic. Rather, an essayist is to give their honest and personified account of their life as they lived it. Dillard could have just talked about the near super-natural astrological event that her text revolves, yet the very appearance of this painting, puts those two experiences on par with one another. In fact, the mention of the painting in the beginning sets the tone for the whole piece. In this way, the painting is a reflection of the eclipse, a surreal astronomical event. One that she intended to see. But instead was imprinted with the image of the clown that has stuck with her.

As far as my essay is concerned, I would like to adopt, not only the honesty that Dillard displays, but the attention to striking details as well. The reader is there for an experience, not to learn. Dillard (and hopefully myself) realizes that if you wanted to know about eclipses you’d read a text book. She paint a eerie and distorted  version of the event because it IS her version of the event. The language is exuberant and colorful because that was her experience, not the experience.  I wish to reflect that same honesty.