Questions for a Second Reading – “The Loss of the Creature,” by Walter Percy

1. Percy moves rapidly through his essay, providing examples of each point or idea. Each example is different, yet all of them help to provide the support that Percy’s point requires. A complex train of though is presented through these ideas, by moving from one example to another, or from tourists to students. While all of the examples Percy discusses support the point, they all vary in reference to how he conveys them. When he discusses how to “recover” the Grand Canyon, for example, he provides four ways in which it may be done. The first, leaving the beaten track, elaborates upon how one should see the Grand Canyon by avoiding facilities provided for seeing it. Looking at it in a different way, rather than what the experts or designers expect you to see it, provides a better outlook on the site.
The second way to recover the Grand Canyon is through a “dialectical movement.” In other words, a visitor may look at the Grand Canyon, but from a different view than everyone else – realizing that they are all looking at it the same way, and refusing to conform. Another way is to note what the experts want the visitor to see. Resisting to conform to that can also help to “recover” one’s visit. Lastly, a national disaster can help to recover the Grand Canyon. People who view it in the wake of a disaster see it in a completely different light; what is typical to some is normal to others.
Through the previous four examples, Percy established his point, but did it in a very intelligent way. All of his examples back up, or support his main theme, yet they are not repetitive. Switching from tourists to students simply helps to further his explination of how people often become “consumers of knowledge,” and almost always conform to the preformed symbolic complex of a situation.

2. Percy’s topic of “loss” comes through numerous times in his essay. He discusses the loss of sovereignty, the loss of the creature. We, as readers, are invited to share in his concern. His main point here is to beware of becoming consumers of knowledge – he reiterates this statement over and over, providing examples in various situations. The interests of the common people are represented here, as he is discussing typical situations, that, more often than not, we have been in. For example, in touring the Grand Canyon, Percy discusses how the experts have a plan for the way they want a vistor to view the Canyon. They set up trails, donkey rides, and looking stations to provide a viewer with a good (yet also typical) experience. This means that the visitor sees the Canyon in the same way that everyone else sees it – it is not as special or meaningful, since he is expecting to have it look a certain way. It is a struggle for a person to view something in their own way, rather than following the way others see it, yet it is beneficial in the end. Of course, everyone has preconceived notions when they view something as magnificant or popular as the Grand Canyon, yet it is important to ensure that an individual can view it for what it is. The media and public alike have shaped these notions, but it is important for one to not simply consume knowledge, for then, it is a loss. “The measures taken are measures appropriate to the consumer: the expert and the planner know and plan, but the consumer needs and experiences.”

3. Percy’s method of using stories to anectodes to convey his point worked, however he did not use first-person accounts of actual visits. While hearing a first-person perspective might have helped to make a few of his points easier to understand, this method shows us a good example of his writing style. He does not simply use quotes from other people, or situations that he has experienced before to prove his point. He takes solid scenerios, describes them thoroughly, and uses that example to support his main point. While this method is powerful, it does have limits. For example, when Percy discussed the student studying biology, a first-hand account may have made the situation a bit easier to understand. I felt that his method was not as strong in the second section of the essays as it was in the first – his examples were difficult to understand.