Notes on Authorial Presence in Encounters with the Archdruid

The Glen Canyon Dam. Source: wildnatureimages.com [Ed. note: Ironic website for this picture to come from.]

        

    I’ve never read a work of nonfiction with an authorial presence quite like the one John McPhee strikes in Encounters with the Archdruid. On the page, McPhee is unavoidably extant, but somehow manages to stay out of the fray, letting the subjects and the scene come alive around and without him. Though I wonder if others might disagree with me, I found the author’s presence to be remarkably without conflict—we know that he has deep ties with David Brower but he does not allow this fact to obscure the validity of his reporting. With the help of a certain narrative grace, McPhee is able balance between being a part of the story and the observer of it, all without ever truly letting on his own position on the politics at hand.

            Here are some points I think might be interesting to discuss in class:

McPhee’s mediator presence – I would argue that the author asserts himself as a mediator in that he is largely impartial, is the person who brings Brower together with his “adversaries,” and is sometimes the one asking the questions debated between his subjects. Is McPhee’s mediation the key to the success of his authorial presence in this book?

Allusions to relationships with characters off the page – How does McPhee include evidence of a relationship with Brower that goes beyond this book without allowing such information to compromise his credibility?

Overt presence vs covert presence – At times, McPhee sets a scene as though he is no part of it. [pg. 93: “Fraser is cruising through Sea Pines in an air-conditioned green dodge. . .”] At other times, he introduces a scene with his personal observations. [pg. 174: “Mile 130. The water is smooth here, and will be smooth for three hundred yards, and then we are going over another rapid.”] How does he do both in one volume—and pull it off? Is one technique better than the other? Would anyone in the class argue that he should have stayed with one technique for the entire book?