Response to The River Why by Mark Pennington

This class was not the first time I was exposed to The River Why by David James Duncan. I was previously introduced to the novel on a backpacking trip to Utah three years ago. Our trip leader had the book and got me interested in it by reading several passages to me while we were on trail. The sections read were not similar in any respect to the beginning of the novel. I found this out when I got back from the trip and purchased the book.

When, I finally sat down to read the book, I was excited to see what new fly fishing intelligence I could gain and also a little giddy as always to see someone else’s in-depth opinion on the world of fly fishing. Even with this motivation, I found that I never really could get into the book. I gave the book several heartfelt attempts, probably four or five, but never could get captivated by the book. When It was assigned at the beginning of the semester, I looked at the chance as my best shot yet to get into the intellect of Duncan. I knew he had intriguing thoughts. I knew that they were at least scattered throughout the book because of the passages that was exposed to in Utah. Until it was an assignment I never had the ambition to sit through the doldrums that are the first few chapters.

These chapters were difficult to get through, and even after I finished the book I still held discontent for them. It was when I really started to examine this prompt and the book as a writer; I had to come up with some reason in my mind to justify these chapters, because they were far too boring to have been put there unintentionally. So why would Duncan place them right in the beginning? Why would he put boring chapters right at the make or break point, when most authors jump through flying rings aflame to catch the reader’s attention? The best answer is that it is a lot like learning to fly fish, and the patience that is required when starting out. Anyone who has learned a craft will tell you that these are the same type of trials and tribulations that one must go through to really understand the art. In fact, he is just mirroring the difficulty. Dare I say that he is being a pretentious here, comparing the wonderful experience of fly fishing to reading his book?

As I learned to fly fish, the learning curve was very similar to the first few chapters of this book. This is an imaginative use of writing as craft to convey meaning without spelling it out. By using these first few chapters as a device in themselves he is toying with our minds and our ideas of traditional organizational patterns and their function. It would be very interesting to sit Duncan down and ask him about this work and see if this was his reason for making the beginning of the book so monotonous and rigid. I wonder if his answer would have anything to do with my hypothesis. More than likely he had some other reason for the different style of writing seen in the first few chapters, something much deeper and profound.

The book would have taken on a much different meaning without these few chapters since it is here that we see directly how his parents influenced him through his childhood voice. Without this perspective many of the oddities of his personality would be harder to accept, and would even turn some people away—those who had a hard time understanding this deep need to fish. I too am often misinterpreted by others in everyday conversation. Things I say are taken much differently that I mean them. If others understood me a little better, and took the time to see me and see where I came from, in the same say that this book enables the reader to understand Gus, then they too would be able to decipher the sometimes off-the-wall things I say.
- Mark Pennington