Explanatory essays - The Power of Knowle: Essays That Explain the Important Things in Life - Sykalo Eugene 2025

Cross-Cultural Representations of the Natural Environment in Literature
Comparative literature and cross-cultural analysis

Cross-cultural representations of the natural environment in literature—sounds like a mouthful, right? Like something you’d find scribbled in the margins of a grad student’s notebook, half-coffee-stained, half-forgotten. But here’s the thing: nature in books isn’t just trees and rivers and poetic sunsets. It’s a battleground, a mirror, a fever dream. It’s where writers from different corners of the world dump their obsessions, their fears, their gods. And when you start comparing how, say, a Japanese poet sees a cherry blossom versus how a Nigerian novelist describes a parched savanna, you’re not just reading about landscapes—you’re wading into how humans make sense of the world. Or fail to. Let’s unpack this, messily, like a suitcase after a long trip.

I’m starting with The Tale of Genji, because why not? Murasaki Shikibu, writing in 11th-century Japan, didn’t just see nature as backdrop—she made it a character, slippery and alive. The way she describes gardens, moonlight, the rustle of bamboo—it’s not just pretty. It’s obsessive, almost claustrophobic. Like, every petal in Genji’s world is heavy with meaning, dripping with impermanence. The cherry blossoms fall, and you’re supposed to feel gut-punched, because that’s life, right? Fleeting, gorgeous, gone. It’s Buddhist to the core, this idea that nature’s beauty is a reminder you’re temporary. I read that and I’m like, damn, Murasaki, why you gotta make a tree so existential? But it works. You can’t look at a flower the same way after.

Now, jump across the globe and a few centuries to Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. The natural world in Igbo Nigeria isn’t whispering about impermanence—it’s loud, unyielding, practical. The yam fields, the locusts, the dry season—they’re not metaphors; they’re survival. Achebe’s nature doesn’t care about your feelings. It’s not there to look pretty or teach you a lesson about mortality. It’s there to feed you or starve you. When Okonkwo’s crops fail, it’s not just a plot point—it’s a cosmic middle finger. The land is a force, not a muse. I remember reading that book in high school, sprawled on my bedroom floor, and feeling this weird mix of awe and dread. Like, nature in Achebe’s world doesn’t owe you anything. It’s not your friend.

Here’s where it gets messy, though. Comparing these two feels like trying to compare a haiku to a fistfight. Murasaki’s nature is delicate, inward, almost like she’s painting with a brush made of spider silk. Achebe’s is raw, muscular, like he’s carving the story out of the earth with a machete. But both are doing something similar: they’re using the natural world to say something about being human. In Japan, it’s about transience, the ache of things slipping away. In Nigeria, it’s about struggle, the grind of living in a world that’s bigger than you. And I’m sitting here, flipping between these books, thinking—okay, but what does that say about us? About how we see the world now, when half of us are doomscrolling climate reports and the other half are posting sunset pics with filters?

Let’s throw another voice into the mix: Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights. The moors in that book—God, they’re practically a character, aren’t they? Wild, windswept, untamed. They’re not just a setting; they’re a mood, a personality. Heathcliff and Cathy aren’t just shaped by the moors—they’re infected by them. The landscape is all edges, no softness, like a love story told in thorns. Brontë’s nature isn’t philosophical like Murasaki’s or utilitarian like Achebe’s—it’s emotional, almost unhinged. Reading it feels like being slapped by the wind. I mean, who writes like that? Who looks at a muddy, miserable hillside and says, “Yeah, this is the soul of my story”? Brontë, apparently. And it’s genius.

But here’s the thing that keeps nagging at me: these writers aren’t just describing nature. They’re wrestling with it. They’re asking what it means to be human in a world that doesn’t care about your drama. Murasaki’s cherry blossoms don’t stop falling because Genji’s heart is broken. Achebe’s locusts don’t care about Okonkwo’s pride. Brontë’s moors don’t give a damn about Cathy’s love story. Nature, in all these books, is indifferent. And that indifference—it’s haunting. It’s like the universe is saying, “You’re here, you’re loud, but you’re not the point.” I don’t know if that’s comforting or terrifying, but it’s definitely something I can’t stop turning over in my head.

Let’s pivot to something more modern, because I’m getting a little lost in the classics, and my coffee’s gone cold. Take Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The Kerala backwaters in that book—they’re not just a setting, they’re a pulse. The river, the monsoon, the sticky heat—it’s all tangled up with the characters’ lives, their secrets, their shame. Roy writes nature like it’s a lover you can’t escape, seductive and suffocating. The way she describes the river, it’s almost like it’s breathing, like it knows things the characters don’t. I read that book on a plane once, and I swear, I could smell the damp earth, feel the humidity on my skin. That’s not just writing—that’s witchcraft.

What’s wild is how these different takes on nature reflect the cultures they come from. Murasaki’s Japan is all about refinement, about finding meaning in the ephemeral. Achebe’s Nigeria is grounded, practical, tied to the rhythms of survival. Brontë’s England is raw, emotional, a place where the land mirrors the chaos of the heart. Roy’s India is lush, overwhelming, a place where nature is both beauty and burden. And yet, they all circle back to this idea that the natural world isn’t just a backdrop—it’s a force that shapes us, whether we like it or not. It’s like every culture looks at the same trees, the same rivers, and sees something different in the reflection.

I’m thinking now about how we talk about nature today. It’s all climate anxiety and eco-doom, right? Like, every other article is about melting ice caps or dying coral reefs. And I get it—things are bad. But reading these books makes me wonder if we’ve lost something, some older way of seeing the world. Not to get all nostalgic or whatever, but there’s something about how these writers engage with nature that feels… I don’t know, deeper? Less panicked, maybe. They’re not writing manifestos about saving the planet; they’re just trying to understand what it means to live on it. And yeah, I know, that sounds like a bumper sticker for a crunchy granola commune, but bear with me. There’s a difference between seeing nature as a problem to solve and seeing it as a mystery to sit with.

Let’s try a weird comparison, because why not? Reading these books feels like scrolling through a really good playlist—each one’s got its own vibe, but they’re all hitting the same nerve. Murasaki’s track is a slow, mournful koto melody, all elegance and ache. Achebe’s is a drumbeat, relentless, grounded, no nonsense. Brontë’s is some wild, howling folk song, the kind that makes you want to run into the wind. Roy’s is a sitar riff, layered, hypnotic, a little too intense. And yet, they all make you feel something about the world you’re in—something big, something you can’t quite name. That’s what literature does, I guess. It takes something as ordinary as a tree or a river and makes you see it like it’s the first time.

I keep circling back to this question: why does nature hit so hard in these stories? Maybe it’s because it’s the one thing we can’t outrun. You can build cities, write novels, fall in love, screw everything up—but the trees keep growing, the rivers keep flowing, the moors keep howling. Nature doesn’t care about your plot twist. And maybe that’s what makes it so powerful in literature. It’s the one character that never changes, never bends to the story. It just is. And in a world where everything feels like it’s spinning out of control—climate, politics, you name it—there’s something weirdly grounding about that.

I don’t have a neat way to tie this up, and honestly, I don’t want one. These books, these writers—they don’t give you answers. They give you questions, images, feelings. Murasaki’s blossoms, Achebe’s yams, Brontë’s moors, Roy’s rivers—they’re all saying something about what it means to be human, to be small in a big world. And maybe that’s enough. Maybe that’s why I keep coming back to them, dog-earing pages, underlining sentences, feeling like I’m on the verge of understanding something I’ll never quite grasp. It’s messy, it’s frustrating, it’s beautiful. Kind of like nature itself, right?