Saturday essay: Portrait of a farm
Published: Friday, March 29, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
A friend is contemplating buying an old farm.
But there's some hesitance.
A child fears her parent might become isolated, perhaps disconnected from the world.
But for what else are old farms?
A financial adviser cautions of the vagaries of the modern world; money spent now might be needed later.
But once only we really do live.
The friend revels in the premise of a well-preserved farmstead.
The house is pristine.
The stables, ghostly in their emptiness, would, filled, comfort, not haunt, horse and handler alike.
The acreage itself is a powerful enough elixir, natural and rolling, punctuated here and there only by more nature.
And that pond.
And those swans.
One's very own Walden.
Ah, but didn't Thoreau, in “Walden,” warn that “It makes but little difference whether you are committed to a farm or a county jail”?
Yes. But Thoreau got the “county jail” part as wrong as Whitman got the farm part right in “A Farm Picture”:
Through the ample open door of the peaceful country barn,
A sun-lit pasture field, with cattle and horses feeding;
And haze, and vista, and the far horizon, fading away.
Buy the farm, friend. Buy the farm.
— Colin McNickle
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- More ObamaCare fallout: Medicare disadvantage
- The Thursday wrap
- ‘Racism’? No
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- Accord in Geneva: Smelly side deals, too