In a speech last week at the National Library of Scotland, Alexander McCall Smith spoke of his fear of countries and places losing their identities under the onward creep of globalisation.
Part of his gloomy prediction for Scotland was that it would one day be covered in wind turbines, what he described as "forests of white metal". It was an unusually sombre note for a writer whose raison d'etre is to raise a smile and lift the spirits, and there was a cheer of agreement from the members of the Muriel Spark Society, to whom he was speaking.
His concern about the marching army of windmills across Scotland's hills came on the heels of the Thomas Hardy Society's protest against two wind farm proposals which are to be built near Tolpuddle and Dorchester in Dorset. The first site is on the edge of Egdon Heath, which was the setting - and perhaps the central character - of The Return Of The Native, and will lie directly on the area which forms the backdrop for Hardy's novel Two On A Tower; the second construction is to be located near Waterston Manor, the farm house that captured Hardy's imagination and led to Far From The Madding Crowd.
The society says that Hardy fans come to Dorset specifically to see the rural setting of his works. To despoil the landscape with turbines would, they argue, deter these visitors by ruining the views. Such arguments are refuted by those who appear to know how the long-dead think, who say that a nature lover such as Hardy would have approved of wind power.
As a man who held the aesthetic and spiritual value of the countryside in the highest possible regard it is questionable whether Hardy would have liked these alien intrusions on his patch. But whether he would or would not have approved is irrelevant. The world he wrote about is that which his devotees want to find when they reach west Dorset. To step out of the bus and see not the sweeping heathland that Clym Yeobright tramped across but a field of shiny whirling blades is to feel a sense of desecration and loss.
It would be absurd, of course, to prevent progress simply because a writer has immortalised a part of the country. To be swayed by such considerations is to risk being called sentimental and foolish. Yet in an instance like this I'm perfectly happy to be accused of both, and worse. With some authors, location is little more than the theatre on whose boards their characters strut their stuff. Jane Austen's Bath, Robert Louis Stevenson's Edinburgh, Dickens's London - while their presence is essential to the mood of their novels, these are robust, ever-changing cities where the spirit of their old selves, captured timelessly in fiction, can still be summoned today with a bit of imagination.
But the moors abutting the Brontës's parsonage in Haworth, or the dank fields and valleys of Ted Hughes's Yorkshire, or the rolling hills of Grassic Gibbons's Mearns are something else altogether. They are fragile, unique and irreplaceable. Something of their essence creeps into their characters or creatures, the bond between them bone-deep and indivisible.
Hardy, though, is in a league of his own when it comes to the countryside. I doubt any British novelist has drawn so powerfully on the land. No-one who has read The Return Of The Native can ever forget that opening chapter, in which he portrays Egdon Heath: "A Saturday afternoon in November was approaching the time of twilight... The face of the heath by its mere complexion added half-an-hour to eve; it could in like manner retard the dawn, sadden noon, anticipate the frowning of storms scarcely generated, and intensify the opacity of a moonless midnight to a cause of shaking and dread."
Most of us accept that wind farms may be necessary, unlovely though they are.
Yet when they threaten to obliterate a piece of sublime literary heritage they do more than just ruin the view: they help destroy the very essence and meaning of the natural world they are meant to be protecting.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article