Read the following excerpt from the article "vision, voice and the power of creation: an author speaks out," by t. a. barron, and answer the question that follows: another way to tap the power of imagination is through place. my own background as a writer is rooted in nature, having grown up reading henry david thoreau, rachel carson, and john muir long before i ever dipped into madeleine l'engle, lloyd alexander, ursula le guin, e. b. white, or j. r.r. tolkien. my early writings were really nature journals; at nine, i wrote a complete biography-of a tree. (it was a once-majestic chestnut tree not far from my home.) so it should come as no surprise that i view place as much more than just a setting for a story. it is, in truth, another form of character, no less alive and complex, mysterious and contradictory, than the richest character in human form. what does this paragraph imply about the way the author would treat the setting in his work?

T. A. Barron would treats setting on par with characters--equally as alive and complex.

The author T. A. Barron discusses how he had authored a text about a tree that was, what he noted as, a tree’s biography.  It should be noted, however, that even though a tree is alive, a tree is typically understood to be inanimate because it is not alive in the same was as an animal.  This means that whenever trees are mentioned in writing, they are typically just background/part of the setting.  That said, by noting he had written a tree’s biography and considers trees characters, what that implies is that he, too, would treat setting in his work as alive and on equal ground as a regular characters because of the way he considers trees (what are typically just part of the setting) as tantamount with animate objects.

a caption indicating the purpose of the diagram

explanation:

sorry i can't really see the questions that good so next time, copy and paste, k?

explanation: