I'm not sure which way you mean it, so here are my two guesses.

**If you mean my analysis felt like McDonald's** (uniform, prepackaged, the same tray every time), that's fair. It leaned on a template: bolded thesis lines, "X is doing more than Y," a tidy three-part breakdown, a closing flourish. That format flattens a piece like this, where the pleasure is in how strange and lopsided it is. Dillard doesn't write in neat sections, and a good reading of her probably shouldn't either.

**If you mean the essay itself reminds you of McDonald's,** I'm curious what the connection is. The fragment structure, maybe? Short self-contained units, each quote set apart like a standalone item, the same format repeated (date, place, scene, Teilhard quote). There's something almost serial about it, and Dillard does that on purpose in *For the Time Being*: she cycles through the same categories over and over (sand, China, clouds, birth, numbers) so that repetition itself becomes the point.

Which one did you mean? Or was it something else?