|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Howdy (Reply to this comment)
by mcmaster
Wow, an outstanding review. You should consider writing a fishing / outdoors book. Your writing style is easy reading for a fellow outdoorsman. I'll be buying this book. Thanks for the heads up...
Joe
|
Jan 23 '09
11:57 pm PST
|
|
That Wilderness Dream (Reply to this comment)
by self41
Do I have to be male to want to live out a wilderness dream? I think not for I too value self sufficiency, solitude, and a need to be re-enforce my personal relationship with God and nature.
To get up on the spur of the moment, and to do as I please. That kind of feeling gets better, and/or worse with age, depending on which side of the civil status social ladder you may find yourself.
Morilla, your review is excellent, and I immediately cast myself into the encounter with the brown bear which I found hilarious. It is a pity the gun didn't jam, I wonder what would have happened next with that charging bear.
That book is a must read for persons like myself who have camped out in the wilds, and or visited wilderness areas.
Sincerely
Elaine
|
Aug 13 '06
7:00 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Leopold (Reply to this comment)
by morilla
Proenneke sees a disproportionate use of technology rather than relying on one's own creativity; the mind rather than the tool being the "secret" to success - whether casting a fly rod, driving a golf ball, building a cabin, or constructing a society. Throughout human history is the view that the "latest and greatest" in technology is achievement in comfort, efficiency, and as a breastwork against Nature. Technology has become a shield from those very things that made humans what we are. To thrive, survive, and grow, humans need individual creativity in the face of circumstance; our adaptability to the physical world through application of our minds via technology, technique, or temperament.
With such 'shielding' comes a reliance on others for the acquisition of competence and the development of technologies, skills, and behavioral insights. The individual may become adept at their role within the mechanism of the group; but, simultaneously, there exists an inverse loss of capability for the individual to survive without the group. How many of us, like Proenneke, could be dropped into the wilds and build our own shelter, find food, be content with our own thoughts, and find happiness, along with stimulation, in what I refer to as the "complexity of simplicity?"
Proenneke did not abandon technology as a Shelley-esque monstrosity. He was reacting to what Leopold spoke of when he stated: "Your true modern is separated from the land by many middlemen, and by innumerable physical gadgets. He has no vital relation to it..." Instead, Proenneke notes:
"Man is dependent upon man. I would be the last to argue that point. Babe brought me things that other men made or produced. We need each other; but nevertheless, in a jam the best friend you have is yourself."
You can find precisely the same line of thought in the writings of Louis L'Amour. In Conagher, the title character makes the observation that "a man who has to ask for help better not start off in the first place." In either Borden Chantry or North to the Rails (the main character being Borden Chantry's son) or myriad other of his writings, L'Amour expresses the sentiment that "to the degree a man relies on someone else, to that degree, he is a lesser man." This was not meant in the masochistic machismo 'caricaturized' in movies. This was simply a recognition of the same point as Proenneke's.
In 2000, David Wescott produced a book entitled Camping In The Old Style. In his Introduction, there is this observation:
"In 1964, the Wilderness Act made our culture the first to separate itself from the natural world by establishing through law that wilderness 'is a place where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.' Such a noble effort has created a sense that the continuation of the over-consumption of resources to create consumer goods that allow us to pass through wilderness without changing it has no impact on wilderness. And manufacturers have done their utmost to convince us that the traditions and techniques of the early campers must now be replaced with these technologies, because the old ways were quaint but crude. The ones who persist in their use have an inferior camping ethic."
[A more accurate reading of the Wilderness Act would be: "Wilderness, in contrast with those area where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." But, Wescott's point is valid and useful. What was it that Leopold said about - "Then came the gadgeteer, otherwise known as the sporting-goods dealer?" I wonder what he would think of such an interpretation? For further insight into the 1964 Wilderness Act and Leopold's contributions to it, I recommend the 1991 documentary Wild By Law.]
We've seen this with an 'Industrial Revolution' in sporting goods - even in flyfishing. Graphite shafts in golf clubs AND fly rods. Space-age composites of boron/graphite are now the rage. Lighter, it must be lighter, has been the mantra since the use of Greenheart, pre-bamboo (see the writings of Halford). Blocks of aluminum machined into reels so light and ported that they perceptively seem nearly denuded of metal.
All of this has created a resurgent interest in cane rods. Not so much because they are fashionable or a social statement (though, certainly, there are those who play that game), but because of the traditions in feel, in sportsmanship, in connectivity with nature that these rods evoke in our pursuit of avocation. As flyfishing author John Gierach notes:
"A bamboo rod loads more naturally and reacts more organically to the whims of the caster. It's also more forgiving than graphite...it's much easier to cast well if you're not an expert. People worry about the slight extra weight, but...even though a comparable graphite is lighter, I find it more tiring to cast...a good bamboo rod will mend line with more authority, cushion light tippets better and play fish with more stubborn guts than any graphite I've tried...For sheer sensuality of casting and for fishing that requires some subtlety, a good bamboo rod is simply the superior instrument...my life tends to operate on the 'good enough' principle most of the time, but flyfishing is what I love the most and have stayed with the longest, so it seems logical to do it with the finest tools I can afford - or not afford, as the case may be."
He then goes on to point out in other writings on the same topic that while flintlock rifles/shotguns and bamboo rods may fairly reek of "tradition" and give one a sense of 'returning to nature,' to do it right he'd probably have to live in a cave and fish by throwing rocks. Although, in keeping with another flyfishing "tradition," those rocks would have to be quarried of the finest limestone, imported from England, and cost around $300 each.
As Wescott points out in the Preface to Camping In The Old Style:
"An interesting phenomenon takes place when viewing one of the old photos or reading the text. At the time these images were taken and words penned, it was the modern age. There are repeated references to the 'modern man' and the 'modern woman,' and fashion was an important part of the camping scene, just as it is today. However, in our own time frame, it's easy to look back and discount what was going on and place the technologies and techniques of those times in the categories of quaint and primitive as compared to today's standards, patting ourselves on the back for how far we've progressed. But, if we take a close look at what was happening during the period of 1900-1930, we find uncanny similarities to today's modern man and woman, and one has to wonder just how far we have really come."
As you note, golf creates its own world. Fairways are manicured; greens even more so. Hazards are artificially designed so as to create challenge and 'risk.' Rules are imposed by way of order. Thus, both the physical and cultural realities are, by and large, artificial or 'supra'-natural. Thus, artificiality plays a major part when it comes to enjoying "the game with fewer frustrations."
Fly fishing requires the practicioner become an effective participant in Nature's pageantry; no matter how briefly. To accomplish this, one must gain an understanding of the connectivity of the natural cycle. Hydrology, entymology, climatology, biology, geology, geography, and a host of other -ologies and -aphies. They must understand the physics of casting. They must gain competence in the art of imitation (fly tying and/or presentation [making your fly seem natural]), as well as skill in the stalk ("observe the heron and emulate its behavior for successful angling").
The flyfisher must observe nature, understand (no matter how rudimentarily) its intricate connections, and conform to its rules - rules that care not one whit what a human may desire or need at any given moment. This is why bamboo rods enjoy a following. Whether the individual can actually afford to own one or won't ever own one is not at issue. (There are by some accounts, currently, more independent craftsmen building bamboo rods than ever in the sport's history.) It has become a 'counter-revolution' of sorts in response to the ever increasing encroachment of 'technology;' a resistance to the invidious role such technology can play in separating the flyfisher from the natural world he flyfishes to become a part of. Bamboo is an organic (natural) grass. The material is hand split and, often, hand planed. You are using a natural material, handcrafted by an individual, to become part of the natural world.
It is this seeking of competence (for flyfishing is something that can never be mastered - you can't catch them all no matter how good you are) and understanding that prompts most angling authors to point out that one does not go fishing simply to catch fish. It is the individual experience of consciously becoming an active participant in the natural world, not an artificially constructed one (be it society in general or a simple 18 hole golf course), which draws flyfishers to the sport. Such 'consciousness' tends to lead to a 'conscientiousness' - for, if we wish to be able to enter that natural world when the insidiously infrequent and increasingly rare "moment of opportunity" presents itself, then that natural world must be there to inhabit.
Frederick Jackson Turner constructed the definition for the term 'frontier' which now inhabits the lexicons of both history and geography, his 'frontier hypothesis,' through retrospective, academic analysis. He was trying to formulate a concept to encapsulate not only individual experiences (perceptions), but to graphically illustrate a pattern in those experiences/perceptions.
As contained in a portion of Turner's classroom notes from 1923: "...the West considered as a process rather than an area..." After his retirement, Turner further emphasized this by writing: "As you know, the 'West' with which I dealt, was a process rather than a fixed geographical region: it began with the Atlantic Coast; and it emphasized the way in which the East colonized the West, and how the 'West,' as it stood at any given period affected the development and ideas of the older areas to the East. In short, the 'frontier' was taken as the 'thin red line' that recorded the dynamic element in American history up to recent times."
What was this 'process?' Or, specific to our point, what were the lessons derived from that process? In The Frontier In American History, Turner makes the following observations:
1.) Pioneer democracy has had to learn lessons by experience...They have had to sacrifice something of their passion for individual unrestraint...the specially trained man, the man fitted for his calling by education and experience, whether in the field of science or of industry, has a place in government...
2.) We are learning that the distinction arising from devotion to the interests of the commonwealth is a higher distinction than mere success in economic competition...It is an inspiring prophecy of the revival of the old pioneer conception of the obligations and opportunities of neighborliness, broadening to a national and even to an international scope...In the spirit of the pioneer's "house raising" lies the salvation of the Republic.
3.) This then is the heritage of pioneer experience,--a passionate belief that a democracy was possible which should leave the individual a part to play in free society and not make him a cog in a machine operated from above; which trusted in the common man, in his tolerance, his ability to adjust differences with good humor, and to work out an American type from the contributions of all nations--a type for which he would fight against those who challenged it in arms, and for which in time of war he would make sacrifices, even the temporary sacrifice of individual freedom and his life, lest that freedom be lost forever.
Not too surprisingly, Turner's posit that an individual has "a part to play in free society and not make him a cog in a machine operated from above" and your statement regarding students "Feeling helpless in the face of the sheer size of government..." seems the same as Proenneke was stating when he observed (note the immediacy of the context):
"I don't know what the answer is. In time man gets used to almost anything, but the problem seems to be that technology is advancing faster than he can adjust to it. I think it's time we started applying the breaks, slowing down our greed and slowing down the world."
Turner's "old pioneer conception of the obligations and opportunities of neighborliness" can be found in: "...You didn't find a padlock on my door (maybe I should have put one on) for I feel that a cabin in the wilderness should be open to those who need shelter. My charge for the use of it is reasonable, I think, although some no doubt will be unable to afford what I ask, and that is - take care of it as if you had carved it out with hand tools as I did. If when you leave your conscience is clear, then you have paid the full amount..."
Could this be the motiviation behind the message of The Lorax? Could it be that we and our progeny have become too shielded from the realities of living in a natural world that, even if only viscerally or intuitively, we need reminding that conscientiousness (neighborliness?) is necessary as a part of Earth's ecosystem? As William O. Douglas puts it in Of Men and Mountains:
"The boy makes a deep imprint on the man. My young experiences in the high Cascades have placed the heavy mark of the mountains on me...As the years have passed I have found in these experiences a spiritual significance that I could not fully sense before. That is why the book, though about a boy, is in total effect an adult version."
It would seem that a Turner-esque pattern emerges from the writings of Abbey, Proenneke, Douglas, Roosevelt, Wescott, Gierach, and myriad others. Maybe "just knowing it's there" is, after all, not enough when it comes to 'wilderness.' Maybe, as with Proenneke's physical journey or Martin Luther King's allegorical "I've been to the mountaintop," we must experience that world to understand and appreciate it.
As Douglas further states:
"The Klickitat Meadows are the most ideal spot for boys God ever created in the wilderness...A boy can explore this meadow and discover all its secrets, and those of the river too, without risk...There is hardly a fisherman who does not discover something about trout, bass, steelhead, or salmon that those before him did not know. Lads a hundred years hence will find answers to questions that have stumped all who preceded. For the calculus of water temperature, humidity, the moon and sun, the wind, bug hatches, and the like are too involved for any one man to compute."
Could there have been a reason why the Bible stipulates that man was 'part of' the Earth, having been created from the materials which compose it and originally intended to be its 'caretaker?' And as punishment for transgression, man was removed from a peaceful, "natural" existence?
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed...And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it. (Genesis 2:7, 8, & 15)
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return...did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them...Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (Genesis 3:19, 21, & 23)
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea... (Genesis 9:2)
Is it possible that more than one message was being proffered in verses such as...
If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. (Deuteronomy 22:6 - 7)
And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed. (Luke 5:16)
...Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. (Acts 14:17)
The point here is that a pattern for these discussions existed LONG before Muir, Leopold, Dr. Seuss, Abbey, Proenneke, et al. In fact, it might be argued this pattern of discourse came with human migration to North America. Therefore, perhaps Turner's observations have direct bearing and philosophical merit as regards conservation. To wit:
That while we might have to sacrifice some passion for individual unrestraint in learning the distinction arising from devotion to the interests of the commonwealth as a higher distinction than mere success in economic competition, a conception of the obligations and opportunities of neighborliness, we must also adhere to a passionate belief that a democracy was possible which should leave the individual a part to play in free society and not make him a cog in a machine operated from above.
Isn't this much like Leopold's discussion of a 'Land Ethic' in A Sand County Almanac? -
"An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct. These are two definitions of one thing. The thing has its origin in the tendency of interdependent individuals or groups to evolve modes of co-operation. The ecologist calls these symbioses. Politics and economics are advanced symbioses in which the original free-for-all competition has been replaced, in part, by co-operative mechanisms with an ethical content."
Isn't it interesting how one little, 223 page book has brought us to such a downright eclectic, provocative, and soul-searching discussion? Perhaps there was a reason why the review itself appeared to be a trifle 'lengthy' to some and why it has been noted that many readers, upon completion of the book, are left wanting "more." As Frederick Jackson Turner once noted:
"If I aim to describe an elephant, and give only an account of his feet, alleging at the same time that this constitutes the elephant, the microscopic accuracy and keenness of criticism of these organs will not atone for the failure to speak of the rest of the animal."
I suppose there's a relevant point in there related to the review, our subsequent commentary, the book itself, and conservation studies. Perhaps it is best that, as with the natural world, I leave something for you to explore and experience on your own.
Nice discussion.
|
Aug 07 '06
1:47 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Leopold (Reply to this comment)
by davke
Keith/Proenneke makes an interesting comment (among several): "In time man gets used to almost anything, but the problem seems to be that technology is advancing faster than he can adjust to it." This seems to be stark, raving helplessness. Technology is the product of mankind; or is mankind the product of technology? Proenneke sees it as the latter, apparently, and flees toward the wilderness as a coping method in the face of Frankenstein's monster.
And that's where golf and fly-fishing part ways. Fly-tying, bamboo rods, and those awful little reels (all my reels say "Abu Garcia" or "Penn" on them and can pull in a redfish while I sleep -- yes, I'm one of THOSE fishermen) make your sport noted for its traditions. Waders and lines might have changed a bit, but I still see wicker creels for sale. Fly fishermen routinely employ nine-foot rods to catch ten-inch fish. In other words, it's a sport that's crying out for technologically enhanced efficiency. Yet its practitioners got to the 1880s and decided "this is just right -- somebody make a fire while I study the midges." Sure, government stocks your streams and your fellow sportsmen get to one of those western "rivers" via Chevy Tahoe, but more often than not they have the grace to pick up their trash and cart it out in the Tahoe, too. And many even practice catch and release, minimizing their impact on their sport to the lips of their quarry.
Golfers... well, that's a color of a different horse. Technology has to be the latest for most of us, so that we can enjoy the game with fewer frustrations. Most of us pay someone even to put grips on our clubs -- there's no parallel to fly-tying, no equipment parallel to the winter breakdown and maintenance on a reel. We don't proudly hold up the newest golf ball we stitched together, though we do pretend to know what the words on the golf ball packaging mean.
It'd be nice to imagine that golf was an echo of the escapist fantasy. We remove ourselves from the traffic jams and seek the tranquility of the greenest areas we can find, refresh ourselves in nature, re-make ourselves as better people. But golf is not an escape toward nature. The Scottish shepherds we think invented it were already alone in the heather. They invented the game to relieve the tedium of their jobs, the boredom of their sheep-watching existence. And I think that continues as the main draw to golf. It's not an escape toward nature, but an escape away from 8-5 monotony. On that point, I agree with Leopold.
But nature has little to do with golf. It's a God-forsaken game. Golf courses bring new meaning to the term "supernatural," using pesticides, fertilizers (not the smelly, natural kind), and store-bought water to create these little Gardens of Eden, where 10% of the US population flaunt our knowledge of titanium and graphite and flaunt the fact that, so long as we have money, we will not be driven from the garden.
The two sports are distinct in their approach to technology, and I give yours the nod as far as decency goes. But I think golf and fly-fishing re-converge in their socio-psychological purpose. In both sports, the persistent lesson is patience with our own limitations. As a scholar, you're familiar with "humiliation" and "discipline" in the old sense of the words. I think that's one of the reasons fly-fishing and golf appeal to us. Participants in both sports (though I think of golf as a poor sport and a great game) can spend five hours of a Saturday morning with nothing to show but memories of near misses and, if they've mastered their sport, be satisfied with the failed attempt at excellence and determined to learn from the criticism. Humiliating ourselves before our discipline/sport gives it a substance that transcends the sport itself.
And that leads me to suggest that there's more to the escapist fantasy than a need to reinvigorate ourselves in nature. Conservationists did, indeed, look to the forest as a resource that must be managed in order for its potential to be fully exploited. But the forest was also the place where, to their minds, democracy was derived, whether they remembered John Locke or heard Frederick Jackson Turner (an avid fisherman). In nature, all men were created equal, and they formed institutions that reflected that natural state. Perhaps, as my students seem to think, government has become omnipresent and unwieldy. The people-out-of-doors no longer gather to rule, the popular vote makes no difference, the villagers no longer gather their pitchforks and light their torches to protest tyranny. Feeling helpless in the face of the sheer size of government, we have lost or forgotten one of the reasons preservation, or even conservation, is a necessity. Even when we return to nature, it is likely a government-regulated nature.
If that is the case, we can paraphrase Keith/Proenneke: In time man gets used to almost anything, but the problem seems to be that government is advancing faster than he can adjust to it. And Leopold had no idea how idea how apt his reference to the "tonnage" of sporting goods would be, especially in light of debates over ATVs and snowmobiles, heavy impact technologies that people use to commune with nature. The political debate, if I remember correctly, centers upon whether restricting snowmobilers' access to natural areas is a restriction of their individual, civil rights. Nature, however bastardized in this case, is being remembered as a place where individualism can still be expressed, even if it comes at the cost of nature.
Again I've blathered on far too long. But again your thoughts have provoked me. I am left to wonder if there hasn't been an emphatic change to an old bumper sticker. Have we moved from "Think Globally. Act Locally" to "Think Globalization. Act Locally"? That seems to be the case with us golfers. I have no defense. I do regrip my own clubs, and I do walk the golf courses I play, except when motorized carts are required. But otherwise I've adapted to technologies, both on the golf course and otherwise. Indeed, I might be defined by those technologies (as far as you're concerned, I exist only on the Internet). I might even be Frankenstein's monster, along with 26 million other golfers. And the villagers no longer storm the castle to stop us.
I've just talked myself out of playing 18 today. I hope your trout are hitting.
|
Aug 06 '06
7:39 am PDT
|
|
Re: Leopold (Reply to this comment)
by morilla
Interesting you should mention Aldo Leopold and his Sand County Almanac; you the golfer and me the fly fisher. In that work, he made observations and sent a message seemingly relevant to both of us - AND - nicely dovetailing with the theme of One Man's Wilderness...
"Perhaps the most serious obstacle impeding the evolution of a land ethic is the fact that our educational and economic system is headed away from, rather than toward, an intense consciousness of land. Your true modern is separated from the land by many middlemen, and by innumerable physical gadgets. He has no vital relation to it; to him it is the space between cities on which crops grow. Turn him loose for a day on the land, and if the spot does not happen to be a golf links or a 'scenic' area, he is bored stiff. If crops could be raised by hydroponics instead of farming, it would suit him very well. Synthetic substitutes for wood, leather, wool, and other natural land products suit him better than the originals."
"Then came the gadgeteer, otherwise known as the sporting-goods dealer. He has draped the American outdoors man with an infinity of contraptions, all offered as aids to self-reliance, hardihood, woodcraft, or marksmanship, but too often functioning as substitutes for them. Gadgets fill the pockets, they dangle from neck and belt. The overflow fills the auto-trunk, and also the trailer. Each item of outdoor equipment grows lighter and often better, but the aggregate poundage becomes tonnage."
The flyfishing community claims Leopold as one of their own; for he was an enthusiastic angler. The Federation of Fly Fishers (FFF) has an award named after him: LEOPOLD CONSERVATION AWARD - An award presented to an individual for outstanding contributions to fisheries and land ecology. As was noted long ago, some of your most conscientious, literally "dues-paying," and hardest working environmentalists or, more accurately, conservationists are actually the very hunters and fishermen that the chic, vogue"ish," loudest, and extremist groups purporting to be 'defenders of the Earth' and 'protectors of the weak' would happily hound to extinction.
As you said, many have read A Sand County Almanac and entire volumes could be (and have been) dedicated to its analysis. But, relevant to your comments and work on influences, I offer two observations:
1.) Isn't it interesting, nearly 60 years later, how we seem to be discussing precisely the same issues - despite the supposed, wholesale adoption of the Leopold's Land Ethic as our duty, the environmental movements, the legitimate scientific research, the efforts of educators, legislation, litigation, et al. It wasn't long ago that I was informed by a major magazine editor, whose publication includes a regular section on ecology, that "litter" was an aesthetic, not an ecological, issue; even after I pointed out a certain amount of the Fish & Wildlife, scientific, anecdotal, and historical evidence. I won't go into his degrees, his awards, and his experience, but he, of all people, should know better.
[You and other readers might take note of:
Up and Down With Ecology: The "Issue-Attention Cycle" in The Public Interest, Volume 28 (Summer 1972), pp. 38-50.
It might even be available on the web. Note the topic and the year vis a vis the review and discusssion thus far. As you say, it is a provocative topic.]
2.) When speaking of early childhood influences, it is not simply what they read, but the paradigm under which their teachers operate; kindergarten through graduate school. How many of the 'Cold War' teachers "shaped," to the left and the right, children's attitudes by what was chosen as classroom material? As you note, Carson (with the Al Gore introduction) was 'foisted' on students because of the syllabus. Was there a balance or was there a consistently one-sided theme to the "required materials?" Was The Lorax offset by some work which pointed out that resource extraction has always been part and parcel of all human existence? Perhaps a 'balancing' work that notes the difference, and the potential danger, is that, today, we have the sheer scale of numbers driving demand for those resources (population, production, consumption) and the technology to meet that demand without the wisdom of 'balance?'
I was fortunate in that my instructors were a bit more interested in a true, exploratory, liberal arts education. If a conservative work was required, a balancing work from the left was also required. If I wanted to buy EcoDefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching after reading Abbey's The Monkey Wrench Gang it was also strongly suggested that I read more 'balanced' works such as Raymond Dasmann's Envornmental Conservation. If I announced that Hank Reardon was my new idol after Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, George Stewart's Earth Abides might have been proffered.
You'll note that the first sentences of Dasmann's classic textbook read: "The writer is indebted for the original inspiration for this book, and for many ideas, to Carl O. Sauer of the Department of Geography, University of California, in whose conservation class he sat as a student. To A. Starker Leopold, of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, the writer is particularly in debt, for the stimulating ideas and philosophy of conservation which heas provided over the years, and for his careful review of the manuscript in its formative stage, and helpful suggestions for improvement.
Mmmm. Carl Sauer was "the geographer," Alfred Kroeber was "the anthroplogist," Herbert Bolton was "the historian," and George Stewart was "the English teacher" in the pantheon of the "Berkeley School" Tradition (vastly different than the 'Bezerkley School' of the post-60's era); a tradition that many of my instructors were the progeny of. I wonder how the tentacles of 'influence' might have played out in my intellectually formative years?
Perhaps a book such as Toffler's The Third Wave? I mean, we were entering the 1980's, the time of Ronald Reagan; who has, with some justification, been bestowed the title of "the man who won the Cold War." Wouldn't that provide some insight into that time with passages such as:
"In a time when terrorists play death-games with hostages, as currencies careen amid rumors of a third World War, as embassies flame and storm troopers lace up their boots in many lands, we stare in horror at the headlines..." [That's the FIRST sentence on PAGE one!!! How many years ago?]
"This book offers a sharply different view... It contends that the world has not swerved into lunacy, and that, in fact, beneath the clatter and jangle of seemingly senseless events there lies a startling and potentially hopeful pattern.
One day not long ago I drove a rented car from the snow-swathed peaks of the Rocky Mountains down along snaky roads, then across the high plains, and down, down again until I reached the eastern foothills of that majestic mountain range. There in Colorado Springs, under a brilliant sky, I made my way to a long, low building complex that nestled along the highway, dwarfed by the peaks looming behind me...As I entered the building, I remembered again the factories in which I had once worked, with all their clatter and roar, their dirt, smoke, and suppressed anger...And now in Colorado Springs I was once again visiting a factory.l I had been told that it was among the most advanced manufacturing facilities in the world...
"The responsibility for change, therefore, lies with us. We must begin with ourselves, teaching ourselves not to close our minds prematurely to the novel, the surprising, the seemingly radical. This means fighting off the idea-assassins who rush forward to kill any new suggestion on grounds of its impracticality, while defending whatever now exists as practical, no matter how absurd, oppressive, or unworkable it may be. It means fighting for freedom of expression - the right of people to voice their ideas, even if heretical."
What a minute? A new, "techno" world, shaped to allow the advancement of intellect, is our responsibility to mold? Fight off idea-assassins defending the status-quo? Haven't I heard that before?!
Didn't the Abbey article mentioned earlier end by stating: "And my conclusion, when I finally reached the Hold, was that what we need in our perishing republic is something different...Something entirely different." I'm just not sure Toffler's vision was what the television shooting Abbey had in mind when he uttered the phrase: "Obey Little, Resist Much."
Then there's the introduction to Dasmann's book, which ends: "It is not the purpose here to present any easy solution to the world's resource problems...It is the principal concern of this book to familiarize the reader with the problems and to indicate the necessity for taking an active interest in those problems. If each of us fails to take such an interest, fails to help in building the kind of world that he wants to live in, he may find too late that the 'brave new world' that someone has created has no place in it for him." [Note the literary reference Dasmann sneaks in.]
Is such a vision truly compatible with what "John Galt" said in Atlas Shrugged:
"No matter what dishonorable compromise you've made with your impracticable creed, no matter what miserable balance, half-cynicism, half-superstition, you now manage to maintain, you preserve the root, the lethal tenet: the belief that the moral and the practical are opposites. Since childhood, you have been running from the terror of choice you have never dared fully to identify: If the practical, whatever you must practice to exist, whatever works, succeeds, achieves your purpose, whatever brings you food and joy, whatever profits you, is evil - and if the good, the moral, is the impractical, whatever fails, destroys, frustrates, whatever injures you and brings you loss or pain - then your choice is to be moral or to live...The sole result of that murderous doctrine was to remove morality from life. You grew up to believe that moral laws bear no relation to the job of living, except as an impediment and threat, that man's existence is an amoral jungle where anything goes and anything works...you have forgotten that the evils damned by your creed were the virtues required for living, and you have come to believe that actual evils are the practical means of existence."
Doesn't this harken back to your point of reference, The Lorax:
"It's a Truffula Seed. It's the last one of all!
You´re in charge of the last of the Truffula Seeds.
And Truffula Trees are what everyone needs.
Plant a new Truffula. Treat it with care.
Give it clean water. And feed it fresh air.
Grow a forest. Protect it from axes that hack.
Then the Lorax and all of his friends may come back."
Finally, how does all this jibe with the observation Proenneke makes toward the end of One Man's Alaska when he states:
"I realize that men working together can perform miracles such as sending men to walk on the surface of the moon. There is definitely a need and a place for teamwork, but there is also a need for an individual sometime in his life to forget the world of parts and pieces and put something together on his own - complete something. He's got to create... I don't know what the answer is. In time man gets used to almost anything, but the problem seems to be that technology is advancing faster than he can adjust to it. I think it's time we started applying the brakes... I have found the simplest things have given me the most pleasure. They didn't cost me a lot of money either. They just worked on my senses... The world is full of such things."
Could it be that such influences are not, of necessity, a product of the Cold War? Is it possible that the Cold War itself is a product, or a symptom, of these much older, primeval, philosophical/cultural/social influences; influences that are driven and created by the very nature of human needs and desires? Could that be why each 'side' recognizes the essential element of choice?
Again, I think this is the compelling aspect of One Man's Wilderness; the why of a single man's choice and how he had the courage of his convictions to see that choice through.
|
Aug 04 '06
8:40 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just my feelings... (Reply to this comment)
by davke
Thanks for the thoroughly enjoyable and educational response. In hallway discussions I've heard several environmental historians cite The Lorax as the most important discussion of environmental issues in the late 20th century (if only for the size of the audience), and they've noted the book's impact on their early intellectual development. Sand County Almanac is often mentioned as the next most influential among those historians -- showing, I think, that they were seeking such perspectives from an early age, perhaps with the lessons of The Lorax firmly implanted.
Oddly, Rachel Carson, while internationally significant in the 1960s, doesn't seem to have much of an audience today. The Lorax, on the other hand, is going strong. To cite some handy data: Epinionators have put together 17 reviews of The Lorax; 4 reviews of Silent Spring; 4 reviews of various editions of Sand County Almanac. And the Silent Spring reviews were from Epinionators who seemingly had Carson foisted on them via syllabus (they all reviewed the Al Gore edition), while Aldo Leopold received mixed reviews. The Lorax? A solid 5 stars.
While hardly a scientific survey, it's a handy comparison. The Lorax remains a force of nature. Leading me to wonder how many trees have been pulped to print it.... But that's a different story.
The reason I asked you about The Lorax is that I'm working on a project concerning children in the Cold War, and I've become interested in their various influences. Dr. Seuss is a major one, used by parents, educators, and mass media to entertain children. Now I just have to figure out why he made such little impact.
As your statement points out, the problems The Lorax made so abundantly clear are exactly the problems that not only continue, but are accelerating. It has become easier to change the math and alter the "facts." We frown at each other for our SUVs, shake our fingers at industries that regularly pay EPA fines rather than undertaking the more expensive and required pollution controls. And most importantly, we say little at all of new housing starts, a major index of economic growth -- and a major source of future economic and environmental difficulties. The fumes leaking from building materials, both during manufacture of the materials and construction of the dwellings, are a major source of greenhouse gases. Further, many such materials were derived from forest products, denting one of the major systems that might help offset those gases.
My soapbox is also made of wood. But I've found this topic personally provocative. I have many escapist fantasies involving forests and solitude, such as you began your review describing. Often these fantasies take place inside my Buick, stuck in traffic, and include taking my various types of nylon, in tent, sleeping bag, and outerwear form, and heading into a natural area to enjoy the basics of survival. For me, it's not Jeremiah Johnson or Grizzly Adams, but Sam Gribley from My Side of the Mountain (2 reviews, 4.5 stars) that provides the imagery. I could, instead, treat the world immediately around me as a place I could try to live naturally within. But then I couldn't drive my car or buy a new house... and I feel guilty about my weakness, my gluttony, my misplaced consumerism.
Ultimately, I'm beginning to think, that sense of guilt might have been the lesson learned from The Lorax. We should have learned lessons of activism. Instead we learned to feel guilty about chopping down the trees -- even as we continued to hew at them. There is likely an equation in your math book that describes the complexity of such liberal guilt. "Take the $80 earned from the harvest of forest products and solve the following problems: a) If 30% goes to federal taxes, how much is allocated for effective conservation and environmental regulation programs? b) How much money do you have left? Is it enough to pay your Sierra Club dues? If so, mail in a check, congratulate yourself on making the world a better place to live, and say bad things about Republicans and what THEY are doing to the Trufula Trees. With the remainder of the money, or through creative financing, purchase a Thneed."
Well, I've blathered on long enough. But, again, it's a provocative topic. And, again, I appreciate your comments and your insights.
Best,
David
|
Aug 04 '06
5:36 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Just my feelings... (Reply to this comment)
by morilla
I truly appreciate and value the feedback.
In return, my take on The Lorax...
Have you the fifteen cents, the nail, and the shell of a great-great-great grandfather snail?
If so, place them in the pail, and I shall slupp down the Whisper-Ma-Phone to answer your hail.
Ah, I see that you have paid your due long ago.
Therefore, I shall pass on to you my take on this so...
Alright. Alright. I'll suspend my Dr. Seuss imitation for now. You can cease with the low moaning growl.
Environmental and cultural education is at the core of what I do. However, context and rational argument are often more critical than "facts." Facts can change over time, but the proper context provides the forum for rational discourse. As noted in a recent essay, I start with the question: "Do you know what you believe or do you believe what someone else has told you?"
The Lorax is a very effective story with a solid message. As with any good "cartoon/comic strip," it has appeal to both children and adults; with an understandable message for both. However, it is when we lose focus on context that we hear the profundity of irrational extremism.
"Tricky Dick" said it in the cited article:
The man who never tracked a bear must be as concerned with preservation of the wilderness as the most avid hunter. The man who has lived all his life outdoors must be as much concerned as the city-dweller with the need for green places in urban and suburban areas.
As I've told students, communication is the key. But, your clue for how to communicate is found in the context. Picture a County Board of Supervisors meeting. It's just been announced that a plant is closing. This means the loss of 200 jobs and approximately $250,000 in tax revenue; not to mention the ripple effects in the economy.
A developer stands up and puts forth a plan to build 30 new houses along a river front. Each house will sell for a minimum of $300,000 - provided there is only the requirement of a 50 ft. set back and a certain grove of trees is cut down to allow for convenient placement of street access so as not to limit lot sizes or numbers. This would mean "X" amount of tax dollars, "X" amount of jobs, "X" amount of economic ripple effects in the community, etc.
The environmentalist then stands up and waxes eloquent, even erudite, about the riparian habitat, the fish, the trees, the nesting birds, etc. Maybe they even put in a story about Truffula Trees and the deleterious results of "Biggering." Our "friend of the environment" flatly claims that a 200 ft. set back is the bare minimum for maintenance of the ecosystem and that the grove of trees simply cannot go. Further, they insist upon continued studies, environmental impact reports, et al. to determine the "true effects" to our precious resources.
The Board members ask what this would mean to the developer vis a vis numbers of homes, employment, revenues, et al. The reply from the environmentalist is that the trifling losses would be well worth the preservation. The reply from the developer is that the limitations and mitigations would preclude pursuit of the project at this time.
Who do you think the Board members heard and what language do you think they were listening in? Did they want a nice story or a solution to their immediate problem?
Perhaps the best example of "context" or, more accurately, "acontextual," messaging comes from a satirical look at "Teaching Math Through The Decades" that's been around for a long time. Saving you the trouble of doing a Google search...
In the 1950's, the test question on a math exam read: "A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is four-fifths of the price. What is his profit?"
In the 1960's, the same problem was stated thus: "A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is four-fifths of the price, or $80. What is his profit?"
Some of you will remember the "new math" of the 1970's and know that the question was more properly phrased: "A logger exchanges a set L of lumber for a set M of money. The cardinality of set M is 100, and each element is worth $1.00. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set M. The set C of the costs of production contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent the set C as a subset of M, and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set P of profits?"
In the 1980's, the pendulum had swung to a simpler approach: "A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80, and his profit is $20. Your assignment: underline the number 20."
In the 1990's, educational philosophy shifted from the teaching of skills based on content to the teaching of 'values.' Therefore, the question was slightly altered: "By cutting down beautiful forest trees, a logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? (Topic for class participation: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel?)"
Of course, currently, we've seen another pendulum swing; purportedly, a return to focusing on demonstrable skills. Therefore, math students must be able to show their work as it relates to real world problems. Thus, the question now reads: "By laying off 40% of its loggers, a company improves its stock price from $80 to $100. How much capital gain per share does the CEO make by exercising his stock options at $80? Assume capital gains are no longer taxed, because this encourages investment."
With the philosophy of free trade, what about domestic production of Thneeds? Is it possible that we are better off letting others worry about the production of Gluppity-Glup and Schloppity-Schlopp? Or, have we already glupped and schlopped too much in quest of our greeds?
Have the Humming-Fish already grown weary, having left in search of some water that isn't so smeary?
Have the Swomee-Swans long ago ceased to sing; with too much smog in their throats to accomplish such a thing?
Could it be that there are left no Brown Bar-ba-loots; given the economics make no sense in pursuit of Truffula Fruits?
If so, what have we gained - was it suitably large or infinitesmally small? I wonder what type of seed we would now need let fall, to encourage return of the Lorax, if at all? Could it be that both sides still make too much clatter; and we no longer teach the skills for individuals to discern for themselves the heart of the matter?
|
Aug 03 '06
7:26 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Just my feelings... (Reply to this comment)
by davke
Nice riff -- combining Disneyfied "Davy Crockett," Edward Abbey, and Dick Nixon ("Men to Match My Milhouse"?). If you ever have the time, I'd like to read your thoughts on The Lorax, noticeably absent among the sources you so glibly pull from.
As always, I really enjoyed reading your Epinion.
Best,
David
|
Aug 03 '06
4:06 am PDT
|
|
Re: Just my feelings... (Reply to this comment)
by morilla
Sorry you felt things were too "hidden." Everyone is looking for something different in these reviews. You might note that there is another review, available to members only, of this book that was rated only "Somewhat Helpful." In the comments, that author was excoriated, with some justification, for a lack of specifics related to the book...
"This sounds like an interesting book- go into greater detail about the author, how he decided to live in the wilderness, and perhaps give an example or two of some of the challenges he faced."
"I'd like to see a bit of expansion on what you've written, particularly some more detail about what is actually in the book."
"...the whole point of reading a book review is to try and decide whether or not one would like to read the book..."
Frankly, to include much more in the way of specifics within my review would have been to rewrite the book. I've provided quotes relevant to key points in the story and you have the technical details in terms of pages, publisher, photographs, editor, etc. Likewise, the contextual analysis I provide is directly relevant to the era in which the story is told; as opposed to a bullet point recitation of my retrospective interpretation of what I think the author might have been trying to say. (This would also constitute "rewriting" the book.)
Maybe focus on such material is what you are primarily desirous of when reading a book review. Fair enough. As stated, everyone is looking for something different when it comes to details/information in a book review. That is why there are bold section headings. It is also why I deliberately compartmentalized the material.
You get historical/philosophical relevance of the publication; at the time of publication (bearing in mind that this book went through at least five printings from 1973 - 1975). You get the factoids. Then you get a brief, literary critique followed by the story, as told by the author/editor sans injections of my interpretations or commentary. It's his story, not mine, to tell. Then I provide the reader with information as regards additional material that supplements and expands upon the book under review. Finally, I provide my personal reaction to One Man's Wilderness. Thus, the review is stratified so that when reading it, you can scan to the information you want. However...
The introductory section is by way of providing background to when the book was first published. As you note in your comment, you were young when the Grizzly Adams program aired on television in the latter part of the 70's. As such you were not necessarily cognizant of the "back to Earth" movements prevalent in the late 60's through the early 80's. You had 'survivalists,' communes, and everything in between. You'll note that this was the very time period when the sporting goods industry in terms of backpacking and other outdoor pursuits began experiencing what some might refer to as a "Golden Era." (Look into the beginnings of companies such as the North Face, Patagonia, et al.)
Hollywood and television programming simply reflected this, as it does with most societal movements, in that there was money to be had in playing to these perceptions. It is precisely the same as today where we see movies/television "taking on" issues of global warming, terrorism, etc., so forth, ad infinitum.
With this in mind, it is very important that a review of One Man's Wilderness include a section exploring the phenomena at the time of its original release. Remember, the book was published in 1973 and only republished in 1999. Thus, the context for why the book gained a certain amount of fame is provided by the movements and conditions of that era.
Young adults of that time had been weaned on Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone movies/television; being imbued with a sense of "give 'em what fer Davy" when it came to 'conquering the wilds.' That generation had been required to actually read things like Hemingway's "Big, Two-Hearted River," where Nick Adams 'heals' from the emotional wounds of WWI by camping, fishing, and leading a simple existence. They'd been exposed to Of Men and Mountains by William O. Douglas (1950). Of course, if 'mountain men' were your thing after seeing Jeremiah Johnson, then one of the academic 'Bibles' on the subject was Irving Stone's Men To Match My Mountains (1956). (You'll note the titles and subjects as relevant to the introductory comments of my review).
Other young people were in search of a cause, a philosophy of life, and/or a meaning to existence. What better way to seek answers than by getting in touch with Nature; a path that appeared to require a return to the basics of living, unencumbered by the confusion/distraction of career, social acceptance, acquisition of things, and subservience to a 'system.' Of course, some of these very sentiments of 'independence' were those that drove the "Mountain Men" and "Frontiersmen" who became icons, some heroes, some anti-heroes, some villains, of "the movement."
You got BOTH The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams and Edward Abbey in the same era - both of whom were sending relatively synonymous messages using different voices. Part of that message is that there is no such thing as an ideal 'utopia' on Earth; meat must still be shot, ground must still be plowed, tools must still be produced/manufactured, resources have always been extracted. But, despite our presumed dominance, Man is part and parcel of the Earth's ecosystem; not a separate, virus-like, unwelcome, foreign entity.
As an intrinsic part of the natural order, we need to start acting like it, living in an 'equilibrium society' rather than justifying our impacts with the supposed 'wealth' created by the 'Corporate State.' Could it be that wealth and value are not equitable terms when it comes to quality of life? Are we subservient to 'the machine' or are we experiencing a change of consciousness where we seek "a new knowledge of what it means to be human, in order that the machine, having been built, may now be turned to human ends; in order that man once more can become a creative force, renewing and creating his own life and thus giving life back to his society." (see Charles Reich's The Greening of America, 1970)
Even the President of the United States couldn't ignore the topic and the 'coming Revolution.' In June of 1970, none other than Richard M. Nixon published an article in Field & Stream entitled "The State of the Union Between Man and Nature." In this article, the often maligned President states: "I am confident that with the help of all Americans, we will see in the coming years a restoration of the American environment in the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt, and perhaps even beyond his dreams. We must conserve; we must restore."
WHAT?!?! No way man. Not that ultra-right, reactionary, conformist, Fascist.... Just no way man. NIXON an environmenalist?!?! That blows me away. NIXON says we must conserve and restore?! Did he, like, flash on the meaning of life or is this some game he's running on us to be messin' with my head?
Every generation feels that they invented "IT;" whatever "IT" is. In the end, all they managed to do is discover the same 'truths' as previous generations. The only difference is in the way these 'truths' are expressed. What makes One Man's Wilderness so illuminating and captivating is that the contents and message are still extremely relevant, right down to the language and allusions to technology; relevant for all the same reasons it "fit" into the scheme of things for a prior generation. Interesting, in that we are now nearly forty years, two generations, removed from the time of the events covered in the book.
This is also why the book has enjoyed a renewed interest from the public and has achieved a certain amount of fame in "ecologically aware," "politically correct," and "environmentally sensitive" circles - which happen to be part of the progeny of the very era and its movements we're talking about. In addition, the book has the advantage of appealing to the "canvas and wood," "conquer the wilderness" types who grew up reading Field and Stream in a real BARBER'S SHOP (complete with barber pole) - rather than trying to hide the fact that they're actually thumbing through a Lady's Home Journal in a "salon," while waiting for a 'style cut.' ("Really, it's not mine. It was just sitting here and there was nothing else to read.")
So, when you state in your comment - "Maybe that is where my brother got his dream of one day living completely off the land" - perhaps there was/is more to that story than just a simple, short-lived television series.
As for the "Bonus Materials..." I observed in the review, as did the other reviewer, that this book would leave you wanting more. (You'll note that even the other reviewer made this point in the "Cons" portion of the review header - "Wish it could have been longer. I really enjoyed it.") I was simply pointing out that there is, in fact, more to be had; all of which is directly tied to and is largely a derivative of what is presented in One Man's Wilderness itself. Again, remember, the films and the newer, second book offering expanded coverage of Proenneke's journals are actually a result of the popularity of One Man's Wilderness and the fact that a significant number of readers wanted more.
As for the 'personal' observations in the Final Thoughts section... Isn't that the whole point to having "Unbiased Reviews by Real People?" Don't you want to know why the reviewer found the book personally enthralling or interesting; beyond inclusion of foreshortened quotes and simplistic, unextrapolated statements of "I really like this or that?" Might not such personal insight help the reader decide if the book would be one they'd like to read; which we've been told is the very reason for a book review?
Don't misunderstand. I haven't taken offense at your comments; at least you have explained your rating and suggested why you didn't rate it higher. That's all that can be asked. But, and this is the reason for my protracted reply, my perception is that the very reasons you don't appear to appreciate the relevancy of the additional material are the very reasons why the material needed to be included.
Again, longer reviews are not everyone's "meat." I guess that's why Epinions has a separate section for "Express Reviews." And, once again, that is precisely why I provided the bold subsections - so that those who wanted the nuts & bolts could go directly to that portion of the review, ignoring that which they either don't find interesting, necessary, or seemingly relevant/useful.
Considerable effort from 'hatted' Advisors went into making it apparent that an "Express Review"-style (short, to the point, and with a paucity of particulars) was not acceptable earlier this year for this, specific book. While I agree that additional details would have made that review much more helpful, a cursory expansion of the "nuts & bolts" coverage using two or three quoted passages just doesn't convey the realities in and surrounding this special work.
Appreciatively, there are those who seem to agree.
Thanks for your feedback. I hope that clears up my thought process; maybe even adding a bit more of the analysis you might prefer.
|
Aug 02 '06
11:58 pm PDT
|
|
Just my feelings... (Reply to this comment)
by dandj,  in Books
While I admired the creativity in your presentation, I personally felt that the actual review was too hidden amidst all of the extra information regarding the subject matter itself.
On a side note, although I was very young, I have fond memories of watching "Grizzly Adams" as a family. I always looked forward to that program. Maybe that is where my brother got his dream of one day living completely off the land.
~*~Danielle~*~
|
Aug 02 '06
11:59 am PDT
|
|
|
|
