Writing About Readings Assignment

Matt Ackroyd

Writing About Readings

For the two readings I chose What We Talk About When We Talk About Wilderness by Ted Kerasote, and Cultured or Crabbed by Gary Snyder. Both readings discuss briefly the importance of the “wild,” and how society as well as individuals have an effect or understand their effect on wildlife.

Both authors weave politics and human influence into their articles, adding historical background and scope to the question of how human’s have perceived and are perceiving nature. This tactic is successful, but comes across better in Kerasote’s essay. Starting off discussing the founding of America, Kerasote instantly has the reader’s attention by adding informative and intriguing information in regards to how originally Europeans found America to be untamed. He goes on to argue that America was certainly not completely wild at the time of Christopher’s find because aboriginal people had been working, traveling and naming the land for many decades. Instantly, I was fascinated by this claim, as I’m sure his many readers were as well. It was an interesting philosophical argument on what we define as wild. He then goes on noting various examples of what we typically define as wild, where the word wild came from, and what he personally believes is “wild.”

This tactic of using historical evidence as support for an argument is also seen in Snyder’s piece. Although less effective, Snyder has a few references to historical instances to focus on understanding the differences between nature and wild.

Both authors are attempting to define wild and both seem to draw the conclusion that wild is nature that is untouched or not influenced by humans. They seem to use this argument to entice their reader to think and analyze wildlife as something that is out of our control, whereas we use the term “nature” to support our goals of controlling it. It does not become automatically evident that this is the argument until the end of both pieces.

Both writers seem to be targeting the masses. Neither articles seem to be targeted toward historians or environmental enthusiasts, but instead give insightful information so people can understand where we as humans fit into the bigger picture of nature and wildlife.

In Kerasote’s article, he tries to put the reader in context with nature and wildlife. He brings together the description of the founding our country, the influence of people and religion on our diverse wildlife and how we are all apart and are contributing to the destruction of our beautiful wild places. By putting the individual in context to their surroundings using imagery of the beautiful national parks, referencing grizzly bears and mountain lions, Kerasote is successful in drawing parallels between the individual and his or her’s surroundings.

Snyder uses similar approaches when he asks his audience to consider how we know nature and how we know the difference between nature and wild. Instantly the reader is involved with the writer and his work. Using this approach creates and fosters a reader-writer relationship. Snyder goes on to argue that there are two kinds of knowing. He tells the reader that there is what we know which helps us enhance public life and save endangered species by rebuilding wildlife through the process of national parks and planting trees, and then there’s other ways of learning that involve us going out into the world and learning from experience. At first I was a little confused by this description, but it becomes clear in the end that Snyder was setting up his argument. He wanted to connect with the reader, and than toward the end of the article he brings us back to the beginning by saying that nature is not endangered wilderness, and instead is a result of its own natural responses and cycles. Snyder brings the reader into the piece throughout the article by talking directly to his audience. Whether it’s when he is referencing the new Earth First! movement or telling us the critical difference in the meaning between nature and wild nature, Snyder really seems to want to make personal connections between his content and his reader.

Although both authors offer compelling arguments to enhance reader’s understanding of the importance of nature, they have some flaws. Neither really offers a solution to America’s divergence from nature. If they did it was not a concrete solution, nor was it one that really sheds hope on the future of man and nature relationship. I was expecting both authors to offer either drastic solutions such as giving up on industry or protesting with group A or group B, but they failed to do so. Briefly Snyder talks about the progression of green movements, but he doesn’t really advice his readers to take action. Instead it seems as if both authors are simply raising awareness to the issue, and are briefly opening their reader’s eyes to the “bigger picture.” This also complicated my understanding of whom they were talking to. In the descriptions of the authors I found some insight onto whom they typically write for. Kerasote is known for writing for outdoors magazines, and Snyder is considered one of the most important contemporary nature writers whose article was first published in a book titled The Practices of the Wild. It says he is arguing for a deeper understanding of environmental politics. Although the essay could be targeted for politicians or journalists, it is written like Kerasote’s essay where it seems to be targeted for all people. It would make sense that both of these essays are for the general public because they include such basic information regarding environmentalism, and draw on basic comparisons between human and nature. Instead of being overloaded with references to laws, environmental constituents, lobbyists or go into great detail regarding environmental hazards and changes over the course of human history. This leads me to believe that the authors didn’t want to create the article in a way that would confuse the common person, and instead have formed compelling articles to tackle today’s environmental issues.

In a climate that has become more open to environmental issues I feel as if interested individuals who are looking to define their place and outlook in regards to nature would accept both of these articles. Both authors offer inviting and informative information for those who are willing and open to reading it. Neither attack their audience nor demand their audience to think one way or another. Instead, the authors form their arguments beneath detail and rhetoric as to not make their opinions too obvious and instead sound more like a friend speaking about today’s environmental issues to another friend. Such articles are refreshing in today’s media where you see too often brash and invasive arguments that scare people away from thinking one way or the other. It seems as if both authors have a love and appreciation of nature, and are simply trying to speak to the world about what the importance of wild, nature and us is and isn’t.