It seems to me that the most obvious difference between the writings of Thoreau and Cronin are that, while Thoreau is an avid proponent of wild spaces and wilderness, he is more so a supporter of the simple life. The call to live a simpler existence is what drives him to a certain seclusion, and in that seclusion he seems better able to focus on the minute details of nature and the abundance of life surrounding him. While it is true that his writings often fulfill the romanticized ideal of nature as the sublime and majestic, a theory which Cronin criticizes, it is also helpful to remember the context of his writing, as well as to notice the transformations and changes of opinion he goes through, most notably the way his concept of Native Americans changes in his Walden and Huckleberry pieces.
Cronin, in The Trouble with Wilderness, gives a rather chronological discussion of the way the concept of nature and the idea of wilderness have changed since Thoreau. What is most striking to me is the elitist mentality that pervades the construct of wilderness. This mentality is evidenced in retreats and hunting expeditions and national parks innundated with visitors. It's all well and good for people to experience those striking scenes and grand vistas, but there is something wrong with the mentality of traveling to a place to experience its beauty and wildness, and wanting to protect it, but disregarding areas that may be closer to home and less extreme in terrain and beauty, yet are still equally important and in need of protection. on page 85 Cronin says that, "Idealizing a distant wilderness too often means not idealizing the environment in which we actually live, the landscape that for better or worse we call home." That is what is most striking about the Cronin piece for me, that he calls attention to the way people can so easily disregard the woods outside their door as being mundane and somehow less worthy of protection than areas that are immediatly grand and majestic. What is the use of preserving the glory of Yosemite National Park if we are not equally intent on preserving the glory of the West Virginia mountains, or the Hocking River, or open prairie grasslands?
I enjoy your way of writing, Rose. I agree with what you say in regard to comparing and differentiating the two pieces.
ReplyDeleteI particularly like what you ended your post with: "What is the use of preserving the glory of Yosemite National Park if we are not equally intent on preserving the glory of the West Virginia mountains, or the Hocking River, or open prairie grasslands?"
It makes sense too. I feel that if the process in doing so isn't equally split, other areas get overlooked. I can understand if there's an area that may be suffering more than others and that's why direct attention may be given to them -- but it makes more sense to me to "share the wealth" by giving a little to each.