Something I found very interesting about the introduction in the
Schneider reading was the first line of the book, which says, "in a sense
this book is a romance, a story of first love between Americans and a thing
they call wilderness". This struck me as a very interesting way to begin a
book that is described as a "biography of a place". Although we have
spoken a lot about how romanticized these books are about the wilderness and
the Adirondacks in particular, I think there is a key part of romance we are
forgetting when we describe man's relationship to nature. Romance is usually a
love shared between the two parties involved. The way that romance is used in
the relationship between man and nature is a greedy, self-entitled love that
man has for the Adirondacks. There is no reciprocation other than the passive
loss of resources that man has taken and used from the land. It seems so ironic
that we can describe nature as the first love of Americans. A statement like
that seems laughable with all the environmental issues of the world and
especially our country. Even the most nature friendly, Adirondack loving man
takes his individual toll on the land he loves and gives nothing in comparison
back to it. Take McKibben who has chosen to build a home there and leave his
own footprint. Even he, who we consider a writer that greatly “romanticizes”
the area derives his love from what he can take from the Adirondacks rather
than what he can give back. I know this is not necessarily what we mean when we
say that many writers paint a romantic picture of this park but I think it is
an interesting thought to consider when speaking about how well loved this land
really is.
I definitely agree that the terms love and romance are misnomers when used to describe the relationship between humans and the Adirondack Park. The relationship between the two parties is very one sided and could easily be considered abusive. I also agree that McKibben and Schneider provide a very biased and romanticized view of that relationship. I do on the other hand feel that Terrie's account is much more grounded and objective. He recognizes the hardships of the wilderness and the destructive actions the first settlers took out of fear. He notes that "every family's goal was to secure a good living by eliminating at least that part of the wilderness around their home and farm" (42) and points out that back then the park posed a much bigger threat to the survival of its inhabitants. That being said I am interested to see if the grounded nature of his narration continues when he addresses more recent events.
ReplyDelete