Irene Magdon
Seminar in Composition
Dr. Adam Johns
September 3, 2014
Desert
Solitaire: “Rocks” Analysis
Edward Abbey displays his deep-seated anger towards the
onslaught of industrial tourism of the national park system. Throughout the
first few chapters he contests the objective of the National Park Service and
argues that the agency is gravely misinterpreting its duty. It seems to me that
Abbey views the Park Service’s ambition to raise their number of visitors as a
fatal flaw. This creates a parallel between Abbey’s beliefs and experiences
with the National Park Service and the story of the Husk and Billy Joe in the
chapter “Rocks.” The argument of “Rocks” is that when you try to make something
great better, you may end up destroying it in the process.
The Husk family is introduced to us on page 67. They live
in a beat up old trailer and drive a beat up old jeep. However, Husk soon shows
Mr. Graham the “he can take care of himself” by showing him a check. Despite
this, Husk is eager to strike it rich with Mr. Graham by mining uranium. The
partnership quickly turns south when Husk’s wife cheats on him with Graham and
Graham kills Husk as well as himself. The story then begins to elaborate on
Billy Joe’s struggle for life in the following days until he tragically dies.
So what does this have to do with Abbey’s hatred of the
National Park Service? What point is he trying to make? I believe that the
story and its outcome depicts what Abbey believes will happen to the National
Parks if they continue in their present direction. Let’s make some connections.
I believe that Husk and Mr. Graham represent the ambitious National Park
Service. The Service’s eagerness to create paved roads and allowed motorized
vehicles through the parks to raise visitation numbers relates to Husk’s
ambitious dream of becoming rich off uranium. This leaves the national parks
themselves to be represented by innocent little Billy Joe.
Abbey
sees the national parks as beautiful the way they are. Just as Husk’s life is
fine the way it is without having stakes in uranium mining. Should the Park
Service take measures to bring in more visitors by allowing more motorized
vehicles and making more changes it takes away from the natural beauty and experience.
Abbey refers to the phrase “parks are for people.” He shares his take on the
statement by adding his opinion to it; parks are for people, not vehicles.
Abbey also believes that if national parks go damaged by automobiles and other
modern innovations, then future generation will be able to enjoy them. If they
are not preserved like they should be (a result of greed and ambition), then
they will be destroyed and invaluable to the generations to come. Much as Billy
Joe will not be able to enjoy his life because of his father’s greed and
ambition.
Abbey does not present a problem
without offering his solution. Prior to rocks he offers his “constructive,
practical, sensible proposals for the salvation of both parks and people” in
the
chapter “Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks.” His first proposal
is rather blunt and simply sates, “No more cars in national parks.” The second
builds off the previous by stating “No more roads in national parks.” Abbey
allows compromises in both proposals and also shares why he believes them to be
valuable to both people and park. For example, he believes that “distance and
space are functions of speed and time” and therefore without automobiles people
with be able to travel slower and be able to appreciate the great size of the
parks that they would otherwise take for granted. The third proposal is more comical
in nature and states, “Put the park rangers to work.” Edward Abbey elaborates on
all of these points and then gives us a figurative visual of what may happen
without these steps in “Rocks.”
Although Abbey does not directly
show the relation between the two, we are able to conclude that “Rocks”
parallels Abbey’s beliefs that greed and ambition with lead to the tragic
downfall of the national parks. In Abbey’s eyes, industrial tourism (greed and
ambition) will hinder the natural beauty or even the existence of the national
parks just as Husk’s greed ambition lead to the death of Billy Joe.
Works Cited:
Abbey, Edward. Desert Solitaire: A Season in the
Wilderness. New York: Touchstone, 1990. Print.
Just a reminder: I was one of the students who added the class late.
ReplyDeleteYou think that Husk and Graham *both* represent the national park service? That seems like a stretch, since they are in conflict, after all, but maybe you can demonstrate it. However, you do absolutely nothing to prove your point - you offer no evidence, give no relevant details.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, you summarize some aspects of what Abbey has to say about leaving the parks alone, but your actual claim (that Husk's life was similarly better before) you only make in passing, without offering any evidence. Rather than working with what we *do* know of his life before, you simply make an assumption.
The third paragraph, once more, only summarizes Abbey's argument, or parts of it, about the national parks. But your actual topic is ignored.
Overall: You hardly do the prompt at all, and you don't really have an argument. You do an ok job of summarizing Abbey's viewpoint on the national parks, but that's hardly necessary for anyone who has read the book. But your ostensible argument is left in the dust, with few details and no evidence, making this essay far more of a summary than an argument.