Friday, October 10, 2014

Revision 1: Talk

Samuel Li
Dr. Adam Johns
English Composition 0200
10 October 2014
Talk
/1
Rays shone down. The air rippled, forming waves like distortions in space. The oppressive heat practically baked the world alive, or so the kid thought in his heat-addled daze. Hazily, he gazed at his surroundings, trying and failing to take them in. Everyone else seemed to be holding up just fine: sweating a little, probably, but they didn’t look like they were half-dead or dying. Unlike him.

Cars parked in rows. A hazy sky, a blazing sun. Red rock and sand as far as the eye could see, occasionally dotted with the green of foliage. They were in the Grand Canyon, or Yellowstone, or Moab, or some random national park that the family just decided to vacation at. He had agreed to this at first, even looked forward to it, but as usual he had overestimated his tolerance for discomfort.

You’d think that he would have learned by now.

He heard chatter in the background, saw his family move along with the rest, following a bunch of taller men in uniform. Mechanically, he followed, too tired to complain any further. Anything to escape the heat. Truthfully, though, he knew it wouldn’t help: fatigue only made the heat worse.

Time passed in a daze.

They settled down now in a camp of sorts, and the he didn’t feel quite as terrible as before. Of course, what little muscles he had ached and screamed; the strain from the hike coupled with the bags he carried had practically reduced his muscles to jello. But then again, the sun had set, and so he was no longer being baked alive. The evening in the desert was almost pleasant.

He glanced over to to the rest of the crowd. His parents were over by the campfire, chatting excitedly with one of the tall guys (a ranger, was it?), tending to the fire. Judging by the aroma, the pots and pans and iron racks, and the thin trails of steam, they were making dinner. His sister had disappeared to god knows where (“I’ll be fine, really!”), probably exploring, or taking pictures of the view, or something like that. She always was better with the outdoors than him.

Time passed in a daze, and eventually his sister did come back with pictures of miscellaneous scenery, and eventually his parents did finish up with dinner. Instant noodles, grilled bacon and sausages. Not a five-star meal, but he never really liked those anyway. They woke him up from his half-nap, herded him over, and had him introduce himself to the ranger. He conceded, with just a name and a stiff nod. And his parents laughed going on about things like “shyness”, the ranger joined in the laughter in a somewhat forced manner, and the kid just scowled and got to his dinner.

Once again. Simple fare, but pretty good. He plopped down on a chair, squinting at the setting sun, and sighed wearily. These next few days would be the longest four days of his life. He was sure of it.



/2

The sun continued to set, until it was just a golden sliver on the horizon, until it finally disappeared. Despite this, the desert was still lit, by moonlight and bonfire. It was somewhat surreal to him, but he was used to nights dark as pitch, with starless skies. It had been a while since he saw the stars.

He made small talk with a few other campers, nothing too special or memorable. Time passed, dinner came and went, and eventually, the time came for him to talk to the ranger. On hindsight, it wasn’t exactly anything special, but it certainly was strange.

It started simply enough: with the usual small-talk they made, where in this case it meant complaining about the heat, jokes about feeling like they were being baked to death. Normally, they’d just laugh it off, find something to look forward to, and move on to other things. But the ranger?

“That’s not bad.”

“Huh?” The confusion almost snapped him out of his daze.

“To die out here, I mean. Doesn’t sound too bad, right? To die in a place like this?”

The kid stared dumbfounded, looking at him like he grew a second head. This time, the confusion certainly did snap him out of his daze. He scanned the ground and surrounding area. From where he was sitting, he could see cans of beer, stacked here and there. Was the ranger drunk? Just rambling?

“Um,” He hesitated, struggled internally: to be tactful or honest? After a moment of deliberation, he chose the latter. “Are you being serious?”

“Completely.”

“Are you drunk?”

“Probably.” He noticed the kid’s expression, and laughed. “In vino veritas. In wine, truth. Doesn’t matter if I’m drunk or sober, it doesn’t change a goddamn thing.”

The kid hesitated for a moment, and contemplated if the issue was worth pushing any further. A few uneasy seconds passed by.

“Why, then?”

“Why what?”

“Why would dying out here ‘sound nice’?”

The ranger snorted. “Well it’d certainly beat rotting away in some hospital bed, wouldn’t it? Just being kept alive for the sake of being kept alive?” An instantaneous reply, the conviction of which almost shocked the kid. He decided to prod even further.

“I’d rather not die in the first place.”

“Of course you would.”

“What’s that supposed to mean?”

The ranger made a face, and the kid wasn’t sure if it was a smirk or a scowl. “You from the city, right? Or maybe the suburbs?”

“Suburbs, right. Well, if a neighborhood in the middle of nowhere counts.”

“So you’ve never been out here? In a place like this?”

The kid shook his head.

“Then I’ll tell you something. All things die—”

“I am aware—”

“Of course you are. All things die. All things end. You’ll die, I’ll die. There’s a time for everyone. And what a better way to die, one with nature, rather than struggling against it, delaying the inevitable?”

“If we all just keeled over and died just because we’d all eventually die, there wouldn’t be a human race.”

“And sometimes I think that’s for the better.”

“Excuse me?”

“You heard me. It might be for the better. Ever see what kinda things we do to the world? Drown it in asphalt and concrete, sealing everything out, mindlessly expanding our cities and trampling over the wilderness? We destroy nature’s beauty. Remove humanity from the equation, and what do you get?”

Tch. Nothing beautiful. Can’t be beautiful if nothing’s there to say it is. As far as this world goes, we practically invented beauty.”

“And maybe that’s for the better, too.”

A pregnant pause. The kid stared dumbfoundedly for the umpteenth time, but shook his confusion off.

“...May I ask, why?

“Because the last things nature needs are human concepts attached to it.” His speech became impassioned, and he started waving his arms, gesturing. “Beauty? Names? It doesn’t mean anything except to us. Humanity.”

“Then why’d talk about its beauty in the first place?”

“Because the only things that care about beauty are people. And it’s us, we the people, who need the deserts, the swamps, the mountains, forests, rivers, the wilderness, the most. Nature exists for its own sake, not for ours. If we all die out, the world doesn’t end. The world will keep on turning, and it’s our loss.89 Don’t you see? I want this ‘nature’ and ‘wilderness’ to survive because it’s we who need it the most.”

This is going nowhere. “We’re getting off-topic,” the kid said.

“And what is this ‘topic’?”

“The original question.”

“Which was?”

“I… alright. Do you not care about living?”

He laughed this time. “I said I don’t care much about dying, not that I don’t care about living. I do want to live. But I wouldn’t mind dying. At least, not in a place like this.”

“Baked to death in the sun, getting your flesh picked clean by vultures?”

“Beats rotting away in a hospital, getting filled with tubes and veins and all that other sterile shit. If my sun-dried corpse nourishes the wilderness— the roots of trees, wings of eagles and vultures, maggots and worms and wolves and all that is the world, not our world but the world that came before— that’s enough. That’s a grander death than we, any of us, deserve.44” He paused for a moment to catch his breath. “Ever almost died before?”

A moment of hesitation. “No.”

He looked unconvinced, but continued. “Well, I have. Stuck in a canyon, no way out but an unclimbable wall. Well, I climbed it alright, dunno if it was fate or fortune or any of that rot. Had to inch my way up the wall, and it was wet too. Ever try to climb a wet wall?” He snorted, and took another sip of beer. “Probably not. But let it be known: it’s not easy.

By the time I got out, after a couple of hours of climbing, it started to rain. Well, I had to find shelter somehow. Eventually found an abandoned coyote den, and it was exactly how you expected a former lair of beasts to be: caked in shit and filth. Half-dead, starving, cold and wet and crying. And let me tell you something, would you even believe it? That was one of the happiest moments of my life.”

And so followed yet another pregnant pause, yet another dumbfounded look.

“That’s idiotic.”

“Maybe.”

They stopped talking, looking over the crowd of tents and bonfires. Some had taken naps, others were off to the side, enjoying after-dinner cigars and drinks. And yet again, his sister had disappeared to who knows where. The kid looked to the distance, seeing spires and monoliths and arches of stone. He hated the heat, but he had to admit, the landscape at night was… “nice”, to say the least.

He sighed. “I’ll give you something then.” He stood, stretched, about to make his way over to the fire for some leftover bacon. “If you had died back there, it probably would’ve been more meaningful than the slow burn from age or disease.”

“Obviously.”

He walked away, to get away from the ranger or to get to the food, he wasn’t sure. “It doesn’t change a thing, though. Death isn’t something you should aspire to.”

“Maybe. But I wonder, why do you want to live so badly?”

The kid didn’t reply.



/3

As it turned out, the days passed just as slowly as the kid had anticipated. They hiked, they climbed, they walked a ton, more than his feet could handle. And so it was night again. Dinner was the same as usual: instant noodles and various grilled meats. By now he was getting a little tired of noodles, but the meat was still good.

The after-dinner ritual didn’t change either. Drinking, napping, idle conversation. He didn’t know how it happened. But whatever happened, it happened like yesterday. Another meaningless argument, that started innocently enough.

It started with a review of the day, of sorts. How was your day? How did you like the sights? And so on. And the kid’s day was okay, he liked the sights just fine. But the heat. The oppressive heat. Enjoying anything while getting baked by that heat was nigh impossible.

“I felt like I was going to die.”

“So?”

The kid scowled. “Drunk again?” But it was a question that needed no answer, just a downward glance, at the growing stack of beer cans.

“Perhaps. But does it even matter? I’d be the same if I were sober.”

The kid merely snorted in response, and the ranger continued. “And you? What’s with you and heat?”

“What about me and heat?”

“Obvious. Why do you hate it?”

“Because I do.” The ranger laughed. The kid didn’t. “I’m not going to pretend that my dislike has any deep or meaningful significance. It just is. I hate heat.”

“You seem to hate it more than the others.”

“Well, then, that means I’m more sensitive to it than others.”

“Really? No other reason?”

“If there were other reasons, I would’ve said them by now.”

A pause. They contented themselves with waiting in silence for the moment. The ranger took another sip of beer. The kid got up and stretched, making his way over to throw away his plates, or maybe to get another serving of meat. He hadn’t decided yet.

“But…” The ranger broke the silence. The kid glanced over his shoulder, a disinterested look on his face. “Would you really appreciate all this without the heat?”

“I would.” No hesitation.

“Think about it.”

“I did.” The kid came to his decision, and dumped his plate in the trash, grabbing a can of iced tea. “I am aware that pain and suffering and whatnot makes all the sweetness sweeter. And that’s nice, very nice, but even so, I’m not going to seek out suffering.”

The ranger looked thoughtful for a moment, then took another sip of beer. “Is that why you’re afraid of dying?”

“I’m more afraid of dying taking forever,” he said, with an annoyed expression. “But no, I’m not going to actively try to die, or meet death face-to-face.”

“Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.37

“It’s nothing special.”

The kid looked up from his drink, and saw the ranger staring at him expectantly. He almost laughed. “It’s probably not what you’re thinking. Simple story: it was winter. Roads were iced, weather was snowy. Car lost control. Veered into the wrong lane. Truck’s headed directly at us, full-speed. Guess what happens?”

No response. The ranger stays oddly quiet.

He continues. “Nothing much, actually. The truck veers to the left, or right, or something, and only grazes us. Kinda. Well, I mean, one moment I’m just sitting there, the next half the car’s caved in, but we’re not dead. And you wanna know what I felt, at that very moment?”

Seconds pass. Still no response.

Nothing. A second or two of mild surprise, and then hours of boredom as I waited for the police to handle the situation. And it never changed. It didn’t make me appreciate life more, or make me grateful or humble or anything. I forgot about it in a few days. It wasn’t something that left a mark on me, or stuck with me for the rest of my life. It was about as impacting to my life as that time my sister threw a slipper at my head, or when that time I had to bake seventy cookies for a science fair project. Hell, those events were more impacting than the crash. Maybe you can look upon your brushes with death with nostalgia, but me? I can’t bring myself to feel anything.”

A pregnant pause. “That’s idiotic.”

“Maybe.”

“But— are you afraid of dying or not?”

“Maybe yes, maybe no? You heard the story. That’s all I have to say.”

“Then why do you keep yourself alive?”

“Because I like living.” He said it as if it was the most obvious thing in the world. And the ranger nodded, apparently agreeing that it was the most obvious thing in the world. They were silent again, listening to the crowd of campers. The kid was starting to get tired of the conversation.

“But,” the kid began, not content with ending the conversation there. “You still haven’t answered my question.”

“Which?”

“The original question. The one I asked yesterday. Why do you seem so eager to die?”

“Because I’m not. There’s a fine difference between welcoming death, and not fearing it. I’m talking about the latter, here. I don’t welcome death. You know that well enough, the fact that I’m still alive proves that. If I welcomed death, I’d go die. It’s not hard, with a job like mine. All I’d have to do is to make a mistake.” He paused once again, presumably for dramatic effect. “But you’ve said it yourself, kid. Bitterness makes the sweet sweeter; to taste sweet, you can’t be afraid of bitter. You need that bitterness. It’s the same idea here: you can’t enjoy life if you spend it fearing death.46

At that, the kid could tell the conversation was over, nowhere else to go from here. He looked down at his drink, and saw that it was empty. An excuse to go, and go he did. He stretched a bit, limbs still aching from the day of hiking. He took a step towards the main camps, to throw away his trash and bail for the day.

“Do you understand?”

“I do. But that doesn’t mean I agree. If I’m going to enjoy life, I’ll won’t spend it trying to brush with death or bitterness.” He turned away. “They’ll come naturally. Why seek them out?”

“Hah! Then I guess this argument was pointless.”

“I guess we agree for once.”

“Of course, of course. But hey.

Most arguments are.


Notes

The sources I used were mainly to better understand Abbey’s voice and beliefs, so I could write him more in-character. Presumably, an in-character Abbey would have more ribald humor and such, but trying to add humor always ended poorly, and ended up as less “amusing”, and more “jarring”. Any sentence ending with a superscript loosely corresponded to a quote from Abbey. To elaborate, one of the sources (Notes from a Secret Journal) was a book of notes, quotes, and musings by Abbey. The direct references were:

p37: “Suicide: Don’t knock it if you ain’t tried it.
p44: “If my decomposing carcass helps nourish the roots of a juniper tree or the wings of a vulture— that is immortality enough for me. And as much anyone deserves.
p46: “Those who fear death the most are those who enjoy life the least.

More quotes were used as inspiration, even if they weren’t directly quoted in the text. The main purpose of using that book was to get a feel for Abbey’s character, his philosophy and politics, his general stance on the way things are, and so on. And I extrapolated from those ideas: what would he be like in person? Another note, but the reason I had him somewhat drunk in the dialogue was so that I wouldn’t have to deal with the matter of sensitivity or manners.

The other book, New West, was used for more guidelines on how to try emulate Abbey’s style, namely the narrative voice and prose style (both attributed in the index, at pages 66-74, and 73-74 and 76-78, respectively). By understanding how and why he decides the write the way he does, it helps with understanding his character, both the fictional and real Abbey. It should be noted, then, that the Abbey in this piece is based more on Abbey the ‘character’, not Abbey the ‘author’. Of the more important quotes, we have:

p78: “A descriptive sense of the land itself supports the body of his prose. Without his visual awareness, his use of detail, and his mastery of the particular phrase, Abbey’s writing would be lifeless and dull.

This being so, I tried to emulate that style by describing the environment, and linking it to what was happening on hand. While I wasn’t going for a complete replication of his style, the intention was the “evoke” it, or make it reasonably linked to it. Also, I didn’t go too in detail with the environment because this piece is, first and foremost, a dialogue, so I had to get to the chase quickly.

Works Cited
Abbey, Edward. Desert Solitaire; a Season in the Wilderness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Print.
Abbey, Edward. Vox Clamantis in Deserto: Notes from a Secret Journal. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989. Print.

Ronald, Ann. The New West of Edward Abbey. Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1982. Print.

Revision

Emma Sullivan
Dr. Adam Johns
English Seminar 0200
10 October 2014
Abbey and the Anthill
            As one enjoys an outdoor meal, it is not uncommon to leave behind a few crumbs, fallen scraps, or perhaps an entire piece of watermelon, pasta salad, etc. If one waits long enough, it is likely they will observe this morsel become slowly encompassed by numerous yet miniscule ants. Nearby, between the cracks of a sidewalk or upon a patch of grass is the anthill these copious creatures call home. This mound is their “city”, so to speak. Suppose the anthill is located near two tall trees, perhaps oaks or maples situated about 3 feet from one another. An elaborate, carefully crafted spider web joins these trees and is home to a singular, dominant spider. This spider and its web are independent, a creation unique to the creature itself and its place in nature. Edward Abbey represents both of these creatures through his writings as he goes from a miniscule ant escaping society to a web-weaving, sovereign spider.
            The anthill for Abbey began in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania where he was born in 1927. To summarize his young life, Abbey started writing during his childhood, and first explored the West at the age of seventeen. Needless to say, he fell in love. He then spent a year in the army at nineteen, and from there a year at Indiana State Teacher’s College, before moving West for the better portion of his life. In 1951 and 1956 Abbey earned his B.A. and M.A. respectively at the University of New Mexico where he studied philosophy and English. After earning his M.A. Abbey worked as a ranger and began writing some of his most famous works including of course, Desert Solitaire (American Environmental Leaders: From Colonial Times to the Present).
In the introduction of this book Abbey tells us precisely none of this. In fact, he even tells us that this is of no relevance to his work saying of Arches, “Why I went there no longer matters; what I found there is the subject of this book,” (Abbey xi). However, this information is precisely what his anthill is made out of. It is the dirt that constructs the world, the city, the society Abbey came from and “escaped” from. This escape is what Abbey’s work is all about, and what he challenges others to do. Best said by Frances K. Foster of the University of Texas in 1981, “His approach undeniably links humanity to the natural environment,” (Foster 65). For Abbey, humanity is this anthill, and the natural environment is the spider web.
            In the notorious chapter, “Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks” Abbey tells us “ants” how he wants us to come explore mother nature’s biggest spider web, otherwise known as the untouched world, or our national parks. In fact, these specific instructions can be interpreted as how Abbey would feel one becomes a “spider” in the face of nature. He blacklists cars and “ponderous camping machinery”, and instructs us to use our feet, bicycles, and even horses in our exploration (Abbey 52-53, 57). For the time we spend in Arches, or elsewhere, we are expected to behave as a spider would. To weave our webs slowly and carefully, and do so silently in order to make them as beautiful as possible without altering the places we choose to weave them. We are predators to some, and prey to others. Yet, he does not expect us to remain spiders permanently upon our departure from the natural world. When the anthill calls once again, we are to return as ants with a renewed perspective of the world—the spider’s perspective.
            The idea of the transition from ant, to spider, and back again begs the question of whether or not Abbey ever transforms back into this ant when he leaves Arches. This can be interpreted several ways. On one hand, we can argue that Abbey has quite a lead on a great majority of humanity in being a true metaphorical spider. His perspective is one that thwarts the traditional progressive attitude many humans support. He does not want to keep moving forward, developing, and industrializing, in fear that we will destroy what little we have left of the wilderness. He is a seasoned spider; he shares his knowledge of surviving the elements with us, and is able to use this knowledge to his advantage. Seen in his domestication of a gopher snake in order to ward off rattlesnakes, in which the pair become “friends” to the point of Abbey comparing the creature to a cat as the it sits curled up by the heater (Abbey 19). But, this tale is just a small piece, a mere millimeter of his grandiose web. Moving on to another part of the web, a time separate from his days in Arches, where he narrowly escapes death and quite literally climbs out of it in the chapter “Havasu”. He even goes so far as to deem this survival adventure as, “…one of the happiest nights of my life,” (Abbey 205). And yet another piece of his web can be taken from his death, something we cannot draw upon by simply reading his books. Two days before his death Abbey requested to be taken out of the hospital and into the wilderness for one last campfire. His deceased body was then, upon his own instructions, driven into the desert as far in as possible and buried beneath a pile of rocks (American Environmental Leaders: From Colonial Times to the Present). This was arguably Abbey’s last act as a spider, in a web that was collectively woven throughout his life. He started in the wilderness, and although deviated at times, ended in the desert, making him, arguably, a sort of “eternal spider” that never quite transformed back into an ant.
            On the other hand, it is only fair to examine that Abbey does in fact equalize himself as a “fellow ant” when he leaves Arches and his web, returning to the anthill. Of this he says, “Who am I to pity the degradation and misery of my fellow citizens? I, too, must leave the canyon country, if only for a season…” (Abbey 265). In this context, it is important to understand that he is referencing his “fellow citizens” in that they are unfortunately, in his eyes bound to the anthill of society. He takes pity on this fact, and shows remorse for he must too return to it. Yet despite his attempt to show us how much he disdains the fact he is no longer going to be a spider, he still equalizes with his fellow ants and tell us that he is rightfully one of them in leaving. From this we can conclude that Abbey may not in fact be this “eternal spider” given the condition that he must “rejoin for the winter that miscegenated mesalliance of human and rodent called the rat race (Rattus urbanus),” (Abbey 265). That being said, it is only fair to say that Abbey self-admittedly begins a new web each time he transitions from ant to spider in his lifetime.
            It is also important that we return to the point that Abbey includes virtually no background information on himself when examining if he can be considered superior to humanity as only an ant turned spider. Since we do not know of his life, his youth, and quite obviously his death, when we read his work we can interpret this as his message that he wants to be seen only as a sovereign spider. For this persona gives him the most authority and portrays his chosen portrait of himself as an environmentalist, and nature enthusiast. The question of what we know of his ant days from purely Desert Solitaire can be answered rather simply…we know almost nothing. Any accounts such as “Havasu” are stories of him as a spider, and the one sparse account I uncovered with pure mention of him as an ant occurred during “Episodes and Visions” where he theoretically tells tourists that he is “not seriously married” and “rests for the winter” (Abbey 234-235). We also know that Abbey resents the side of himself that is an ant, or at least could be considered an ant because he does not like this piece that must return to the “rat race”. So, in these minute details, Abbey is telling us that he yearns to be an eternal spider, yet must also acknowledge and be humbled by the reality of the anthill. He is as close to being an eternal spider as a human could get—yet becoming this creature totally immersed in nature from start to finish is virtually impossible. Critics and fans alike, such as Foster, also bare witness to this yearn to transform while noting things like, “Abbey’s idealism and cynicism are illustrated by his attitude toward national parks, a position some would call elitist,” (Foster 65). This “elitist” position is one that Abbey demonstrates in order to assert, and create the illusions of superiority and dominance in the face of the rest of society and of the ants.
            One could argue that this technicality of ant to eternal spider, or ant to spider to ant to spider debate is one that is irrelevant, that he is simply an eternal spider because he died in the wilderness, and showed more of a dedication to it than any of us ants ever will. You could say that the importance of this seemingly minute detail is nothing in the face of the bigger picture of Desert Solitaire, which is at surface level, about Abbey getting through to us readers on his views. However, this ant-eternal spider debate is what lies at the center of Abbey’s internal conflict, and paradox, which is reflected throughout the entire book. We cannot ignore the fact that he wants to transform and leave the anthill forever, yet never fully succeeds or is able to. It is the essence of Abbey’s struggle with being a human, being an ant, and yet wanting and hoping to be considered and perhaps quite literally be an eternal spider.




















Works Cited
"Abbey, Edward." American Environmental Leaders: From Colonial Times to the Present. Amenia: Grey House Publishing, 2008. Credo Reference. Web. 8 October 2014.
Foster, Frances K. "Recommended: Edward Abbey." The English Journal 70.6 (1981): 65-6.
Abbey, Edward. Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness. New York:   Touchstone, 1990

Revision 1


Samantha Call

Seminar in Composition

Dr. Adam Johns

October 10, 2014

 

Society and Self-Hatred


 
               Abbey himself states, in Desert Solitaire, that “The explicitly representational often comes side by side with the highly abstract” (100, Abbey).  This statement can be applied to the words and thoughts of Abbey himself, who frequently expresses misanthropy.  While he undoubtedly feels extreme disappointment in and anger toward the human race as a whole, there is also evidence to suggest that those feelings toward humanity are actually reflections of Abbey’s feelings toward himself.  Both society and Abbey have their downfalls and are representative of the shortcomings of the human mind.  Although his feelings are often categorized as misanthropic, Abbey’s hatred is not rooted solely in society, but also in his own anger and disappointment with himself and his own failures.
              Abbey’s failures are largely spiritual.  His spirituality relies on the connection he feels with nature and his ability to free himself from human constraints.  When Abbey argues that nature should be preserved in case rebels of the future need to use it in their struggle to liberate themselves from oppressive regimes, he is actually expressing his own desire to be liberated from society.  Early in Desert Solitaire, Abbey conveys that he is in the wild “to evade for a while the clamor and filth and confusion of the cultural apparatus” (6, Abbey).  Even on his trip down the river, Abbey is unable to completely separate himself from human culture, thinking not of his own connection with nature, but of the connections other groups, such as the Mormons, have had with nature.  Abbey admires their small communities that live alone in the desert.  Not only does this show that Abbey does not hate all of humanity, it shows that he is incapable of separating himself from his prior knowledge of other groups.  Instead of experiencing nature in his own context and discovering what it means to him on a spiritual level, he wonders what it meant to other people.  Even if they lived in an earlier time, they are part of the history and culture of society that Abbey does not want to be a part of.  Abbey wants to preserve nature so that it may remain a place for escape from society, but he fails in creating this atmosphere due to his failure to disconnect himself from prior knowledge.
Abbey’s shaky sense of spirituality is further questioned by his pondering of the existence of God and of His control over nature.  While on the river, Abbey asks Ralph Newcomb if he believes in God (158, Abbey).  Later, Abbey goes on to praise a God he claims not to believe in by saying “God provides,” (175, Abbey).  Abbey admits that his idea of God is that which humanity has imposed on him.  Therefore, Abbey is a subject of his culture.  One is unable to disconnect themselves from their culture because no experience can be forgotten.  Communication cannot be taken back, so any interaction that Abbey ever had with another human being has influenced him and will continue to influence him as long as he lives (30, Gareis and Cohn).  It is this aspect of his own nature that frustrates Abbey.  Due to the ideas that he has been exposed to, Abbey cannot see nature and form his own opinions about it through an unspotted lens.  Since that is what one of Abbey’s ultimate goals is, he must consider himself as a failure.
            While Abbey is searching for the truth he believe hides in nature, he is torn between the companionship humanity delivers and the isolation he desires.  The isolation would allow him to be free to experience nature separate from human greed and possessiveness, but would also take away his ability to interact with other humans, whose attention he still craves.  He struggles to connect to nature fully because he can’t separate himself from other people completely, craving friendship and love that he can’t have deep in the desert alone.  Abbey comments on the greed of the developers constantly, but also recognizes that he embodies that same greed and selfishness.  Instead of attempting to live with nature, he expresses the desire to own in.  In the chapter “Terra Incognita: Into the Maze,” Abbey does much exploring and at one point comes across four large natural structures.  Immediately he begins brainstorming names for these structures, until he realizes that the only reason he wants to name them is “Vanity, vanity, vanity, nothing but vanity: the itch for naming things is almost as bad as the itch for possessing things” (256, Abbey).  At this point, Abbey recognizes that he is doing exactly what he is condemning in others.  He wants to name these structures so that he can stake a claim on them, just like the miners staked claims on the land earlier in history, and just like the developers were staking claims for tourists through placement of bridges and dams.  He and society are one and the same; they both possess the harsh greed that takes nature away from its simplest form and are transforming it into a human construct.  Abbey has drawn the parallel between himself and society and is disgusted with himself for being so selfish and expressing such “vanity.”  Abbey does condemn society for its greed, but the larger issue is him being angry with himself for falling into the same trap.  His misanthropy in this situation is completely aimed at himself for his failure to drop his human characteristics of greed and possessiveness.
In a context outside of his own mind, Abbey has valid reasons to hate humans.  As a park ranger and self-proclaimed advocate for nature, Abbey is distraught by the destruction of wildlife and much of this emotion is directed toward those who are planning on destroying it.  His trip down the river is, at several times, plagued by the thoughts that his surroundings will soon be humanized.  His disappointment is iterated when he writes, “We pass too many of these marvelous side canyons, to my everlasting regret, for most of them will never again be wholly accessible to human eyes or feet” (164, Abbey).  Abbey loves nature and who he is when he is in nature so much that the idea of taking it all away disappoints him greatly.  In his opinion, disturbing man’s natural habitat “is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself” (169, Abbey).  Other people will not be able to experience the wonders of pure, raw nature, and Abbey resents society for that deprivation.  This is how Abbey’s feelings could be mistakenly placed as misanthropic, but that viewpoint does not take into account that he himself is part of the reason he can’t connect to nature.
Abbey himself has taken part in the destruction.  During one of his expeditions, he set fire to one of the landscapes he was observing through “sheer carelessness” (188, Abbey).  He even stated that his destruction can be viewed in a book about Arches written years later (188, Abbey).  By interfering in nature, Abbey deprived future generations from seeing a part of nature that he was able to see.  Therefore, he is guilty of exactly what he is accusing the developers of doing.  If Abbey claims to hate humanity for that reason, he must hate himself as well because nobody reading the book with the picture of his destruction in it or visiting the park will ever get to see that place in its true form.  Humans are evil, in Abbey’s mind, for keeping individuals from becoming one with nature, so Abbey must hate himself as well.
            Another explanation of Abbey’s anger being directed at himself more than society is that he is, in reality, more disappointed with himself for being just the opposite of what he is advocating.  Tyler Nickl pointed this out in his dissertation entitled “Farmer, Miner, Ranger, Writer: Interpreting class and work in the writing of Wendell Berry and Edward Abbey.”  Nickl writes about a fact craftily left out of Desert Solitaire, which is that Abbey is in fact working for the bureaucracy that he denounces throughout the book.  By shifting focus to the connection he has with nature, Abbey is hiding the connection that he has with the park ranger service and society as a whole (48, Nickl).  Abbey claims that he took the job because it allows him freedom to be close to nature, but it is also restricting due to the very nature of the job, in which he “must check via radio contact each morning, must make regular patrols as designated by his superiors, must also work to facilitate the correct flow of others’ bodies (those of the visiting tourists) in and out of the natural spaces he stewards” (49, Nickl).  If Abbey is responsible to the authority that governs the park, he is not as autonomous as he would like us to believe.  He constantly praises how wonderful it is for man to be free of human constructs, but he himself is subject to them through his everyday duties.  As much as he advocates fighting against the bureaucracy, he is a part of it, ushering in the tourists who he claims are destroying the land.  Abbey himself facilitates that destruction and is therefore the subject of his proclaimed hatred for society.  Since Abbey paints himself as an advocate for nature, he does not direct his negative feelings toward himself, but instead projects them onto society.  This apparent misanthropy is, therefore, a manifestation of the bolstering of hatred toward what Abbey himself is doing.
            Abbey’s misanthropy is an expression of both his discontent with society and himself.  This hatred of humankind is, in reality, an embodiment of Abbey’s doubt in himself.  He is unsure if he is able to accomplish what he has set out to do; see nature in its most bare and simple form, without human influence.  Ultimately, Abbey returns to society, unable to find his native self that can disconnect from other humans completely.  If Abbey were to ever achieve this, though, it is likely that his misanthropy would disappear and he would be content with everything in the world, including himself.





 

 

Works Cited

 
Abbey, Edward. Desert Solitaire: The First Morning & A Season in the Wilderness.  New York: Touchstone, 1990.

 Gareis, J. and Cohn, E. (2013). Communication as culture. 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

 Nickl, Tyler. "Farmer, Miner, Ranger, Writer: Interpreting Class and Work in the Writing of Wendell Berry and Edward Abbey." Order No. 1516432 Utah State University, 2012. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Web. 6 Oct. 2014.

Revision #1

Irene Magdon
Seminar in Composition
Dr. Adam Johns
October 10, 2014
Abbey, Mysticism, and Oppenheimer
Abbey showed us his rather unique ideals and beliefs throughout Desert Solitaire. His innate love of the environment showed us his apparent mystic outlook and draws us to question if this is truly his demeanor. A mystic is one who is absorbed with something almost foreign to the majority. It is a devotion that may be comparable to that of a religion. Abbey’s clear devotion to the wilderness is made exceptionally clear to us in his chapters. At times he even addresses other religions almost mockingly. I believe that Abbey is his own form of a mystic in the way he views the world and his life, as well as others’. I also compared Abbey to another person looked at by some as a mystic, Robert Oppenheimer. This comparison lead me to not only look deeper into the words of Abbey, but also into history.
            Simple aspects of Abbey’s character in the first few chapters began to pave the way for the questioning of his beliefs. One such moment occurs when he discusses the disadvantages of the flashlight, “like many other mechanical gadgets it tends to separate a man from the world around him” (Abbey 13). He appreciates the isolated feeling like most people would not. He has a certain uncommon understanding of the functionality of nature with which he is more adapted to than the average person. Being closer and more at one with his surroundings is almost a form of peace. A unity with nature. If you wanted to read more into this then you may say that walking in the desert at night requires trust of your surrounds. One wrong step and you may be bitten or fall in the difficult terrain.
When Abbey turns the generator on for the trailer, he says he feels “shut off from the natural world and sealed up, encapsulated” (Abbey 13). Eventually, as the weather becomes more permitting, he moves outside the trailer. Abbey uses every chance he has to be outdoors and spend time with the environment showing his commitment. He still uses some forms of technology and acknowledges this. He sees value in automobiles despite his resentment for them in National Parks and is thankful for refrigeration to preserve food. Abbey does not exaggerate his beliefs but simply has a reasonable line drawn on where he stands.
            In the chapter “The Moon-Eyed Horse” we are told the story of Moon-Eye, a free-spirited horse living in the desert. He embodies the life Abbey wants for himself to the point where he is virtually envious of the horse. He speaks to the horse in an angry tone, showing his frustration as he tries to wrangle him to have for himself. To physically own a lifestyle he struggles to possess. Moon-Eye lives at on in the world which, to him, will always be as it is; the pristine, unspoiled desert. He doesn’t know about the destructive plans the government has for his desert or other wilderness locations, nor does he know the laziness of modern society that causes industrial tourism. If Abbey cannot fix these things, he might as well wish to escape them all together. Better yet, he could be oblivious to these atrocities as Moon-Eye is and live his life in peace. To be at one with the world he loves.
            Wouldn’t a mystic behave similarly? By telling us the story of Moon-Eye, Abbey is showing us how much he yearns to be with the wilderness. To be fully absorbed in this natural state as a mystic would be. This idea of Abbey’s is not one that most members of society would grasp however, much of this book brings almost completely foreign ideas the readers. Most people would not want to separate themselves from society. In fact, most spend the entirety of their lives trying to fit in with societal norms which do not include running off and living in the desert. Most of society pushes towards its idea of progress to make life easier. To Abbey, most forms of this progress is just pure laziness. Why drive through a national park to take home some pictures when you can walk through it and take home a greater experience. “Industrial Tourism” is a phrase to be scoffed at for Abbey.
            Abbey’s final words to us echo the fear that has been the basis of this book. “When I return will it be the same? Will I be the same? Will anything ever be quite the same again? If I return,” (269). It can be debated as to why Abbey questions if he will return. It could be possible that Abbey would not want to come back to see any further changes take place in the land he loves. It would be corrupted and soiled to him. It is more valuable to him in his memory as the unaltered land that he adored.
Perhaps Abbey answers this question in a previous excerpt in “Down the River.” it appeared to me that Abbey almost directly addressed the idea of mysticism when he said,
If a man’s imagination were not so weak, so easily tired, if his capacity for wonder not so limited, he would abandon forever such fantasies of the supernal. He would learn to perceive in water, leaves and silence more than sufficient of the absolute and marvelous, more than enough to console him for the loss of the ancient dreams (Abbey, 177).
I believe this statement could be a foreshadowing of the ending of Desert Solitaire by his mention of “loss of the ancient dreams.” Abbey was OK with leaving Arches and possibly never coming back because his time there consoled him. He was aware that things were changing in the wilderness politically and he would not be able to stop this change himself and he couldn’t stay there forever (especially with said changes). Therefore, he spent his season there, enjoying the time he had and parted with the memory of a fairly untainted Arches.
            It was once mentioned in class that Robert Oppenheimer, the creator of the atomic bomb, was viewed by some as a mystic. I was intrigued by this because his invention was the cause of the uranium mining taking place in Desert Solitaire. Also, I was curious to see how the creator of the atomic bomb, which caused so much death and destruction, could have been a mystic. To me, a mystic is not someone who develops a weapon of mass destruction, but instead someone who aims more for serenity.
I took to reading a biography by Charles Thorpe titled Oppenheimer: The Tragic Intellect. Early on in my readings I made a connection between Abbey and Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was unhappy with his position in the world. A quote from one of the opening chapters stated, “Oppenheimer was Jewish, but he wished he weren’t and tried to pretend that he wasn’t,” (Thorpe, 26). Abbey often disassociated himself from the rest of mankind. His opposing viewpoints set him aside from the rest of the populace much as Oppenheimer set himself aside socially.
I noted that Abbey’s only friendly acquaintances are the ones who he shares particular interests with. He only mentions Newcomb during his trip down the river. In “Cowboys and Indians,” He is only with the men for extra work and because he tolerates their company. While Robert Oppenheimer was in Harvard, many people noted his reserved personality. It was stated that “Oppenheimer was disengaged from collective undergraduate activities; his friendships were wholly on an intellectual basis, (Thorpe, 31).
In a last similarity, I noted Abbey and Oppenheimer’s love of the outdoors. On page 201 Thorpe stated “…Oppenheimer took with alacrity to New Mexico’s hardy outdoor life…He and Hogan would travel on horseback over trails across the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and stay at the guest ranch of Katherine Chaves Page, a place Oppenheimer found magical.”
Abbey’s unmoving adoration for the desert and other outfits of the wilderness is one of almost religious proportions. It is the foundation of Desert Solitaire. He yearns to be at one with the wilderness as Moon-Eye, to be fully absorbed in the world he loves. Abbey’s visions for the National Parks and outdoors is one with such passion that it has opened the eyes of countless readers and fellow advocates. 



Works Cited:
Abbey, Edward. Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness. New York: Touchstone, 1990.

Thorpe, Charles. Oppenheimer: The Tragic Intellect. University of Chicago Press, 2006.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Questions and Comments on Darwin and Lewontin (Don't post on Wilder here!)

Note:  for next week your reading assignment is Darwin, chapters 7-8, and Lewontin, pages 1-58.

Post your questions/thoughts as comments to this post.  Again:  a paragraph is fine, or a couple if you feel so moved.  You are posting on a question, problem or topic of your choice.  Citing a particular passage is recommended but not required.

Prompts on Lewontin, Darwin, and Wilder

Prompts for Darwin, Lewontin, and Wilder

Requirement 1: Everyone must have a clear thesis statement in her first paragraph.

Requirement 2: Everyone must correctly use a semicolon at least once in his essay.

Prompt 1: Lewontin and the News

Go read some articles in popular but respectable sources which touch upon genetics (example: the science section of the New York Times). Either use Lewontin to make an article about the essay, or use the essay to make an argument about Lewontin. You especially need to show a good understanding of the relevant parts of Lewontin. Do not stop by using, for instance, Lewontin to show what is right or wrong or problematic in a particular article: show us why that matters. How does our understanding change by reading one through the other.

Prompt 2: Define “Nature” using Wilder and one other source

Your job is to offer and defend a useful definition of “Nature.” How do you think we should define nature? Why should we define it that way? You must use Wilder and at least one other source (you can use Abbey, Darwin, or Lewontin if you wish, or you can use research). Don’t just defend a vapid dictionary definition. You want to defend an idea which either emerges from within Wilder or in response to her.

Example: “Wilder shows us that we should understand nature as ‘That which culture destroys, replaces, then mourns.’ The concept is only necessary to fill a void.” (You might go on to argue that this is either a fine or intolerable condition to be in).

Example 2: “Wilder shows us that nature is predation, with humans as the apex predator. We need a world without nature, which would be a world without violence.”

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Comments & Questions on Wilder, Week 2

Post your questions/thoughts as comments to this post. Again: a paragraph is fine, or a couple if you feel so moved. You are posting on a question, problem or topic of your choice. Citing a particular passage is recommended but not required.