Response to John Muir

John Muir is an environmentalist and like Abbey, he uses his writing to call his audience, anyone who is reading and could help, to action. He wants to remind people that the earth does not belong to man, although man may believe it to be so. I think this is a fair point that was also seen in the momaday writing. Most people do forget that the earth is not something to claim, since basically, all we have done is divide it up and claim bits and pieces for ourselves. Muir writes in a very interestingly jumpy style. To me it seemed that maybe he did so in a "wild" way to represent the wild. This may be a stretch, but i felt like the way that you didn't know what to expect next, and the lack of real transitions was interestingly wild. But it was also effective in holding the readers attention because as a reader I was thrown into story after story, there was no slow build, he just jumped right in. He used Ethos, pathos, and logos in his arguments to capture the readers attention and portray his message. Ethos was used towards the end of the passages where he would sum up his argument which maybe wasn't completely clear before but tied together in the end. He stated different facts, particularly in the first passage about how and why man shouldn't believe the earth is his. He uses pathos throughout his passages to grab the readers attention and play on their emotions. This was evident in the discussion about the alligator eating the dog in the first passage and the detailed admiration descriptions of yosemite national park in the second passage. And Logos is used throughout both passages while he backs up his arguments with fact and interesting points. The part that stood out the most as an example of logos to me was in the first passage when he said "man claimed the earth was made for him, and i was going to say that venomous beasts, thorny plants, and deadly diseases of certain parts of the earth prove that the whole world was not made for him." That is a very strong logical point to sum up his arguments.

Abbey: Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks

Abbey's audience is the reader, whoever that may be, anyone who can make a difference. He is outraged and upset at the way things have turned out in the wilderness, and doesn't think that things like Park Service and acts to fix things are really effective enough, nor are they set out to be. Abbey writes to persuade others to take action and fix the problems that our culture and race has done to nature and wildlife. He worries about the way things will be in the future and urges us to fix things while we can, while backing up his points with examples about how things have changed and how what is being done now isn't helping. He has very detailed descriptions which he uses to try to get a rise out of the reader and make them think about what is going on. He wants to call everyone to action for this cause and that is evident in all the choices he has made in this writing.

Roosevelt: Speech at Grand Canyon

This was a speech given by Roosevelt to the Governor and a group of citizens of Arizona. It was his first visit there, but he manages to maintain his authority and give a strong speech about keeping it's natural beauty untouched. He speaks of the Grand Canyon, his respect for it, and his hopes to keep it as it is. He respects the soldiers from Arizona who fought along side him in battle. He also speaks of and to the Native Americans, treating them as equals, and encouraging others to do the same. It seems a very progressive speech for the times. He uses good details to back up his arguments. He describes his pride towards the soldiers and backs it up with statements of respect like "glorious and honorable death fighting for the flag of their country." He speaks of the Grand Canyon and his hope to keep it untouched in its natural wonder. And he backs this up by explaining his delight to learn that the people of the santa Fe railroad did not decide to build their hotel on the brink. He speaks of the Native Americans and his respect for them and goal to treat them as equal to any white man. He backs this up and encourages others to hold the same view by making the statement that "they were good enough to fight and to die, and they are good enough to have me treat them exactly as squarely as any white man." It is a very compelling speech, especially when considered in the context of its time.

Response to Jordan Julson's Blog

I agree with the points that Jordan made in his response to the momaday reading. We had one point in common which was that momday clearly discusses the respect that the Native Americans have for the land, which isn't common in our society. This is shown through the example I discussed in my blog about the day momaday spent planting the fields of corn with a young boy he hardly knew. The way he reflects on that years later and remembers that as an important thing he did for his culture and the land. This passage reminded me about the differences between cultures living in the same place. I think Jordan felt the same way.

Mammaday Post

Mommaday's story is written for an audience of people who maybe don't know all too much about Native American, and specifically Kiowa culture in this country. He has a lot of first hand experiences to share about his culture and moments growing up. He talks about the land of the kiowa's and the opinions and rituals they hold. They view the land in a much more respectful way than most Americans and he tries to show the importance and rareness of that to readers who may not realize how much they take for granted or how vast the landscape can be. Several specific details stay in my mind after having read the passage. One is the description of his meeting with a young boy his age. How they met up and rode off on their horses and planted fields of corn. The detailed description of what he learned about the cornfields later on and the fact that he had not known the boy at all when he decided to follow him show a sense of trust and admiration that is new to me. I wouldn't just follow some young girl who told me to come with her when I was a child. Another detailed description that sticks out is the discussion of the weapon and the hunter and all the hidden meaning in that passage that was towards the beginning of the reading. That is a phenmomenon I don't really understand, never having hunted or needed to hunt before. I find it interesting how some cultures can differ so much and live among one another. Mommaday's appreciation for land, nature, and culture is inspiring, and shown well through his detailed descriptions and memorable stories.

Henry David Thoreau vs. Christopher Mccandless

Before reading from "Walden; or, Life in the Woods" the only thing I really knew about Henry David Thoreau is that he found nature inspiring. This seems to be the trait people relate to him. Now I see why. Reading about nature through Thoreau's voice made me find his inspiration myself. His vivid descriptions of of the ice on th pond and the slight flurries of snow paint a picture of peace and serenity hidden among the trees in the winter time. He wants to be out there among nature, thats why he intends to build a house rather than just live in a tent. This is one way that, we'll call him Supertramp, and Thoreau seem to differ in ideals. In all of the adventures I have seen Supertramp undertake in the movie he never does anything to make a more permanent home. He lives in other people's trailers, and builds insufficient tents,It seems to me that he wouldn't want to chop down a whole tree in order to make a home for himself. He wants to live in the wild, but he wants to move through it, he is trying to get to Alaska, and even when there I don't think he would take down trees, an essential part of nature in order to build a place for himself. Thoreau however, looks at this a little differently. He says "It is difficult to begin without borrowing." To Supertramp, the trees aren't his to cut down, it would be too close to the brutality of society that he is trying to escape. Thoreau sees chopping down the trees to create a home for himself as borrowing, he has every right to borrow, for he intends to give back to the land, to the woods by Walden Pond, in the careful and respectful way he will live there, which is unlike most Americans.
Despite this vast difference in ideals, Supertramp and Thoreau do share some like-minded views. One strong example being their ideas about travel. When I first watched Supertramp abandon his car and burn his identity and money I thought he was absolutely crazy. My very first thought was "why wouldn't he just go to law school and make money so he can travel?" To him, this wouldn't be worth it. He wants to escape societal norms and travel into the wild on his own, finding his food and his way using his own instincts and strength. Tour buses and hotels never would have made Supertramp happy, he never would have been able to become part of the wild as he has by traveling on foot. Throeau shares this sentiment. It seems other people viewed his situation the way I first viewed Supertramp's they asked why he didn't just take cars to go see what he wanted. He explains that he has learned that "the swiftest traveler is he that goes afoot." This sentiment easily could have been said by Supertramp.
As Throreau writes about his intentions upon going into the woods and his hopes for learning and living before death, i am very strongly reminded of Supertramp and his strong driven journey. The two men differ in some ideals and the way that they view nature, but their similarities are far stronger than their differences. They both seem to find nature inspiring. Now, I can say that statement with true understanding of what it means.

Wildness Symposium Alternative: Patricia Smith Reading in the 2008 Dodge Poetry Festival Saturday Night Sampler- 09/27/08

I watched several clips of Patricia Smith reading aloud from Blood Dazzler in place of attending the Wildness Symposium, since I had to work in Des Moines all weekend long. However, the one reading that stood out the most was the reading of 34, from the 2008 Dodge Poetry Festival. In all of the readings I was immediately struck but the amount of feeling her voice brought to the poems that wasn't there before. I found them to be fairly powerful and in some senses disturbing poems to begin with. But after hearing her read them, it was as if i had not read them at all. They were such different stories coming from the mouth of the woman who created them. She feels so strongly and has been so effected by Katrina, it is clear with each word that she feels a strong connection to her stories. 34 was particularly memorable to me. I remember reading that story in the book and sort of understanding it. I got that the poor elderly in the nursing home drowned because it was not evacuated. But I didn't quite realize until I heard her read the full poem in its segmented parts, that she had set it up so that we heard the last thoughts up on the roof of each of the 34 people who drowned. Some were angry at their children, as they had not come for them. Some were relieved it was almost over, while others were sure they were going to make it through. She read each person's thoughts with such feeling and emotion, you could sense the fear, and despair, and exhaustion, and tragedy of each person's last moment. It was disturbing, yet captivating. I think most of the class should try to listen to some of her poems being read aloud because it is so much more powerful that way.