Reading Abbey Reading Thoreau

One primary reason that I decided to spend some time in the desert Southwest was the influence of Edward Abbey’s writings. His writings opened up his perspective of being out in nature that was so descriptive that I could imagine being by his side and gave me a clear window to see what the government was doing to public lands. While his descriptions of the area made me fall in love with the desert from afar in the rainy Willamette Valley, I knew that I would not be able to truly understand Abbey outside of his natural habitat.

I read Abbey as he was reading and analyzing Henry David Thoreau. In many ways, they look through similar lenses. They are both anarchists and against governmental influence. They both encourage action against injustices — Thoreau through introspection (Thoreau did not pay his taxes as a form of protest against the Mexican-American War), Abbey through showy, fuller-than-life feats (he writes about various forms of eco-terrorism as a way to encourage and inspire greater participation in others). They gain freedom through being in nature and allow their readers to experience nature through their writing, while also encouraging their readers to experience nature for themselves. I take both of them up on that offer as often as I can, whether in my college town of Corvallis or on longer adventures that get me further from civilization.

I sit on top of the ridged metal tunnel that forms the culvert, feeling the cold seep into my bones, and watch the creek flow away from me, towards the covered bridge. Birds chirp quietly in the background but mostly I listen to the soft rush of the water. There are maple samaras between the ridges of the metal tunnel, and catkins droop from branches. I touch one, gently, watching it pendulate back and forth as if the wind moved it.

While many of their ideas were through a similar lens, some of their ideals were dissimilar — Thoreau advocated for a simple, pure and quiet life, whereas Abbey wanted to live life loudly, full of diversity and adventure. Some of their differences lie in the fact that they lived in different eras. Abbey wanted to experience the beauty and wildness of nature, and Thoreau studied it through observing details and living a quiet life. Abbey supports exploring nature and letting it remain in its natural state. In his opinion, nature is inherently better than civilization. He also strongly believes that you cannot understand anything outside of its natural habitat.

Abbey’s frames when looking at Thoreau partially come through his value of living life fully, which made him condemn Thoreau’s puritanism. Abbey wanted to explore new places, while Thoreau wanted to explore his home. Abbey explored all over the desert Southwest and beyond. He held jobs as a park ranger and teacher and went on many trips for the purpose of exploring and being in wilderness. Thoreau, due to his value of living a quiet, introspective life, barely left Concord or his family. He refused to commit himself to any job. Abbey criticizes Thoreau for not taking advantage of exploring the States but also admires his ability to wholly know his home. Thoreau denied himself life’s pleasures, while Abbey partook in them greatly. Thoreau’s life purpose was to discover the meaning of existence. Ed’s might have been to have a good time.

Both Thoreau and Abbey’s frames are through the times that they lived in. During Thoreau’s time, the west was just beginning to be explored by white Europeans, and travel was much more available to Abbey in the twentieth century. Thoreau said that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Abbey amends that to include women (presumably other genders are immune) and that, in his time (and potentially now), they lead lives of unquiet desperation. This is in reference to what Abbey assesses as the busyness and franticness of modern-day society. He also asks how one can know what others’ experiences are, especially someone who supposedly had little interaction with other people. Did Abbey understand people better than Thoreau did, based on the fact that in theory he spent more time with people? Nobody can know for sure, but I’d say that it is unlikely.

Wholesome science is how Abbey referred to Thoreau’s study of his surroundings, counting things, and observing each and every detail. Abbey hates scientists who study in laboratories and have no connection with “real” nature because they are taking what they are studying out of its context. Abbey argues that there are plenty of willing human participants to be studied or surveyed as opposed to locking up animals to run tests on them. Maybe Abbey just hates science in general and thinks that things should be experienced as they are, not quantified or qualified. More information does not lead to more understanding, he says, which demonstrates his disgust with science as it is practiced in present times. But what does lead to understanding then, according to Abbey? Is it context or connecting with someone or something on a deeper level? Or in their natural state?

I went for a run this morning and, without realizing it until I turned around, I’d passed a trio of deer. Their deer-ness was quite evident to me, even while jogging past them. They twitched their ears at me while munching on some grass in a neighbor’s front yard, presumably recognizing my human-ness, although I cannot be sure. Northwest Corvallis has been my home for the past four months and my heart still skips a beat in excitement whenever I encounter deer, despite the fact that they are commonly found here. They are a reminder that even cities contain nature — cities and nature do not have to be, and are not, separate.

When Ed Abbey encountered deer, his first thought was “meat” and his second was to let them be. As a vegetarian, meat is something that I rarely think about, especially when encountering an animal; whereas Ed seemed to have meat with or for every meal on his boat trip and regularly made fun of the vegetarians who accompanied him. Thoreau also once admitted to craving raw woodchuck meat, despite his strict diet of raw fruits and vegetables.

Experience nature but leave it untouched — free of dams, structures, parking lots, roads — was what Abbey wanted to convey to his readers. Thoreau agreed — “In wildness is the preservation of the world,” he declares. Another environmentalist, Gifford Pinchot, who lived between Abbey and Thoreau in time, had another perspective through the frame of conservation. He thought that the preservation of nature was a waste of natural resources that could be used for current and future generations. Other environmentalists suggest the issue of accessibility as a counterpoint to preservation. Abbey admits to being privileged on his boat trip, but I think he meant it in as being fortunate enough to spend time on a river, as opposed to privilege in a social justice sense.

Through a social justice lens, there are reasons to disavow both Thoreau and Abbey. However, they were both influential environmental writers, each in and outside of their own time. When reading Thoreau, one can vividly imagine being there with him in each minute detail. When reading Abbey, one feels the urge to go to where he has been, to experience it for themself. Their work went beyond the descriptive — it advocated for taking action to protect what they and their readers believe in. As our present world continues to change, perhaps decreasing the possibility of living a lifestyle like Thoreau’s or Abbey’s, both authors offer their environmental writing and the potential for living a life consistent with their beliefs. Their writings are somewhat timeless, due to their readers continuing to find inspiration in their principles of exploring what they believe in and taking action against injustices.

I arrive at the farm, somewhat sweaty from my bike ride. I am welcomed by warm smiles and a hug. The sky is overcast and threatens rain, and my raincoat protects me from the wet and cold. I spend some time looking for blackberries over by the shed, for the purpose of cutting them down, not eating. Their long, reddish stems are easy to spot, but prickly to touch, even with gloves on. A truck shows up with mulch, and we all jump into action, spreading it to keep the tree roots warm and happy and add organic matter to the soil. This is my form of activism, inspired by Edward Abbey.

Related posts:

hello everyone i would like to introduce bora project. a very good token to hold and trade bora has been listed on big exchange coinsuper. BORA is a decentralized entertainment platform focused on…

Hack this site is a free and legal way to learn ethical hacking from scratch . It is one of the best training sites to learn hacking no matter if you are a beginner or an advanced person Hackaday is…