Sanders, Dick and Crumb

These two stories and one pictorial message all convey the same story. The combination of the three create a strong effect in showing what could come in the future and what already has. I enjoyed Sanders piece very much, partially the way he told of his town before and after. On page 787 he states, "You may love the place if you flourished there, or hate the place if you suffered there. But love it or hate it, you cannot shake free. Even if you move to the antipodes, even if you become intimate with new landscapes, you still bear the impression of that first ground". The way Sanders describes the feeling that overcomes one when remembering their first landscape is vivid and in reach. He does such an exquisite job telling his story and landscape that it's hard not to feel bad for what has happened. Then I think about the devastation of his land and how similar it is to many people in the world.

Dick uses a science fiction approach to send a message of what we are doing to the animals of our world. Will robots really take place of vivacious, blood pumping animals that inhabit our world today? No one knows, but his imagination and creative spin puts a worry on that topic. The owl that Rachael is in possession of is living and not controlled by batteries. The last line on page 453 goes on to say, "Its chest rose conspicuously and fell, as if the owl, in its hypnagogic state, had sighed". The word "sighed" alone creates a message saying how the hell did the world come to this. The owl shows it all in that last line.

Cronon and Thoreau

Cronon and Thoreau have different views on the wilderness and they are described throughout the essays. Cronons basic idea of the wilderness is that it is a product of civilization. The culture of humans created wilderness rather than it being some natural creation on its own. Cronon also believed it to be of some religious value and a sort of sacred ground. Now Thoreau also believed it to be a mystical sacred ground, but the concept of how it came about is different through their eyes. Cronon's ideas makes sense to me, Native Americans were inhabitants of the land and wilderness, reinforcing the idea of the wilderness not being created on its own, but through life and culture of others. Cronon also wrote in the essay about how before the 19th century the term wilderness had an extreme negative connotation. Not only did it have a negative connotation, but it is also stated that wilderness is pervasive for other concerns in the world and it is a foundation for these other problems. In his text it is stated, "The wilderness was where Christ had struggled with the Devil and endured his temptations". His ideas seem to be somewhat against the wilderness when reading it, but they are more straight forward on the idea of creation. Thoreau has a deep passion for nature, as we know he lived in the wilderness for two years. Although him living in the wilderness gives him credibility of being an expert on the issue, he still commuted back to town and shared time with friends regularly. Thoreau believed that freedom was essential to living and being able to appreciate life and nature.

So these two guys have different view points. Thoreau takes the wilderness as a creation on its own and from the earth, while Cronon believes it to be a creation by man. They both have a belief that wilderness is somewhat of a sacred ground and Thoreau thinks it can make one closer to God. He is all about simplicity, and what better than living in the wilderness on ones own to understand the idea of simple living.