Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending upon the quality of your ally's assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress. (110-111)
Indeed, as we prepare to put in our oars before departing this unending conversation, my hope is that we're able to retrace some of the steps that came before, establishing both that we've caught the tenor of the argument and that we are able to align ourselves with some of the key positions. More importantly, though, I hope that we might add to to vigorous-ness of the conversation before the hour grows too late.
Buell's third installment in his trilogy of books on ecocriticism should help us with both of these obviously related projects, as his rhetorical goals are twofold--he wants to sum up and capture the tenure of the conversation that came before and, as his title suggests, he also wants to gesture toward parts of the conversation yet to come.
So: what do you make of Buell's summing up and his prognosticating?
Don't forget, also, to bring your precis to class. I won't forget, this week, to ask for your very informal 30-second to 8-minute presentation of your project. In addition to our usual conversations, we'll also do some outing preparations. So bring your planning hats, too.
Until Wednesday,
kevin
8 comments:
April 9, 2008
John S. Sonin
Ecocriticism—Maier
Blog—4
Thanks for the posting, Kevin!
I’ve entered, and maybe will not exist until my life is over, the “parlor” reminding the other contributors that Nature, of which humans and their civilizations/cultures are currently leading the mobilization—a mobilization that is forever moving forward with or without a program of purpose (and spiritually, I believe the “purpose” for Nature ought be to seek omniscience, omnipotence {which only can be achieved when we ‘let go’ because Nature is marching toward perfection with or without human participation} and appreciation for Others, that’s “Others,” capitalized, as in everything else)—that mistakes must be admitted and we must do the best we can to rectify them and return to the circular boundary (as in the cycling-system Buell spoke of and the continuous flow of energy Bakunin—more on him in the Precis—references) utilizing and allocating differently the matter containing the Earth’s portion of the universe’s energy until we contrive a more waste-less way the only energy available for use without inhibiting what may be, and likely is, a crucial aspect to human survival, because Nature wastes nothing and all we have is what comes-in, everything already here is necessary for the –poeisis regeneration of Earth, manipulating celestial sources .
In our simmering cauldron that is the plethora of matter in the universe, the globule that is Earth started to boil with capitalism but the heat was stoked too high and we’ve boiled over the cauldron rim threatening now, to ‘burn-down’ the house we’ve built. If we continue to ignore the rest of Nature and not bring it up to ‘boil’ with us, there are trillions, more like quadzillions+, of other specks of dust prepared to boil.
In chapter one, Lawrence Buell shows that Raymond Williams the author of The Country and the City, found eco-heroes in the poets of John Clair and novelist Thomas Hardy (14-15). Williams argues that these poets did not use the “green language” of romanticism. I used this term in one of my papers this semester and Kevin asked me to define it. “Green language,” is the language that Wordsworth used. He romanticized the landscape while hiding its destruction. He did not see humans as a part of a landscape to be saved. His language was green because it advertised nature as commodity, like Eco-dishwashing soap. Consumers believe they are protecting the environment by buying eco-friendly products. Readers of Wordsworth also became eco-consumers when they read his poetry. By reading his poetry they believed they were more in touch with nature when, in fact, they were playing part in the propaganda of “green language” to hide its destruction from industrialization and markets that allowed people to take vacations to look at nature. Scenic nature becomes a commodity and “Green language,” advertises this commodity.
Ben Crozier
9 April 2008
If I found myself in a parlor conversing with Lawrence Buell, I would politely excuse myself and not return. Maybe I have a bias against him because of his name, and hopefully I won't think less of other Lawrences that I may meet in the future. Regardless, Buell strikes me as something of a pretentious asshole. I think the following passage pretty much sums it up, where Buell first states that ecocritics need to define distinct methods of inquiry, and then he goes on to say that they will be unlikely to accomplish this task. After informing fellow ecocritics that they probably won't develop methodological originality, he writes, "I certainly do not mean to discourage methodological self-consciousness and innovation. That would be untrue to what I like to think has been the spirit of my own work" (131). Am I way off here? Does nobody else think that Buell comes off sounding like an ass? I tried reading the book from start to finish, but after bogging down in the first chapter I went ahead and read the last one, which did not make me want to go back. Okay, I'm through venting. I suppose I should ask a question. Check this one out: What is the future of environmental criticism?
Also, is Buell convincing? Do you think that ecocriticism meets the four challenges faced by all critical movements that Buell outlines in chapter 5?
April 9, 2008
John S. Sonin
Ecocriticism—Maier
Blog—4
slight edit adjustment for clarity and poem
Thanks for the posting, Kevin!
I’ve entered, and maybe will not exit until my life is over, the “parlor” reminding the other contributors that Nature, of which humans and their civilizations/cultures are currently leading the mobilization of—a “mobilization,” now, with humanity and its needs as its vanguard (“vanguard”-group being the often violent {but not always?}first wave spearheading a revolution) that is forever moving forward with or without a program of purpose (and spiritually, I believe the “purpose” for all of Nature ought be to seek omniscience, omnipotence {which only can be achieved when we ‘let go’ because Nature is marching toward perfection with or without human participation} and appreciation for Others, that’s “Others,” capitalized, as in everything else)—that mistakes must be admitted and we must do the best we can to rectify them and return to the circle of unity that is the boundary (as in the unified cycling-system Buell spoke of and the continuous flow of energy Bakunin—more on him in the Precis—makes reference to) utilizing and allocating differently than in the manner in which it already is applied or used, the matter contained in the Earth’s portion of the universe’s energy-dimension until we contrive a more wasteless way to use the only energy available for use without inhibiting what may be, and likely is, a crucial aspect to human survival. Because Nature wastes nothing and all we have is the energy here and what comes-in through celestial mechanics, everything here is already necessary for the autopoeisis regeneration of the Earth system.
In the simmering cauldron that is the plethora of matter in the universe, the globule that is Earth started to boil with capitalism but the heat was stoked too high and we’ve boiled over the cauldron rim threatening, now, to ‘burn-down’ the house we’ve been building for the last 10,000 years. If we continue to ignore the rest of Nature and not bring it up to ‘boil’ with us, or at least raise the boiling-point so the simmer continues but at a higher level of heat, there are trillions, more like quadzillions+, of other specks of dust in the stew on the threshold of starting the boil.
My Wintered Wealth
Bowing boughs
gracefully ever green,
painted upon grey.
Sagging sloughs
vibrantly edified
adorning dim sage.
Malleable strength
slumber’s my breath,
longing rebirth,
invigorated death.
Loss of life
inanimate excite,
such saddened insight.
I don't think that Buell is as much of an asshole as he is a realistic thinker. I think that he suggests an accurate future of environmental criticism. In drawing distinctions between the civil rights movement, the antislavery movement and woman's suffrage he highlights one distinct variable that is consistent in all of the above mentioned. They are all human centered debates! The understanding that no one human being can ever possibly write from a truly nonhuman perspective makes it impossible, as Buell claims, to completely revert the paradigm. The problem remains that regardless of our outward claims, saving or sustaining the earth still has an inherit anthropocentric framing when coming from a human. The only "field-defining paradigm" that I can see today is the efforts of the voluntary human extinction movement.
Beyond the bantering, I do really like the way that Buell sums up the future of the environmental criticism movement. I think that although he suggests that there is no perfect manner in which to go forward he still poses a challenge to any would-be environmental writers in how to address the problems that are present, who to target and how to carry out a plan of change.
The last comment was Matt, sorry
Andy Lounsbury
9 April 2008
In the context of the Lawrence Buell is an asshole debate, I side with Ben. Without repeating everything Ben said, the whole "this is what you need to do but I bet you can't do it" routine got on my nerves. A lot.
That being said, i think he makes a fairly accurate prediction of ecocriticism's future, but I'm wondering if his four challenges are as all-emcompassing as he makes them sound. Having not read any ecocriticism beyond this class, I don't think I'm enough of an authority to really answer that question.
Graeme Finnie from the Dundee University remarked that Buell is part of the very problem that his is trying to resolve in eco-critical studies. While, Buell acknowledges that the field of ecocriticism has come to incorporate a varied sum of writers and perspectives, even attempting to turn towards boarder terms for the area of study like environmental criticism – however it seems that Buell, as Finnie points out, continues to limit his discussion of ecocriticism by continuing to turn toward markedly pastoral and romantic nature poetry…
And just for the record I would say that Buell is less of an ass than Phillips. In Chapter 2, Buell, far more subtly and even handed than Phillips, addresses some of the issue that Phillips raises within his book The Truth of Ecology – mainly by pointing out the scholarly grounding of ecocriticism. But again, we are forced to point out that Buell, throughout his work constantly returns to a rather narrow canon in defense of ecocriticism - Carson, Leopold, Dillard, and Berry. All that being said, the main reason why I’ve come around to somewhat ‘like’ Buell (in this book he seems to kind of rub off on you), is that while Phillips points out legitimate flaws and failures within the burgeoning field of ecocriticism, he too often overlooks the more generalized implications of past ecocritical work and writing – as I think Buell is more inclined to. For instance, Phillips discussion of Carolyn Merchant completely focuses upon the mistakes, and his great distaste for ‘radical’ critical theorist, while completely avoiding the fact that several other scholars – pre and post – posit some of the very same arguments that Merchant does in her 1980 piece The Death of Nature and that her approach does, to a degree, simply makes intuitive sense and I think gives us conceptual tools in critically thinking about our representations of nature and our interactions with it. Overall, Buell, I think, would recognize the latter point, where Phillips would continue to be a canting ass.
Post a Comment