Revised Essay

“Trouble on the Home Front”

When lined up sided by side, Ted Kerasote’s “What We Talk about When We Talk about Wilderness” and “Eco-Defense” by Edward Abbey, the two essays look like polar opposites. “…Wilderness” takes a very methodical approach; Kerasote goes back to the colonization of America and recaps the major events in our country’s environmental history in an effort to explain how our view towards the environment has been shaped. It is a calculated argument that articulates Mr. Kerastoe’s view on nature, with little emotion entering in, until towards the very end of the essay where you can almost hear the plea: to reconsider the “wilderness” that we now neglect. Mr. Abbey takes a completely different approach. In an almost militant manner, he relates the wilderness to our own homes, and it being invaded. That action is required, and it is required now. He is very passionate in his argument, and uses some inflammatory language: “jellyfish government” or encouraging us to spike trees, for example (91, 93). But how different are these two men’s opinions? Well for starters, it is evident that Kerasote is familiar with Abbey’s writings because he even quotes him with his saying “the essential ingredient for wilderness is the presence of big, dangerous animals that can kill you”. This quote not only served as a comic relief from Kerasote’s long recap of the United State’s environmental history, but was a great transition from that history to Kerasote’s own views. However, the big connection was revealed when “… Wilderness” was read another time; there is a deeper concept in Kerasotes’s essay that is discovered that ties directly in with Abbey’s theme. The idea is that nature, or wilderness, is home. Both authors reference it. It is subtle in “…Wilderness”, and is only openly mentioned in his last sentences; “Perhaps then we might have a kind of country that Columbus “discovered.” Not a wilderness- a wildly alive country. Home” (38). In “Eco-Defense” however, it is the core of the argument. The correlation of wilderness is home is the main part of Abbey’s argument. Even with his core idea, however, the message conveyed by this idea is very different. Kerasote presents a request to rethink how we view wilderness; while Abbey has a “defend our “home” or get out” approach. Even though, the message is different, both men want to protect something that is special to them, and important to our entire country.

Although the core of both men’s arguments is the same, the way they present their arguments is drastically different. One of the implications of the way that Abbey presents his version of wilderness is that we own it. If the wilderness is our home as he clearly states on page 92 “the American’s home is his favorite forest, river, fishing stream, her favorite mountain or desert canyon…” then that means we feel that we own our favorite things. Kerasote would seem to disagree with this. Even though he comments on how people feel that they control nature, either by controlling the growth of that area or by destroying it, control does not necessarily imply ownership. In the beginning of his essay, Kerasote talks about how wilderness did not even exist in America until the Europeans arrived. He points out that various indigenous cultures have coexisted with what we now refer to as the “American Wilderness”. They had their own civilization right alongside the wildlife. He even goes so far as to point out that the word “wilderness” is an Old English word meaning “the place of wild beasts”(33). By stating this, he proves that once, it was possible for people to live with nature and not just control it, but now control is the only thing that is important to society.

Abbey goes into great detail in describing the danger that the wilderness is in, but he does little to imply that it is an equal to us, like Kerasote did. Abbey wants us to get angry, he wants us to feel attacked and he accomplishes this perfectly with his home invasion metaphor. But he fails to reach the level of feeling towards nature that Kerasote achieves. He never goes deeper than the “wilderness is home” metaphor; never trying to go deeper then saying that “if wilderness is our true home, and if it’s being threatened with invasion, pillage, and destruction-as it certainly is- then we have a right to defend that home” (92). Abbey writes in a manner that assumes that you are on his side before you read the first word of his essay. He targets a very specific audience and basically neglects the rest. This can be a problem, because others who read his essay may not even take him seriously because of the stark and radical language he uses. Meanwhile, Kerasote’s message is meant for everyone. It is a well-crafted, but subtle, argument that builds towards the main idea instead of sticking it right in the face of the reader. He also takes the idea of wilderness being home to another level. Kerasote talks about wilderness on a spiritual level, making it into something that is almost sacred. This is well demonstrated in his comment: “Surely, much of the power of the wild lies in its unadvertised, numinous privacy. It is this very quality-sacredness- that is fast vanishing from the natural world” (37).He tries to make the reader relate to this sense of communion with nature; reminding them that humans were once part of nature, and by trying to tame it, we are only dulling the world around us. However, as much as Kerasote’s argument differs from Abbey’s, he does show respect towards him by actually quoting him in his essay.

Another difference in style between these two men is that Kerasote actually defines wilderness to the reader, while Abbey leaves it up their interpretation. Abbey is more concerned with what is happening to the wilderness. The “invasion” with “bulldozers, earth movers, chainsaws, and dynamite” “bashing their way into our forests” for the short term profits of the “three-piece-suited gangsters” (91). Kerasote on the other hand comments on how wilderness “isn’t merely size or remoteness: its wildlife” (36).When Kerasote talks about how we define and designate wilderness now, he comments on a remark that Abbey made; “the essential ingredient to wildness is the presence of big, dangerous animals that can kill you” (36).

Entering into this comparison, there were two very different men with two very different styles. On one side there is the structured, methodical argument used by Kerasote and on the other the personal attack by Abbey. Both are effective when trying to reach their intended audiences. Whether it is Abbey’s battle cry or Kerasote’s appeal for change, each send a powerful message: that we cannot continue as we are, that we need change. But no matter how the message is delivered, both men are trying to preserve the same thing, which is their wilderness, their home.

Works Cited

Abbey, Edward. "Eco-Defense." Saving Place. Ed. Sidney Dobrin. New York: McGraw Hill, 2005. 91-93. Print.

Kerastoe, Ted. "What we talk about when we talk About Wilderness." Saving Place. Ed. Sidney Dobrin. New York: McGraw Hill, 2005. 31-38. Print.