Comparing Stegner And Cronan's Wilderness

Corey Jean
SA 4

Stegner and Cronan

The absurdity of certain arguments, for me, makes it difficult to fairly analyze a piece of work. It is my lack of patience for supreme stupidity that disables me from comparing two certain articles on the topic of “Wilderness”. When asked to read, summarize, and then write about the differing opinions between Wallace Stegner’s “Wilderness Letter” (1960) and William Cronan’s “The Trouble with Wilderness” (1996), I approached reading them not expecting too much of a difference or surprise. I actually expected the latter article to be more astute being that it was written 36 years more recently. Upon completing the philosophical, brief, and rather vague article by Wallace Stegner, I looked forward to reading the next article to see if my assignment was worth my time. The incoherent, unfounded ramblings of William Cronan baffled me so much that I never re-read the first article, opting instead to read and research his arrogant nonsense many times over. I have been instructed to represent the ideas of each author fairly; but fairness is a term subject to interpretation, and I believe it is only fair (or rather my duty) as a critic to
systematically debunk “The Trouble with Wilderness” in the interest of common sense and the perpetuity of the natural world. Wallace Stegner’s “Wilderness Letter” takes a very common stance on the spiritual benefits of natural preservation. I found the article rather shallow, but must commend Stegner’s point of view considering it was written at a time of unchecked American prosperity. Not many Americans would consider the halt of the industrious nature of the economy, largely depending on exploiting our natural environment. Stegner could foresee the destruction of our beloved wilderness if we did not see it for what it is worth in a non-monetary way. He believed that the American identity relied heavily on the “frontiers” that we conquered centuries after our European, African, and Asian counterparts had conquered theirs. The western hemisphere was really the last wild place on the earth, considering its indigenous population was thousands of years behind the European invaders as far as technology went. Stegner’s article’s shortcoming was its brevity. Like most “intellectual” articles I have been forced to read in my life, it amounted to no more than adjectives and metaphor used for the sake of using adjectives and metaphor. I guess it’s hard to topple the anti-environmentalists in a mere six pages, but it was just a letter to an environmental researcher that became viral, its intent was probably not sway the masses towards his point of view: just to sway the point of view of it’s intended recipient. I don’t know where to begin with William Cronan.
Trying to interpret his argument is on par interpreting political agendas. In no way does he ever resemble any subjective research or opinion. How he comes to his conclusions is anybody’s guess. Reading this article was like basing a national budget on the theories of someone who only took Economics 101 for a week in high school. His arguments are are completely un-researched, and make his credibility as a historian suspect. I may have misinterpreted this article completely, in fact I hope I did, but if I’m understanding correctly, Cronan is chastising urban yuppie environmentalists for having an interest in nature preservation because he doesn’t agree on the definition of “wilderness”. That approach is staggeringly
naïve. Cronan goes on to discuss how 250 years ago, we as humans would never have worried about wilderness and its preservation, because it was everywhere, and that wilderness to them meant death and savagery and desolation. Brilliant. We should definitely base our current policy on the ideals of people who live several generations ago, “because we used to…” I used to pee my pants when I was a baby but I got smarter and quit doing that. I could write an entire other paper on stupid things we as a species used to do or believe, but who has time? Cronan also argues wilderness is a “human creation.” No. I see what he’s trying to say, but if you want to play the literal definition game, the antonym for human creation is natural (wild … wilderness, etc…) I cannot, in the interest of my own sanity, go point by point and show you everything wrong with Cronan’s theories. To be honest I didn’t even read the entire article, I found myself beginning every paragraph willing to give it a thorough try, but by page 13, 14, 15 and so on, I was just skimming the end of every paragraph. At no point did Cronan make a believable argument to me and I wish I had the day I spend try to interpret his article back. I know he’s raising the question of how we can coexist with nature and still thrive as humans, but I think his approach is simply erroneous. I don’t think he understands the finer points in the debates he brings up. Reading this article was like watching a series of political ads, you never get the whole story, and it’s geared toward very impressionable people.q