First of all, I am a huge fan of A Sand County Almanac - as a student of ecology, I consider this book to be essential reading for anyone in the biological sciences. More than anything, to me what this series of essays highlights is the power of observation - it is a clear demonstration of the insight that can be gained from simply opening one's eyes and taking in their natural environment. It has recently become a trend in the natural sciences to hire biologists that are question driven; they ask broad ecological or evolutionary questions and then choose a natural system appropriate for answering these questions. Unfortunately, this translates to a dwindling number of true natural historians - experts like Leopold who have vast experience in particular habitats or systems and use observation to motivate their questions. It seems as if the result of this shift is a lot of biological theory manufactured on laptop computers by scientists whose lack of field expertise is as apparent as a shit stain on a pair of fresh underpants. In this vein, I consider Sand County to be a throwback to an older, more organism-based, way of doing science. And I like it.
One of the more interesting themes brought up in this book is Leopold's conservation ethic - as John stated, there are reasons beyond money or public health why we feel the need to restore or preserve our natural environment. It is curious to me where this ethic originates - is it simply because some of us want to do the "right thing" (whatever that is), or is it basally some innate selfish understanding that after a certain point, we will screw up the environment so badly it will cease to support humanity? With the popularity of this new Go Green trend, it seems there has emerged a new, social, motivation for environmentalism that for some has no apparent connection, at least on the surface, to the arguments presented in Sand County.
Of all the essays in this book, I find the bit Axe in Hand to be perhaps the most meaningful piece , as far as a commentary on the practicalities of conservation/restoration ecology. Particularly, Leopold mentions his "own axe-in-hand decisions", or a-priori biases that influence his specific land-use choices. Its funny to me that Leopold recognized in the 1930's what goes virtually unstated in conservation biology today - that the strategic goals of restoration are absolutely based on human "axe-in-hand" priorities that may often have no relevance to natural ecosystem dynamics
The goals of any conservation strategy include often dogmatic ideals that are considered generally "good", or worth conserving: diversity, native species, or species that provide "ecosystem services". Really, this is a list of things that humans like in a habitat - lots of diverse, interesting species that make ecosystems productive, not a list of community attributes that promote stability. In reality, many communities are not like this - some are simply unproductive, highly disturbed, or dominated by a single keystone species (and probably should be maintained like this). In this way, Leopold's discussion of axe-in-hand decisions to me really say something about conservation biology in the present.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
READING, FOR A LADY OR A MAN
Attention literati:
It has come to my attention that it is time for me to suggest a book. I thought about suggesting a totally bitchin' comic book or making everyone read this, but instead I am going to make April's book The Yiddish Policeman's Union, by awesome dude Michael Chabon.
If you don't read this book you are not a man (even the ladies).
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
It has come to my attention that it is time for me to suggest a book. I thought about suggesting a totally bitchin' comic book or making everyone read this, but instead I am going to make April's book The Yiddish Policeman's Union, by awesome dude Michael Chabon.
If you don't read this book you are not a man (even the ladies).
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
So...Rabbit, Run
Just finished it moments ago, and have taken in a few thoughts from everybody. So I'll start like this:
I find myself splitting the difference between John and Kyle in regards to identifying with Rabbit. Obviously there's a part of me that disregards the things I might find myself reacting to or identifying with initially, just because he's such a bastard. Objectively though, it's hard not to see in myself that impatience and lack of direction and making a choice because of what I feel opposed to what I think or know. But I don't think it's Rabbit's impulses that make him a bad guy. I think it's that he constantly allows himself to act on those impulses. Or maybe not even allows himself to act on them, but that he can't help but act on them. Maturity or adulthood seems very much determined by a person's ability to do what they said they would, or what they know they should do. I agree with Kyle in that there are decisions we make because others have already made those decisions for us, and we never questioned them, but second-guessing scholasticism as a sophomore in college is very different then second-guessing fatherhood with a wife, a two-year-old and another child on the way. Maybe it's even as simple as the equation changing once you become responsible to somebody else. For my part, you just can't run out on your kids. If a relationship doesn't work, fundamentally has problems, you reconsider, but you do it in the interest of your children.
Another aspect that I kept coming back to is the fact that this was written in a different time. I think that superficially the male and female relationships aren't that different, or at least aren't that startling. I think Rabbit slapping Mrs. Eccles on the ass is an interesting moment, in the same way it's interesting to watch an episode of Mad Men, but it doesn't shock me because it's the way I understand the male/female dynamic of this other era to be. However, it is very hard to empathize with the way sex is handled. I think Kyle's right in the way that it's a power thing, but I don't think it's the women who hold that power. It seems that here, men hold this power, and in Rabbit's case, what he has isn't enough. Again, the bj scene is a good example, as is the scene with Rabbit and Janice in bed after the birth. For Rabbit to approach these moments as though he's owed something just speaks to the larger sense of entitlement that he's pretty consistently walking around with. He can wrap it up in whatever kind of insecurity or neediness he wants to, but ultimately he's just an overgrown kid who wants what he wants.
The more I think about it, the more psychotic Rabbit seems to me. He's so sensitive to everything and there's something in every moment that could potentially invert his feelings about a person or place. The way that he can love a woman (Janice or Ruth) one moment and the next be repulsed by her facial expression to the point that he questions his entire opinion of her. He lives so much in each moment I suppose, that he can't help but act as erratically as he does, but it's still so off-putting. You can't really trust him from one moment to the next. Then again, I suppose that's the jumping off point of this entire story, so I shouldn't complain too much.
In the end I really did enjoy it. All the things that bothered me about the character motivated a really interested story. I will even admit that I enjoyed the run-on sentences for the most part. I think that type of writing is as close as I'll ever get to actually appreciating poetry. Also, I recently read American Pastoral by Philip Roth, and that dude's sentences go on for fucking ever. It was much more tedious in that case than here. Admittedly though, I don't really know what to make of the end. I guess he's running again?
I find myself splitting the difference between John and Kyle in regards to identifying with Rabbit. Obviously there's a part of me that disregards the things I might find myself reacting to or identifying with initially, just because he's such a bastard. Objectively though, it's hard not to see in myself that impatience and lack of direction and making a choice because of what I feel opposed to what I think or know. But I don't think it's Rabbit's impulses that make him a bad guy. I think it's that he constantly allows himself to act on those impulses. Or maybe not even allows himself to act on them, but that he can't help but act on them. Maturity or adulthood seems very much determined by a person's ability to do what they said they would, or what they know they should do. I agree with Kyle in that there are decisions we make because others have already made those decisions for us, and we never questioned them, but second-guessing scholasticism as a sophomore in college is very different then second-guessing fatherhood with a wife, a two-year-old and another child on the way. Maybe it's even as simple as the equation changing once you become responsible to somebody else. For my part, you just can't run out on your kids. If a relationship doesn't work, fundamentally has problems, you reconsider, but you do it in the interest of your children.
Another aspect that I kept coming back to is the fact that this was written in a different time. I think that superficially the male and female relationships aren't that different, or at least aren't that startling. I think Rabbit slapping Mrs. Eccles on the ass is an interesting moment, in the same way it's interesting to watch an episode of Mad Men, but it doesn't shock me because it's the way I understand the male/female dynamic of this other era to be. However, it is very hard to empathize with the way sex is handled. I think Kyle's right in the way that it's a power thing, but I don't think it's the women who hold that power. It seems that here, men hold this power, and in Rabbit's case, what he has isn't enough. Again, the bj scene is a good example, as is the scene with Rabbit and Janice in bed after the birth. For Rabbit to approach these moments as though he's owed something just speaks to the larger sense of entitlement that he's pretty consistently walking around with. He can wrap it up in whatever kind of insecurity or neediness he wants to, but ultimately he's just an overgrown kid who wants what he wants.
The more I think about it, the more psychotic Rabbit seems to me. He's so sensitive to everything and there's something in every moment that could potentially invert his feelings about a person or place. The way that he can love a woman (Janice or Ruth) one moment and the next be repulsed by her facial expression to the point that he questions his entire opinion of her. He lives so much in each moment I suppose, that he can't help but act as erratically as he does, but it's still so off-putting. You can't really trust him from one moment to the next. Then again, I suppose that's the jumping off point of this entire story, so I shouldn't complain too much.
In the end I really did enjoy it. All the things that bothered me about the character motivated a really interested story. I will even admit that I enjoyed the run-on sentences for the most part. I think that type of writing is as close as I'll ever get to actually appreciating poetry. Also, I recently read American Pastoral by Philip Roth, and that dude's sentences go on for fucking ever. It was much more tedious in that case than here. Admittedly though, I don't really know what to make of the end. I guess he's running again?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Sand County
So obviously A Sand County Almanac isn't a complex work of fiction like Rabbit, Run, and there's not as much to parse. But I think what's most interesting about reading this book is the way it shows how conservationism has changed over the years.
I think Leopold is right even still when he says that very few people are interested in conservation for conservation's sake. You have to attach a price tag on it somehow. In Leopold's day they did that by mostly saying that fucked up land was land that couldn't be used to make any money. Today we do that by saying the world's going to be all fucked up for the kids when they get older, global warming is going to launch tsunamis at us, etc, etc. It's hard to argue that you shouldn't clear cut forests because that's just a total dick move.
I also think it's interesting how interwoven hunting is with Leopold's environmentalism. That also just seems completely alien today. When he first started talking about shooting ducks I was kind of shocked, because now we think of environmentalists more or less as hippies who want to preserve every last living thing. But, as he points out, hunting can serve a genuinely good ecological purpose if, say, the wolves in your neighborhood aren't doing a very good job of making sure the deer don't eat all the young trees.
Anyway I picked this book before I had read any of it, and I'm glad I did. It's a pretty good book that I'd never heard of before, and is evidently some kind of landmark in nature writing. It's pretty crazy that this book was published in the late 40s, when most of America just wanted to take the axe to nature in the name of chrome-plated Shining Progress.
I think Leopold is right even still when he says that very few people are interested in conservation for conservation's sake. You have to attach a price tag on it somehow. In Leopold's day they did that by mostly saying that fucked up land was land that couldn't be used to make any money. Today we do that by saying the world's going to be all fucked up for the kids when they get older, global warming is going to launch tsunamis at us, etc, etc. It's hard to argue that you shouldn't clear cut forests because that's just a total dick move.
I also think it's interesting how interwoven hunting is with Leopold's environmentalism. That also just seems completely alien today. When he first started talking about shooting ducks I was kind of shocked, because now we think of environmentalists more or less as hippies who want to preserve every last living thing. But, as he points out, hunting can serve a genuinely good ecological purpose if, say, the wolves in your neighborhood aren't doing a very good job of making sure the deer don't eat all the young trees.
Anyway I picked this book before I had read any of it, and I'm glad I did. It's a pretty good book that I'd never heard of before, and is evidently some kind of landmark in nature writing. It's pretty crazy that this book was published in the late 40s, when most of America just wanted to take the axe to nature in the name of chrome-plated Shining Progress.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Run On, Little Rabbit...
Run On, Little Rabbit...
I love this book. I have read it before as well, and honestly I was pulling for Witches of Eastwick, but John was impatient and pulled the trigger on me. I agree with the general assessment of Rabbit, that he is cold and impulsive and generally an asshole, but whereas John has mentioned that he can't identify with the character, I can 100% identify with the character. Rabbit's lived half of his life and he knows that the best part is over, and it fucking blows. Up to this point he's done everything he's supposed to have done, according to those societal rules we take for granted, and he's followed that standard arch of life - given up his dreams to settle down and get married. There're so many things that you just do before you even realize that you had a choice, and I feel like this is the trap that Rabbit has fallen into. I compare it to going to college-- the idea that I didn't have to go to college never even entered my mind. I thought that if you didn't go to college and graduate that somehow you were a failure, and the simple fact is that this is not true. I feel like that's where Rabbit is, his entire life everyone else has been making his choices for him, and then one day he's just like, "Fuck this." Maybe, had I not been so blinded by other people's expectations of what I was supposed to do, I would've spent a few years driving around the country playing music and doing different shit instead of going straight to college, but I felt so much pressure that I didn't even consider it as an option, and sometimes I regret that. Rabbit is full of regret, and I think it makes him a dick.
I will admit that Rabbit is selfish, and that I don't feel like anyone should ever try to act like him. He is not a role model, and he is not an anti-hero - he's just this selfish guy who's kinda depressed because he doesn't feel like he's in control of his life, and when he tries to take control he turns into a giant dick, and worse, he doesn't really know what to do with himself. It's not like he leaves and does something romantic - like travel the world or compose a great artistic work, or something like that- he leaves his wife and shacks up with some other woman. Partially, I think the reason is because Rabbit is just simply not that bright. I mean, did you ever stop and think while you were reading this about just how whitetrash this shit is? It's totally daytime TV. I think Updike wanted to shock his generation by portraying Rabbit as this total asshole who does not give in to all these conventions of the time, but it makes him unlikeable. I think an interesting comparison is to the main character of One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest - RP McMurphy. He's another character who's struggling against control, but you end up loving him. He is a true anti-hero in that sense, and his example eventually leads to the Chief escaping and becoming free, so there is a positive payoff, but in Rabbit's case there is nothing redeeming about him, he learns nothing, and in the end there's only death. But RP and Rabbit are essentially both trying to escape from the same thing, they're both fighting for to live on their terms. That admirable quality that RP McMurphy posses is totally unadmirable in Rabbit.
The other thing that I loved about this book was the sex - or, more accurately, how Updike seemed to focus on how sex and power and control are all intertwined. I see more similarities here between One Flew and Rabbit, Run. I think both Updike and Ken Kesey were trying to make a comment about how post WWII America had become emasculated. After the war it was like no one wanted to disturb the peace, everyone was trying to avoid conflicts both domestically and abroad. You got crazy psycho Nazi bitch Nurse Ratchet in One Flew and then you've got Janice and Ruth in Rabbit. Obviously Rachet and Janice and Ruth are not the same, but the dynamic that exists seems to be very similar. Rachet is the symbol of matriarchal control that RP McMurphy, who is the quintessential Alpha Male, rebels against. In the same way, to Rabbit, Janice and Ruth seem to hold him back. The blow job scene is totally fucked, but it's all about power. Whoever has the power is in control. Sex compels Rabbit to get married in the first place, and sex compels Rabbit to shack up with Ruth - Rabbit is a slave to his sexual desire, and because of this I feel like he thinks that he is a slave to women, and that's why he hates them so much and treats them so poorly. It's even the same with the preacher's wife. I feel like he was trying to turn that dynamic around when he forced Ruth to give him the blow job. Rabbit tries, and tries, and tries but he is simply unable to take control.
I feel like Rabbit is a more realistic rendering of a character like RP McMurphy. RP, had he not been limited to the insane asylum, probably would've been an irresponsible, womanizing prick just like Rabbit. The things that make RP strong in his caged environment are the same things that make Rabbit so weak in free society. There's something here about the need for balance where sex and power are concerned. Sex is power is control. So is Rabbit a prick, or is he the way he is because he's an Alpha Male stuck in a matriarchal society? I don't know, and I think that's the point. Just when you think shit is finally going to go well, bang, Rabbit bails again and the baby dies. Maybe the point is that there's nothing Rabbit can do. He is totally and utterly dominated by his sexual urges... Maybe running is the only option he's got left.
I love this book. I have read it before as well, and honestly I was pulling for Witches of Eastwick, but John was impatient and pulled the trigger on me. I agree with the general assessment of Rabbit, that he is cold and impulsive and generally an asshole, but whereas John has mentioned that he can't identify with the character, I can 100% identify with the character. Rabbit's lived half of his life and he knows that the best part is over, and it fucking blows. Up to this point he's done everything he's supposed to have done, according to those societal rules we take for granted, and he's followed that standard arch of life - given up his dreams to settle down and get married. There're so many things that you just do before you even realize that you had a choice, and I feel like this is the trap that Rabbit has fallen into. I compare it to going to college-- the idea that I didn't have to go to college never even entered my mind. I thought that if you didn't go to college and graduate that somehow you were a failure, and the simple fact is that this is not true. I feel like that's where Rabbit is, his entire life everyone else has been making his choices for him, and then one day he's just like, "Fuck this." Maybe, had I not been so blinded by other people's expectations of what I was supposed to do, I would've spent a few years driving around the country playing music and doing different shit instead of going straight to college, but I felt so much pressure that I didn't even consider it as an option, and sometimes I regret that. Rabbit is full of regret, and I think it makes him a dick.
I will admit that Rabbit is selfish, and that I don't feel like anyone should ever try to act like him. He is not a role model, and he is not an anti-hero - he's just this selfish guy who's kinda depressed because he doesn't feel like he's in control of his life, and when he tries to take control he turns into a giant dick, and worse, he doesn't really know what to do with himself. It's not like he leaves and does something romantic - like travel the world or compose a great artistic work, or something like that- he leaves his wife and shacks up with some other woman. Partially, I think the reason is because Rabbit is just simply not that bright. I mean, did you ever stop and think while you were reading this about just how whitetrash this shit is? It's totally daytime TV. I think Updike wanted to shock his generation by portraying Rabbit as this total asshole who does not give in to all these conventions of the time, but it makes him unlikeable. I think an interesting comparison is to the main character of One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest - RP McMurphy. He's another character who's struggling against control, but you end up loving him. He is a true anti-hero in that sense, and his example eventually leads to the Chief escaping and becoming free, so there is a positive payoff, but in Rabbit's case there is nothing redeeming about him, he learns nothing, and in the end there's only death. But RP and Rabbit are essentially both trying to escape from the same thing, they're both fighting for to live on their terms. That admirable quality that RP McMurphy posses is totally unadmirable in Rabbit.
The other thing that I loved about this book was the sex - or, more accurately, how Updike seemed to focus on how sex and power and control are all intertwined. I see more similarities here between One Flew and Rabbit, Run. I think both Updike and Ken Kesey were trying to make a comment about how post WWII America had become emasculated. After the war it was like no one wanted to disturb the peace, everyone was trying to avoid conflicts both domestically and abroad. You got crazy psycho Nazi bitch Nurse Ratchet in One Flew and then you've got Janice and Ruth in Rabbit. Obviously Rachet and Janice and Ruth are not the same, but the dynamic that exists seems to be very similar. Rachet is the symbol of matriarchal control that RP McMurphy, who is the quintessential Alpha Male, rebels against. In the same way, to Rabbit, Janice and Ruth seem to hold him back. The blow job scene is totally fucked, but it's all about power. Whoever has the power is in control. Sex compels Rabbit to get married in the first place, and sex compels Rabbit to shack up with Ruth - Rabbit is a slave to his sexual desire, and because of this I feel like he thinks that he is a slave to women, and that's why he hates them so much and treats them so poorly. It's even the same with the preacher's wife. I feel like he was trying to turn that dynamic around when he forced Ruth to give him the blow job. Rabbit tries, and tries, and tries but he is simply unable to take control.
I feel like Rabbit is a more realistic rendering of a character like RP McMurphy. RP, had he not been limited to the insane asylum, probably would've been an irresponsible, womanizing prick just like Rabbit. The things that make RP strong in his caged environment are the same things that make Rabbit so weak in free society. There's something here about the need for balance where sex and power are concerned. Sex is power is control. So is Rabbit a prick, or is he the way he is because he's an Alpha Male stuck in a matriarchal society? I don't know, and I think that's the point. Just when you think shit is finally going to go well, bang, Rabbit bails again and the baby dies. Maybe the point is that there's nothing Rabbit can do. He is totally and utterly dominated by his sexual urges... Maybe running is the only option he's got left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)