On page 58, It says about Leopold "Encouraged by advisers and editors to present a form of nature writing that engaged readers beyond the factualism of objective science,".
Obviously this was done to attract more readers, but why?? I personally can't stand a lot of this reading because it's wishy washy and I have to try to interpret everything that is said, understand it, and then probably misunderstand it. Facts are good, they keep things simple, to the point, and things become hard to misinterpret. Sure, the reading might be better if it is more abstract to most people, but I personally feel like I learn little to nothing. I personally do not care much to learn of Leopold's relationship to the land; what usefulness is learned from this? It is like my previous post about my memories of nature. It offers no real educational value or much if any insight on anything else besides my love for riding off-road vehicles. Hopefully one can see the humor in it all and crack a small smile, but most well probably find it appalling and gasp at such commentary. But at the end of the day, it's all crap; interesting, perhaps entertaining, but still worthless crap.
I'm sure Leoplod, Gatta, Edwards, and the rest have something good to say lurking somewhere inside that emotional wordiness of text pages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment