Text: Greg Garrard, Ecocriticism. First two (2) chapters.
Definitions:
Pollution: to defile (polleure, Latin); in its early English usage reflects it "theologico-moral origins" (8). What's wrong with that?
Science: "both a producer of environmental hazards and a critical analyst of them" (8) - reminds me of many a conversations I've had with a good Biology major friend who's caught in the middle of guilt and love when it comes to developing pesticides, growth hormones, etc.
Quote from Baarschers: "In dealing with environmental reports or policies or regulations we must always keep in mind that what was zero today will no longer be zero tomorrow" (11). Wow, just wow. Once again, reminding us of the difficulty of defining "purity" or "pollution." Exactly how much is too much? What is zero contamination anyways? Can we ever achieve it? Or, a step back, should we ever achieve it?
Buell's phrase: "mythography of betrayed Eden" (12) is really interesting, seeming to hint at the idea of fallen nature being a complete fallacy. I don't know where I stand on the spectrum yet....
Garrard intends to "drag [the discussion] away from pastoral and nature writing towards postmodern concerns such as globalisation and 'cyborg' interfaces of humans with technology" (15). Why? Should we not have a grounding in classic nature writing, in canonical literature and poetry, in additional to engagements with contemporary issues? I think I would be very lost if Contemporary Lit was all taught to me as an English major. I don't believe in, at all, the deification of dead white males, but Dostoevsky, Keats, Shakespeare have been the irreplaceable catalyst and inspiration in my life unlike any others....
Definitions:
Pollution: to defile (polleure, Latin); in its early English usage reflects it "theologico-moral origins" (8). What's wrong with that?
Science: "both a producer of environmental hazards and a critical analyst of them" (8) - reminds me of many a conversations I've had with a good Biology major friend who's caught in the middle of guilt and love when it comes to developing pesticides, growth hormones, etc.
Quote from Baarschers: "In dealing with environmental reports or policies or regulations we must always keep in mind that what was zero today will no longer be zero tomorrow" (11). Wow, just wow. Once again, reminding us of the difficulty of defining "purity" or "pollution." Exactly how much is too much? What is zero contamination anyways? Can we ever achieve it? Or, a step back, should we ever achieve it?
Buell's phrase: "mythography of betrayed Eden" (12) is really interesting, seeming to hint at the idea of fallen nature being a complete fallacy. I don't know where I stand on the spectrum yet....
Garrard intends to "drag [the discussion] away from pastoral and nature writing towards postmodern concerns such as globalisation and 'cyborg' interfaces of humans with technology" (15). Why? Should we not have a grounding in classic nature writing, in canonical literature and poetry, in additional to engagements with contemporary issues? I think I would be very lost if Contemporary Lit was all taught to me as an English major. I don't believe in, at all, the deification of dead white males, but Dostoevsky, Keats, Shakespeare have been the irreplaceable catalyst and inspiration in my life unlike any others....
