This weekend is looking to be a great one for reading, at least here in the northeastern U.S. where we're expecting lots (more) snow. I'm in the midst of David Gessner's new book, Soaring with Fidel, and it's excellent so far. The author physically follows his favorite bird, the osprey, during its annual migration from the North Atlantic to Cuba and beyond.
It's more than a book about a bird and its range, though. It's mostly about the osprey's human geography: the people Gessner meets along the way who love this particular creature and have fought to steward its recovery from the brink. Humorous and very human storytelling makes it a page-turner, and it's a fine example of what the editors of Orion magazine, with whom I work, call "the new nature writing."
So what's on your reading list these days, gentle Gristmill reader?
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Why the ‘SuperFreakonomics’ global-warming chapter is worth your time
Reactions to Al Gore’s book o’ solutions, “Our Choice”
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 8:15 pm
16 Dec 2007
"Nature writing" as a genre is difficult and unappealing, IMHO, precisely because the subject matter is so very interesting. The problem is, for me at least, that the personality of the author/narrator tends most annoyingly to get between the reader and the subject.
"NEW nature writing" is, if anything, an even more depressing concept -- as though we have already got through all the OLD nature writing, and are ready to move on! Indeed, I have had on my reading list for some time now classics by John Muir and Aldo Leopold, as well as modern classics by Barry Lopez.
Anyway, in spite of all that, Soaring with Fidel sounds like it might be worthwhile. Reading through the excerpts of reviews, I was struck by one reviewer's use of the word "flock" to refer to the group of migrating ospreys. Presumably, that is technically not the right word. But with respect to the evolution of birds and their behavior, it is possible that seasonal chance associations during migration of birds that are usually solitary might have developed in some lineages into true permanent flocking behavior.
For that matter, is the migratory behavior of the many diverse lineages of birds who migrate a feature that they all inherited from a common ancestor, perhaps already back in the Cretaceous? Or is it an example of convergent evolution?
The political/ethical dimension of David Gessner's voyage in pursuit of his osprey also sounds fascinating. It is especially meaningful that he named the bird "Fidel," and that the Cuban experience figures so importantly (from what I read in the blurbs).
The world of birds is in that regard an ethical ideal, a world of freedom and universal welcome, without the confining and excluding conventions of borders and territory that are merely human conventions. In T.H. White's The Once and Future King, I think the "Book of Merlin" part, Merlin induces the young Arthur to undergo various metamorphoses into animal forms, as an education in sociology and politics. The worst experience was visiting the totalitarian society of the ants. But the best was joining a flock of white-fronted geese, and seeing all the lands from above, without borders.
By the same token, migratory birds are less and less certain of finding a hospitable reception in all the many lands through which they pass, variously occupied and governed by human beings.
As it happens, speaking of Arthur and medieval Britain, what I am ending my courses with are two narrative masterpieces from 14th-century England: the Arthurian Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Geoffrey Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde.
The anonymous author of SG&GK seems to have been from the northwest Midlands. He is fascinated with the challenging winter landscape through which Sir Gawain must pass, on his way deep into the North country to keep his fatal appointment with the Green Knight. From stanza 32, just before Gawain arrives at the enchanted castle on Christmas Eve:
<<
Merrily in the morning by a mountain he rode
Into a wondrously wild wooded cleft,
With high hills on each side overpeering a forest
Of huge hoary oaks, a hundred together.
The hazel and the hawthorn were intertwined
With rough ragged moss trailing everywhere,
And on the bleak branches birds in misery
Piteously piped away, pinched with cold.
...
>>
That is from the less than stellar old translation of Brian Stone, in the Penguin Classics. I prefer Marie Borroff's, but I think it is out of print. The English poet Simon Armitage has just published a new one, which has been well received; I have reserved a copy at a local bookstore, and hope to pick it up later today.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:04 am
17 Dec 2007
http://www.worldwithoutus.com/did_you_know.html
Please don't spoil the ending.
Regarding the weekend book club idea, it is another of Erik Hoffner's excellent suggestions. I don't think it suggests people read only on the weekend. But it creates a regular column for everyone to check each weekend and contribute to the discussion. Unfortunately -- or some might say fortunately -- I'm focused on non-nature topics at the moment so won't be able to contribute.
I liked Erik nature watch idea as well, but sort of forgot about it until today. I'll search for the oringal post and try to find something positive to say.
Merry solstice!
http://ffrf.org/day/
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 4:37 am
17 Dec 2007
Wiscidea: yes, Weisman's book is fascinating. Enjoy. It's in the top 5 of Book Critics' list for nonfiction books this year...an eg of how environmental writing can go to a new level, be a bestseller, and reach a whole new group of people.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:48 pm
17 Dec 2007
On Jay Griffiths' Wild: Sure, Erik, I shall look for it. But, to judge from Ruth Padel's review in the Washington Post, which can be found on the book's page in Amazon.com, it sounds like precisely the kind of nature-writing that I least like.
On Alan Weisman's The World Without Us: It seems strange to classify that book as "non-fiction." And it would be interesting to know what kinds of lessons we can draw from it -- if the point of the book is to teach lessons at all.
What kind of background does Weisman have in biology? The speculation about what will happen to our artificially transplanted and cultivated plants sounds right.
Domestic cats will indeed survive fairly well. Whether they out-compete foxes, raccoons and weasels is another story; those animals have already been in competition with small wild cats.
The outlook for dogs would be not nearly so hopeful. Most would perish soon enough; the tough ones would form packs, though, and hang on; probably they would in time all get inter-bred with coyotes and wolves.
Perhaps most interesting is what would happen to cockroaches and rats. Weisman does not think they would survive, in most places to which we have brought them, without us. That could be right; but I cannot help wondering.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:18 am
18 Dec 2007
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:16 am
29 Dec 2007
http://www.librarything.com/
Actually, it went directly to her own list of books. Above, I pasted the link to the homepage where one can set up an account.
Anyway, for no charge, a user can enter a list of up to 200 books, review them, tag them, and connect with others reading the same material. There are over 300,000 users. I'm not sure how I'm going to take advantage of the site, but I've already added about 100 of my books to my personal list. Sort of interesting to see that only 3 out of 300,000 other people have read some of them. I think it will be a good way to let others know what I'm interested in... just email a link to your list, and a person instantly knows quite a bit about you... perhaps not so good?
Perhaps, Erik, you would like to create a list of nature, natural history, and other related books along with reviews for all the Grist visitors to peruse and discuss. Might want to make a community activity. Or perhaps Orion should create a list.
Peace.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:46 am
30 Dec 2007
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:13 pm
09 Jan 2008
Vulture: Nature's Ghastly Gourmet
by Wayne Grady, Sierra Club Books, 1997
It's a collection of interesting facts and numerous photos.
The book opens with a description of a Parsee funeral. I let you use your imagination. Let's just say it involves vultures and a deceased person.
I can't resist sharing one interesting bit of information a learned, the primary reason for posting this. Apparently...
"The acid in a vulture's digestive track is so strong that botulism and cholera bacterial that would wipe out whole villages pass through the vulture... and studies of vulture excrement show that they actually help control serious outbreaks of anthrax in cattle and swine when they eat infected carcasses; their stomachs destroy the bacteria..."
Sounds like a rather important ecosystem service. I wonder how many diseases have spread through wild areas because there are no longer enough vultures to clean up the carcasses. Other scavengers might not be as effective in eliminating organisms that cause disease. This, in my opinion, is one more reason to preserve all the biodiversity we currently have and restore what we can.
That said, the author of the book frowns on folks who are motivated to preserve species for their utilitarian value. The fact that an animal, plant, or other organism exists is reason enough to preserve it. I have to agree.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:53 pm
19 Jan 2008
It was inspirational. If only the folks who really need to read it would give it a try. I do not know how anyone completing the book could walk away without becoming deeply concerned about how human's have altered the Earth. Over the past several months, I was becoming somewhat pessimistic and disillusioned about efforts to preserve biodiveristy. It sort of comes and goes. I think I posted something to that effect a while back.
I did not even want to try reading E. O. Wilson's book. I feared it would be too depressing. But I finally pushed myself to read the first few pages. And after completing "The Creation" I find myself waking up again and feeling renewed concern about our Earth and our fellow creatures. I also feel more motivate to reduce my own consumption of resources.
I already mentioned E.O. Wilson's chapter about fire ants elsewhere.
I could say much more about this book, but I'll close with this. According to E.O. Wilson, an organization once calcluated that we could preserve something like 45% -- I do not recall the exact figure -- of biodiversity with a one-time total investment of 30 billion dollars in several biological hot spots around the globe. What does this mean to me? Either preserving biodiversity is incredibly INEXPENSIVE or the Quagmire in Iraq is incredibly EXPENSIVE and one of the most spectacular squanderings of wealth ever perpetrated.
Peace.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:26 pm
19 Jan 2008
I just started reading Alan Weisman's "The World Without Us" and I can barely bring myself to put it down.
I'm not far into the book, so there is not much to say at this point. But I was amazed to learn how much effort has to go into pumping water out from under Manhattan. Natural vegetation once transpired vast amounts of water back into the atmosphere and 40 streams carried the rest to the ocean, but now it all ends up in subway tunnels, which are kept free of water by hundreds of pumps running 24/7. Downpours and Atlantic storm surges put enormous strain on the system. Workers have to constantly monitor the system, removing plastic bags and other debris that clog pipes.
If the pumps were to stop running, even without rain, the tunnels would fill with water within a couple days. At this point, paved streets would start to crater as soil is eroded from beneath them. This seems like a very bad idea, though I'm sure it was the most practical thing to do at the time... something about having to construct the subways below existing sewers. But the default setting, without a constant input of energy, is flooding. And most of the modern structures are apparently built assuming their foundations will remain dry!
I do hope urban planners elsewhere no longer assume that pumps will always keep working. Unfortunately, some urban areas, like Manhattan, are just going to have to cope with the quick fixes imposed by past generations. Something to keep in mind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:12 pm
20 Jan 2008
The Wildlife Conservation Society's reconstruction of Manhattan on the eve of the European arrival, which you directed me to, is interesting and useful. But it would also be interesting and useful to explain publicly the way the island was developed and built up, step by step, compromise by compromise, in a very unenlightened, cost/benefit-analysing, short-sighted way.
A fairly big stream runs beneath the Empire State Building. Does Weisman envision some spectacular catastrophe, if that subterranean water course is not maintained?
Presumably the WCS would not be encouraged to pursue this line of research ...
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:50 pm
21 Jan 2008
The author describes the symbiotic relationship bewteen elephants (browsers) and cattle (grazers) in Africa. Apparently, before humans started to fence off areas and encircle wildlife sanctuaries, there was an interesting relationship bewteen elephants and humans.
In a "nutshell"...
Elephants browse leaves and bark, pretty much destroying woody plants, but they drop fertilizer all over and removal of the woody plants allows grass to take off. The elephants don't eat grass, so they move on. Now herders can drive their cattle into the area. The cattle, as well as wild grazers indirectly protected by humans wielding spears, move in and consume the grass. Woody plants, not touched by the grazers, now start to dominate the area. Herders drive their cattle to a new area, the elephants return to browe, and the cycle repeats.
When elephants are confined to one area, say a park, they don't starve because they eat ALL the vegetation. According to the author, the elephants bascially convert woodland to grassland. Then they starve. And when cattle are confined to one area, they convert grassland to woodland. Then they starve to death. Fencing off nature preserves and ranches in Africa essentially segregates browsers and grazers, breaking the natural cycles of renewal and destroying the patchwork of woodland and grassland that supports biological diversity. Fences do not make good neighbors. It is a lose-lose situation.
How does this relate to the re-introduction of elephants to North America? When humans killed the last of the mastadons or mammoths, whichever lived in the warmer areas, they created ecological havoc by removing the only large browser, one that could destroy woody plants, from the scene. This probably resulted in the conversion of a patchwork of woodland and grassland over vast regions to solid woodland. I can only imagine the number of other species driven to extinction by this event.
At this moment, again according to the author, a major threat to grassland in the southwest is that it is becoming overgrown by brush. By killing off the large browsers, humans created this new ecosytem. And ranchers put much effort into and do a lot damage trying to remove the woody plants. Re-introduced elephants would not compete with ranchers, but actually consume the brush and stimulate regrowth of grassland. Ranchers would not be the only ones to benefit. So would endangered wild grazers.
There's one problem... and this is my little editorial... in Africa, they are busy building fences. Here we already have fences and very few people seem interested in tearing them down. Even though restoring a pre-human ecosystem would be a win-win situation for the environment and human beings, and perhaps economic growth, we are too selfish to even save ourselves... if that makes any sense. Rather than save money by not spending it on machinery and diesel fuel, rather than preserve biodiversity, humans would prefer to cling to piece of degraded land and pretend it will be theirs forever.
This book is quite thought-provoking. In case you are wondering, the first few chapters cover how quickly our infrastructure can fail and what the world might have been like just before us. I have not yet read about what the world might be like after us.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:27 pm
21 Jan 2008
do you know the futuristic works by Dougal Dixon? Especially "After Man: A Zoology of the Future," and "The Future Is Wild"? They are both fascinating evolutionary fantasies, the first (from the early 1980s) taking us 50 million years into a humanless future, and the second, much more recent, going much further, something like 200 million years.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:31 pm
21 Jan 2008
do you remember the Gristmill contributor named David Something [?], who is a marine biologist, and used to write from exotic places around Indonesia and China? He knows a great deal about the Pleistocene fauna of North America. I vaguely recall once he impressively described how North American plants evolved to withstand being eaten by very large herbivores.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:11 am
26 Jan 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/user/uid:11174
You can find him wandering the wilds of t the WiserEarth.org forums these days.
Wisc: yes, the idea of introducing large critters like elephants to N America is pretty interesting. But to anyone who's working on restoration of the great plains, it's a poison plan: they complain that they're already not taken seriously, and this notion shoots all kinds of holes in their efforts. True or not, I guess I'd rather see us turn out our own native grazers in quantities before unleashing elephants...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:33 am
26 Jan 2008
I remember that Sustainable David was a lot of fun, and I enjoyed his comments. But I do not remember any particular quarrel with David Roberts. His departure message rather reminds me of the way Maleficent ends her intrusion into the christening of Sleeping Beauty, with a big bang indeed, and a curse.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:56 am
26 Jan 2008
I agree. No need to unleash elephants at this time, if ever. I just didn't understand the scientific reasoning behind the idea until now.
There is also the not so small possibility that other very important species -- organisms we are not aware of and/or have no modern version of -- also missing from North America and re-introducing just the few that we are aware of could muck things up even more. Cosider the decline of vultures and other scavengers. Can we assume they will rebound and removed elephant carcasses? What about dung beetles? I recall reading that dung beetles are species specific. Would we have to re-introduce proper dung beetles from Africa or Asia? Is there is bird that keeps elephants clean and reduces risk of disease? Will we have to find the African version of that animal and re-introduce it???!!! And on and on and on... What's left could unravel more just because we are trying to save it.
I suspect human beings wielding fire were the new "browser" following the extinction of North American elephants. I wonder if anyone has looked into this. And it might be better for us to come to terms with this new natural force -- learn to live with it in warm dry areas -- rather than try to reconstruct a contintent-size ecosystem that has been gone for thousands of years.
I guess I'm starting to comprehend the view that as humans do more and more damage, there might times when we should set aside our tools and stop trying to repair the damage... we're just making matter worse. The problem is... how do we decide, as a group, what we should try to repair and what we should leave alone? Erik, could you find a way to present this as a topic for discussion?
So many sincere and realistic efforts to preserve and restore the biosphere, reduce suffering, and improve our quality of life are poisoned and become subject to ridicule when someone trys pushing an idea analogous to "re-introducing elephants to North America".
Peace.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:13 am
26 Jan 2008
I appreciate what appears to be your habit of calmly maintaining an open dialogue with people you might disagree with. It is, I believe, an important element of the path to understanding our fellow human beings, finding solutions we can all agree upon and help implement, and build a lasting human commitment to preserving our Earth.
There is not a single person on the Earth who has a firm handle on truth and the ultimate path to... whatever it is we want. I'm sure of this. Really I know it is true! : )
Shutting people out of a discussion because one disagrees with them on a few issues, however important those issues are, can only create further conflict and resistance to learning and cooperation.
Anyway, thanks for being a positive role model.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:50 am
26 Jan 2008
Depressing? Yes.
Sure makes it easier to answer the "paper or plastic" question. Very few organisms will be choking on paper bags tens of thousands of years from now!
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 8:52 am
27 Jan 2008
RE: Weisman's chapter on plastic, yeah, it's scary. We worked to get the first rights to excerpt a chapter from his book in Orion magazine, before it went thru the roof in popularity, and that chapter is the one that the editors here chose, it's that crazy and that important to know about.
And good golly, it's here for FREE, OMG, in case anyone besides you, Canis, and I are playing in this thread:
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/2 ...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:20 am
27 Jan 2008
Do you know the excellent opinion magazine, The Sun? Unfortunately it is not accessible online. But there is a wonderful bit of memoir, in the 1/2008 issue, by the writer Steve Almond, erstwhile adjunct professor of English at Boston College, who resigned his job when BC invited Condoleezza Rice as Commencement speaker in Spring, 2006. His account of his experiences with the right-wing media is fascinating. David Roberts especially might want to check it out.
But I have no idea how to access it. A photocopy was sent to me by a friend.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:13 am
30 Jan 2008
It is a very interesting account.
Unfortunately they didn't post this article up on their site, but there are others there right now, including an interview with Paul Stamets on the amazing world of fungi...
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:19 pm
14 Sep 2008
It is a blend of memoir, gardening advice, living with nature, ecology, spirituality, and preparing food, written by "one of the founders of the organic Farm and Garden Program at Green Gulch Farm Zen Center" in California.
It was interesting to see this Zen Buddhist progress from young naive student to head of the garden, the challenges of converting degraded land into an organic farm, and how her views changed.
Those who cling tightly to a rational approach toward life might find themselves rolling their eyes when they read about someone burning incense or chanting, but the bulk of the book covers the practical matter of living in harmony with the rest of the natural world. It is not easy to do so; and one can't help but respect those who try to do so so completey.
Two stories to share, sort of...
First:
Wendy and her fellow Buddhists received seeds for Cryptomeria japonica from the natural farmer Masanobi Fukuoka. This Japanese relative of North American coat redwoods has deeper roots and Masanobi Fukuoka thought it might help stabilze the soil of clear-cut areas; he thought they might propagate the new trees via cuttings. They planted the seeds, nurtured the seedlings, and eventually started a small grove, but they did not propagate and plant additional C. japonica. Why? I guess you'll have to read the book.
Second:
Wendy shares a short account of her visit to a butterfly preserve, which she refers to as the "dung and drool garden". She was expecting a beautiful wildflower garden, which is what most of us might expect when we think of butterfly gardens. But she finds out that butterflies need more than nectar and pollen. You'll have to read the book to see what Wendy specifically learns -- hee hee hee -- but I'd like to present one of my observations of her encounter with the "dung and drool garden".
I would have thought that most Buddhists, especially those who devote their lives to the religion by joining a Buddhist community, would quickly recognize that "beauty" is human construct. Yet Wendy was very disturbed by the wildness and decay present in the butterfly preserve; she wanted to see some sort of order established. And her only concession upon returning to Green Gulch Farm Zen Center was.... hmmm... I just don't want to spoil the story... sorry... you'll have to read the book.
Let's put it this way. Even those most in touch with the reality of existence and trying to relinquish control over nature still have trouble with the notion of not imposing their personal standards on the world around them. It is comforting.
Conclusion:
I found the book inspirational. And though I do not agree with everything Wendy wrote, her writing compells me to try harder to live peacefully alongside the rest of the natural world. I'm also investing much more time in figuring out how to do so.
Peace.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:21 pm
14 Sep 2008
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 6:50 am
26 Oct 2008
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink