My little bit of country
My Little Bit of Country
What would the ideal lifestyle contain? Would it be a busy life, surrounded by tall buildings and lots of people or would it be on the country, enveloped in the uncontrolled nature and with a small society? Some would argue for the city-life, while others would argue for the country-life. It might be impossible to conclude which lifestyle is really the best, but there is definitely both cons and pros to each of the two lifestyles. In an article called My Little Bit of Country, posted in Central Park by Susan Cheever, Susan Cheever argues her view of living respectively in the city and on the country.
Susan Cheever's preferred place to live is the city. When she was a baby and as a very young child, she lived in New York. Later, she moved to the suburbs with her family and she didn't like it at all. When she grew up and got children, she raised them in the city, because she felt better in the city. Cheever describes the life in the city and on the country as to completely opposite things, treating them as definite contrasts. The city-life is controlled, safe and clean – whereas the country-life is wild, dangerous and muddy.
She uses a lot of examples, like ice-skating and swimming. In the city, you have safe ice-skating rinks, where there is no chance of going through the ice and there is pools that is almost completely clean and disinfected every day. On the country, you ice-skate on lakes and ponds in the winter, that might or might not be able to bear your weight, and in the summer, you bathe in the same lakes and ponds that might or might not contain poisonous algae and other plants or dangerous animals.
Cheever also argues that pieces of nature exist in the city, but that pieces of city doesn't exist in the country. According to her, Central Park is an example of nature right in the middle of a big city. While it is correct that Central Park is indeed plants and a few animals, some would say that it isn't exactly the same
What would the ideal lifestyle contain? Would it be a busy life, surrounded by tall buildings and lots of people or would it be on the country, enveloped in the uncontrolled nature and with a small society? Some would argue for the city-life, while others would argue for the country-life. It might be impossible to conclude which lifestyle is really the best, but there is definitely both cons and pros to each of the two lifestyles. In an article called My Little Bit of Country, posted in Central Park by Susan Cheever, Susan Cheever argues her view of living respectively in the city and on the country.
Susan Cheever's preferred place to live is the city. When she was a baby and as a very young child, she lived in New York. Later, she moved to the suburbs with her family and she didn't like it at all. When she grew up and got children, she raised them in the city, because she felt better in the city. Cheever describes the life in the city and on the country as to completely opposite things, treating them as definite contrasts. The city-life is controlled, safe and clean – whereas the country-life is wild, dangerous and muddy.
She uses a lot of examples, like ice-skating and swimming. In the city, you have safe ice-skating rinks, where there is no chance of going through the ice and there is pools that is almost completely clean and disinfected every day. On the country, you ice-skate on lakes and ponds in the winter, that might or might not be able to bear your weight, and in the summer, you bathe in the same lakes and ponds that might or might not contain poisonous algae and other plants or dangerous animals.
Cheever also argues that pieces of nature exist in the city, but that pieces of city doesn't exist in the country. According to her, Central Park is an example of nature right in the middle of a big city. While it is correct that Central Park is indeed plants and a few animals, some would say that it isn't exactly the same