Comparing Stegner And Cronan's Wilderness
Corey Jean
SA 4
Stegner and Cronan
The absurdity of certain arguments, for me, makes it difficult to fairly analyze a piece of work. It is my lack of patience for supreme stupidity that disables me from comparing two certain articles on the topic of “Wilderness”. When asked to read, summarize, and then write about the differing opinions between Wallace Stegner’s “Wilderness Letter” (1960) and William Cronan’s “The Trouble with Wilderness” (1996), I approached reading them not expecting too much of a difference or surprise. I actually expected the latter article to be more astute being that it was written 36 years more recently. Upon completing the philosophical, brief, and rather vague article by Wallace Stegner, I looked forward to reading the next article to see if my assignment was worth my time. The incoherent, unfounded ramblings of William Cronan baffled me so much that I never re-read the first article, opting instead to read and research his arrogant nonsense many times over. I have been instructed to represent the ideas of each author fairly; but fairness is a term subject to interpretation, and I believe it is only fair (or rather my duty) as a critic to …show more content…
Trying to interpret his argument is on par interpreting political agendas. In no way does he ever resemble any subjective research or opinion. How he comes to his conclusions is anybody’s guess. Reading this article was like basing a national budget on the theories of someone who only took Economics 101 for a week in high school. His arguments are are completely un-researched, and make his credibility as a historian suspect. I may have misinterpreted this article completely, in fact I hope I did, but if I’m understanding correctly, Cronan is chastising urban yuppie environmentalists for having an interest in nature preservation because he doesn’t agree on the definition of “wilderness”. That approach is staggeringly
SA 4
Stegner and Cronan
The absurdity of certain arguments, for me, makes it difficult to fairly analyze a piece of work. It is my lack of patience for supreme stupidity that disables me from comparing two certain articles on the topic of “Wilderness”. When asked to read, summarize, and then write about the differing opinions between Wallace Stegner’s “Wilderness Letter” (1960) and William Cronan’s “The Trouble with Wilderness” (1996), I approached reading them not expecting too much of a difference or surprise. I actually expected the latter article to be more astute being that it was written 36 years more recently. Upon completing the philosophical, brief, and rather vague article by Wallace Stegner, I looked forward to reading the next article to see if my assignment was worth my time. The incoherent, unfounded ramblings of William Cronan baffled me so much that I never re-read the first article, opting instead to read and research his arrogant nonsense many times over. I have been instructed to represent the ideas of each author fairly; but fairness is a term subject to interpretation, and I believe it is only fair (or rather my duty) as a critic to …show more content…
Trying to interpret his argument is on par interpreting political agendas. In no way does he ever resemble any subjective research or opinion. How he comes to his conclusions is anybody’s guess. Reading this article was like basing a national budget on the theories of someone who only took Economics 101 for a week in high school. His arguments are are completely un-researched, and make his credibility as a historian suspect. I may have misinterpreted this article completely, in fact I hope I did, but if I’m understanding correctly, Cronan is chastising urban yuppie environmentalists for having an interest in nature preservation because he doesn’t agree on the definition of “wilderness”. That approach is staggeringly