Reaction to Reynolds (This turns into a personal rant--sorry).

If Nedra Reynolds' approach to place has done anything to alter my reading of "the place of place," it made me reevaluate where I'm standing.

First and foremost, thinking of composition as a product of capitalism is interesting for me, and I would have liked to have read more about this. When considering her Marxist connections with Time-space compression, it seems like we're so much more a part of "the system" than we are willing to admit. This puts a whole new perspective on my/our frustration with students who just look at college as job-preparation.

More significantly and more personally, Reynolds' characterization of presumably safe places as being a threat to women is something that two weeks ago I would have thought was a little dramatic, but she really snapped things into perspective for me. She says:

"Even spaces presumed to be safe are often a threat to women. College campuses provide a good example of this image, especially as they are represented in typical media shots... The serene appearance, however, masks the politics of space; for example...the threat to women who dare to walk alone at night" (20).

The connections between my gender and the politicization of space is something that I'm becoming much more aware of as I make my way through graduate school. I was raised by a single dad and, probably consequently, have always had more male friends than female friends. I've never felt uncomfortable, inferior, or quiet around anyone--men included. However, it was not until I came to OU that I started to realize my gender (and my age) make it necessary to negotiate my surroundings much differently than I ever had to before. I live alone here. And I'm short. And the hint of what my Northern friends call "Southern Hospitality" has, at the very best, made me a couple friends, and at the very worst encouraged unwanted flirtation. Nowadays I'm finding myself scanning the areas around me as I walk home from class, making sure to avoid dark areas (impossible) and drunk students (also impossible). I take note of what almost everyone around me is wearing--just in case.

My apartment used to be my safe-place, but that has even been challenged lately, making me feel, for the first time in my life, that I am a woman and I need to be scared always because no place is safe for me.

The university police send out emails whenever a sexual assault happens to an OU student--but the places they cite, the "scene of the crime," mean nothing to me. As a relatively temporary student here (2 year MA program), I have little concept for the building names other than Ellis Hall, Ping, Chubb, and Baker--places where I work/learn, exercise, pay my bills, and sometimes spend money on food. So here I am, dropped in the middle of a place where I need to be more aware than ever, feeling less aware than ever.

And I'm sure that I'm bringing this insecurity and constant questioning of my place in a place into my academic life. Reynolds' description of her institution's teaching assistant office sounded way too familiar (sans the trashcans catching rain...thank god.) I realize that we're at the bottom of the totem pole and everyone "above" us has paid their dues. But, in Reynolds' words "place does matter; surroundings do have an effect on learning or attitudes towards learning, and material spaces have a political edge" (20).

So, I guess I would say that Reynolds' approach to place, paired with recent experiences, made me reconsider my position as a youngin' in the university institution and as a women living alone in a college town with drunk students running around.

On a less heated note, I thought her discussion of cyberspace as the new frontier was noteworthy. She suggests that the impact of cyberspace on the writing classroom is "as large as that of Open Admissions" (27), and this was published in 1998. So I wonder (yes, wonder, because in 1998 I was 12) if the impact of cyberspace is still seen as equally dramatic as Open Admissions? Is it what she (and others) expected it would be?

I know that working with the blog in this class was a very new experience for me. Because I had read this piece before, I did think of our blog as a space--but actually posting and manipulating that space made me really wrestle with the idea of "imagined space." It blows my mind a little because I think of the blog as a concrete place where I'm putting my work--not much different from laying my paper on a desk--but it's not concrete. Weird.

What is Ecocomposition Anyway?

(If you're looking for the newest version of my place piece, it's below this post.)

At the end of Fall quarter earlier this year, I found my self wrestling with the same question to which this post is dedicated: What is Ecocomposition, anyway? I was working on a seminar paper about Ecocomp., and let's just say my inability to define the term, paired with my newness to graduate school , made for a really bad paper. The amazing thing is that now, maybe 30 weeks wiser, I still find it difficult to define. But this time I'm okay with it. It is, after all, something that Dobrin recognizes as resisting definition (14).

But, here's my stab at it:

Ecocomposition is an area of inquiry/pedagogy that involves:

• interdisciplinary approaches and holistic thinking
• emphasis on activism
• constant questioning of itself
• viewing relationships
• consideration of the author and his/her contexts as interdependent factors in creating writing
• identity construction in terms of place--not just through other humans

The benefits of an ecocompositional approach seem, to me, numerous. In encouraging students to explore their relationships with places, we encourage students to explore their own identity and foster interest in environmental issues. Also, an ecocompositional approach lets us work in tandem with other disciplines to broaden our perspective of our world and ourselves. And focusing on relationships instead of analyzing individual aspects of a greater whole allows us to understand a greater cause-and-effect system. It's holistic consideration in identity construction, interdisciplinary studies, and emphasis on context do not seem to isolate place from social issues, so arguing that it abandons human interactions is impossible. And by supposedly questioning itself constantly, ecocomposition practices what it preaches, always reevaluating its relationships. We become more well rounded and we care about others. Sounds like a good approach to me.

But also with these things in mind, the only shortcoming of ecocomposition I can see is this: what doesn't it include? Might adopting holistic thinking dilute, instead of enrich? And perhaps ecocomposition is too idealistic. It's easy to say that we need to think a certain way, but putting it into practice can be a bigger hurdle to jump.

The Farm

“The past is our definition. We may strive, with good reason, to escape it, or to escape what is bad in it, but we will escape it only by adding something better to it.” --Wendell Berry

What you're about to read is a story about remembering, un-remembering, and revisiting. While it's tempting to discuss the dwindling American farmlands in terms of suburbanization and subsidies, I won't, and can't. My experience with my family's farm has been surprisingly unpolitical, and keeping it that way is the only way for me to connect with the land and connect with myself.

This idea of self/land connection is definitely not my own. Wendell Berry argues that we are not divided or dividable from nature, and for me, such an idea is true. Place plays a vital role in most, if not all, of my personal stories, often operating as its own character in my head. So when my uncle died this past November and we started sorting through his things, I was shocked when I recovered photographs that sparked memories of being on my family's farm. It wasn't until I started trading stories with my dad and grandmother that I realized how much of my identity is connected to this place, so I knew I had to reconnect with it after about 12 years of being gone. As Wendell Berry says, to divide against nature “confines our identity as creatures entirely within the bounds of our own understanding, which is invariably a mistake because it is invariably reductive.” Despite the camping trips I'd made in my adolescence, I had kept myself away from the nature I knew as a child. I, and other members of my family, had divided ourselves against a nature that, for various reasons, was too difficult to deal with. What had I missed out on, not having continued my farm visits into my adolescence and adulthood? How might I have been different if I had let something bigger than myself—the nature of the farm—teach me? Of course I can never answer those questions, but I can focus on connecting again with myself and my family through the land of what used to be St. Lo Farm in Shelby County, Kentucky. This piece is the first of what will be many attempts to do just that.

The Farm: Remembering

The farm was dusty. Everything--no matter how many times dusted--had what seemed to be a high-definition coat of dirt. Slightly obsessive compulsive and severely allergic to everything, I honed in on those granules of dust and gave them a-talkin'-to: "Not today pollen. Not today ragweed. Just leave me alone today." I was convinced that this stern conversation worked, and until I was about 10 years old I thought the dust could hear me and refused to listen. But I understood its refusal. It must have had the same condition I had, a complex disorder my grandmother called “selective hearing.”

In hindsight, I shouldn't complain about the dust. Aside from a few million pollen pods, everything else on the farm was on my side. The cows politely mooed whenever I crept near to see their calves. Insects with stingers snickered as they passed by me on their way to torture my cousins (two rough girls who were always dirty.) Even the lay of the land liked me. In the recess of two ridges and behind a wall of cattails was a pond. Here, everything was green and mystical. During the day white fluff hovered across the water; at nighttime the glow bugs sponsored a light show far superior to those I would pay to see at the University of Louisville Planetarium in my teenage years. It was a place of magic, and when I spoke to the cattails, unlike the dust, they spoke back. It was my own refugee camp, a place where “the city cousin” could find safety and peace from the frustration of step-mothers and dirty cousins. It was the perfect place to “rest in the grace of the world.”

I'm not sure if I felt this sense of refuge then, but I understand now why I spent so much time there as a child. We went there to escape something going on in the city: for my dad and me, a broken home; for my grandfather, images of war projected from his mind into his living room; for my uncles, the accusing glares that mothers and businessmen give to alcoholics. It was only a matter of time before we started bringing the things we were escaping from to the farm with us.

* * *

St. Lo Farm was named in remembrance of the Battle of St. Lo—the bloodiest and most destructive battle of the Invasion of Normandy during World War II. Because it is a geographic crossroads in France, St. Lo was a pivotal victory for the Allied Forces. My grandfather's first military mission landed him in St. Lo only a month after D-Day. He was a company runner, and as I understand it, he crossed battlefields, literally dodging showers of bullets, to relay messages between infantries. It was a dangerous job, some say the most dangerous, and he was only 19 years old. Like so many WWII veterans, my grandfather's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder went undiagnosed. Decades after the war, he hung himself in the tobacco barn on St. Lo Farm. He came home from the war, but he never made it out of St. Lo alive.

* * *

The farm is located about 40 minutes east of Louisville in Shelby County, Kentucky. Although my grandfather bought the farm after his return from WWII, he never actually lived there. He worked for government employment services in the city and drove out to Shelby County after business hours and on the weekends. On 100 acres he grew tobacco, raised a few cattle for breeding, and kept some horses. But most importantly, St. Lo was a place for two generations of Mudds to learn, to grow, and to explore. Not unlike the the tobacco, my grandfather's kids seemed to grow faster in the sun. Old family photographs document my dad and each of his brothers at every age, traipsing through tobacco fields, fishing, and riding horses. As children they chased floating cattail fuzz like I would decades later—a different pond, the same refuge. As teenagers, I imagine they brought girls to St. Lo to admire the stars. In empty car shells they might have constructed cushioned nooks that afforded optimal boob-grabbing positioning. They covered all the bases out there on the farm, and the existence of my oldest cousins is proof. As adults, three of the four sons would bring their daughters to the farm, probably disappointed in the absence of the rambunctious disobedience promised by boys.

The City: Un-Remembering

I was raised by my dad and my grandmother in the most Catholic suburb I've ever ridden my bike in. St. Matthews, a neighborhood in Louisville, Kentucky, was an old suburb near, but not too near, the downtown area. We were suburban enough to lock our car doors as we drove downtown, but urban enough to criticize the materialistic attitudes of the rich families building houses in the East End. I loved living there, and even though the house I grew up in has since had an ugly renovation, driving by it evokes a nostalgia I used to worry I may only feel for St. Lo.

The worst period of my life, ages three to six, was spent living outside of St. Matthews. My dad had married a terrible woman whose insistence upon floral-print wall paper and an ideal family would quite literally scar me forever. She hated me because my dad loved me, and for a short time my dad hoped that acting happy might fix things. One step in his let's-act-like-everything-is-okay regiment was giving me and my step-brother awesome gifts, and the most awesome of the awesome gifts was the pet rabbits we got for Easter.

“I'm namin' mine Mrs. Clause.” Damn. My step-brother always stole my ideas. I had to think quick around him, and if I took too long to announce my new bunny's name, he would know he had succeeded in bursting my bubble.

“Charlie Brown. Dad, I'm namin' mine Charlie Brown.” Win. Success. No rainy parades today.

It wouldn't take long before we realized that Mrs. Clause and Charlie Brown were in love. Mrs. Clause climbed atop poor ole' Charlie Brown, cluing us in to our lack of gender sensitivity in naming them. Eventually Charlie Brown gave birth to eight baby bunnies. Then, Charlie Brown gave birth to ten baby bunnies. My dad said he had rabbits running out of his ears, so Grandad had to take them out to the farm so they'd have more room to run around. I hated to see the bunnies go, but my dad did have small ears.

I decided I wanted to go with Grandad to take the bunnies to the farm. I didn't care much for the babies, but I had to give Charlie Brown what my grandmother called “a proper bon voyage.” I had no idea what that meant, but she was always right. So I woke up just before the sun came out, went into the back yard, and situated myself on the swing-set near the creek. On the left side of the swing-set was a box-swing where two people could face each other, and I chose this as my waiting space. It was early in the morning, and despite the crisp air with enough chill to keep most eager children awake, I dozed off. I woke up to the sound of a truck door closing, and as I tried to shew away the sun circles that blocked my view of my grandfather, he backed out of the driveway with the bunnies. I had been overlooked, and no one inside the house wondered where I was. And now, instead of going out to the farm, I had to go back in there. A strange fear crept up my arm as I turned the doorknob to enter.

* * *

This story came up years later during a walk. It was Easter, and my dad and I saw a rabbit sitting on the steps of house somewhere in St. Matthews. I mentioned Charlie Brown and Mrs. Clause, joking that perhaps the rabbit sitting on the steps was one of their descendants. He didn't laugh, or even acknowledge I had said anything. But his eyebrows were pinched together, like he was thinking real hard. “What? Why would that rabbit be a product of Charlie Brown and Mrs. Clause?” he said. I refreshed his memory and even threw in the bit about getting left behind and how overlooked, disappointed, and scared I had felt.

“Samantha, that never happened. I never bought you rabbits.” He was very serious.

It wouldn't be until the following year that I would be diagnosed with disassociative amnesia. I have very few memories of living in the city before the age of seven and suffered from night terrors until I was 13. The story of Charlie Brown and Mrs. Clause has all the makings for a bad dream.

The Farm: Revisiting

After my grandfather's suicide we sold about 70 acres of the farm, leaving the remaining 30 acres as a reserve of land. I was about six or seven years old when he died, so I don't remember my dad squatting in the corner of the funeral parlor sobbing, or my grandmother's stoic face slowly twitching and crinkling into the face of a hurt widow. I assume they sold one acre for every one hundred tears they cried in public.

No one goes there anymore, so when I asked my dad to take me out to St. Lo, I was nervous he'd find the nearest corner, squat, and sob just like he did at the funeral I don't remember. But never one for unnecessary dramatics, my dad replied with a simple “sure,” and we headed east.

On the way to St. Lo Dad and I lamented our family's negligence, dreading the tall grass and weeds we were expecting to negotiate.

“Maybe we shouldn't-a-brought the dog,” my dad said.

“No. He'll be fine.”

A mile passed before he spoke again. “He might pick up some tics, or fleas. Shit's a pain in the ass to get off that dog.”

“Oh. Yeah.” We were both too busy roping in memories—his no doubt more vivid and painful than mine—to concentrate on making good conversation.

I fully expected this return to demolish the memories I acknowledge as parts of my identity: I watched a horse give birth there; I ate apples right off the trees there; for Christ's sake I talked to cattails there. But what if I made it all up, like Mrs. Clause and Charlie Brown?

* * *

My struggle in this project to understand the relationship between the landscape of my memories and the memories themselves is echoed by Scott Russell Sanders in “After the Flood.” This was the first piece I read that showed me how strange it can be to return to a place after years of being gone. His stomping grounds had been bought and flooded by the government, so while artifacts of his childhood memories would be flooded with water, mine would be flooded with much more negotiable weeds. Like me, Sanders entertains expectations about how the area will look and feel upon his return, but unlike me, Sanders experienced his lands' change. He saw the dam wall go up. He watched bulldozers collapse condemned houses. I, on the other hand, have been gone too long. Certain things are preserved in my mind, and I would be a fool if I expected them to be the same. I want to keep them preserved and, as Sanders puts it, “I can return to that drowned landscape as I can return to childhood, only by diving through memory” (5). So why revisit and mess with memories that are fine the way they are?

For a moment, I considered reconsidering my revisit. I have my memories and therefore access to those happy times and places.

* * *

We passed the gravel road that led to our land, so rather than turn around, my dad pulled his truck over on the side of US 60. It seemed so out of place—a rebellious act that suburban homeowners would surely throw a fit over. But he said it'd be fine, so I hopped out and leashed up my dog with a piece of twine I found in the truck bed. My fox-looking dog felt right at home in the tall grass beside the road, and once we turned onto the gravel path, I let him go. He ran just like he knew where he was going, and my dad laughed. If we believed in reincarnation, we'd assume at this moment that my grandfather had been begging us for treats and belly rubs for years.

I was unsurprised by the maintained grass and foliage surrounding the gravel road because that lot now belonged to someone else. And it seemed so predictable that once we hopped the black farm fence, we'd react the way you do when you see the pretty girl from high school donning an extra hundred pounds with lipstick on her teeth. “Oh. It's so sad the way she let herself go.” But it didn't happen that way. We hopped the black farm fence to find huge bails of hay resting on the greenest hill I've ever seen in real life.

“Who the hell's been bailing the hay?” I was glad to see my dad shocked too. We kept walking.

St. Lo was much more beautiful—and much less dusty—than I remembered. My grandmother had opted to keep the “back-left” area of the farm where we could measure our property by the number of ridges we could see in the distance. “That ridge, that ridge, and the one past it are ours,” my dad said. On each hillside the grass was a little overgrown with punches of yellow and purple wild flowers (some may call them weeds) acting as decoration. In the recesses of the hills were trees and creeks and, most reassuringly, dried up ponds. These were the areas that had grown wild in the ten years we'd been gone, with thorns everywhere and foliage so thick only the dog could squeeze close enough to the ground to pass through. Cattail fuzz still floated in the air of these recesses, and I about cried when we found a living pond behind a cattail wall.

* * *

Before we left we needed to know who had bailed the hay, so we pulled our truck into the front drive of Middleton Farm. The farm sign looked familiar, and so did the small house about a hundred yards back. I had been there before, but the fact that it remained unchanged for so long was more remarkable than its ability to resurface old memories. An old man rode up on a riding mower, eying us like foxes in a hen house, and rightfully so. My dad had used his shirt to dry off the dog, so he was standing in this man's driveway shirtless. As he put it back on I saw the incision down his belly that was turning into a scar, the ultimate battle wound from his recent fight against cancer.

“Mr. Middleton?”

“I've heard of him,” Mr. Middleton said.

“Charles Mudd. Paul's son.” He stuck his hand out for a good shake.

Mr. Middleton waited a while before he said anything. “How ya doin' boy?”

I let them talk alone for a while. I knew that Bobo Middleton had been the one to cut my grandfather down when he found him in the tobacco barn, and I wasn't sure if my dad had seen him since the funeral. I walked across the highway where a few bulls grazed near a pond. They stared at me for a while, and I stared back. When I looked over my shoulder and saw my dad smiling, I knew it was safe to wander closer to the conversation.

Bobo's face was wrinkled, but not saggy. Working on Middleton Farm his entire life gave him a nice tan, but the creases on his face looked like they were carved out of wood. He was never in a hurry to reply to my dad's questions; for Bobo returning to silence was less awkward than speaking. During these moments of silence he'd look at his shoes, or off in the distance, shaking his head slowly and pressing his lips together. He must have been lamenting something.

“Well, Wally died just before Thanksgiving,” my dad said. He was referring to my uncle.

“No kiddin'? He was young.”

“52.”

“Dang.”

“Yeah. Breast cancer.” It still hurt to hear this. It still hurt my dad to say it.

“No kiddin'?” Bobo didn't know men could get breast cancer. And my dad moved on, refraining from sharing his own recent victory against prostate cancer.

Middleton Farm had been around for generations. Bobo took over the farm from his father, and although you would never guess from his tiny house and dirty hands, he was most definitely a millionaire. You could tell by his shoes that Bobo agreed with Wendell Berry: the ability to do something is not reason enough to do it. My dad said that back in the 60s Bobo had a chance to double the size of his farm, but opted out despite the opportunity to also double his profits. Berry calls this “farming well” and says that knowing how to “preserve, harvest, and replenish... to make, build, and use, return and restore” will lead to a recovery of culture and nature. Bobo's unassuming intelligence and wisdom certainly belonged to a culture he had probably never contemplated. It was in him where I understood what Berry meant by these words.

We were back in the truck, feeling glad to have re-met Bobo Middleton. I was excited about his character, and talked about how great it is that he chooses a life of modesty, self-sustainability, and responsible farming. But my dad seemed annoyed with my enthusiasm.

“Yeah, well he was born into it.” True. Bobo never lived off of Middleton Farm. And it was quite clear that he never would. While he knew the frustrations, victories, secrets and politics of farming, he would never understand the intimidation and challenges a new farmer would experience. He'd never have to make an effort to get back to the land.

“So, does he know who's been bailing the hay?” Dad and I were both careful not to call the hay ours.

“Yeah. He's been doing it twice a year since we stopped doing it."

* * *

As we left Shelby County my mind was calmer, allowing me to look out the truck window and see. The old convenient store where my cousins and I ate ice cream sandwiches was still up and running, and aside from expected wear-and-tear, it looked exactly the same. Lots of new houses punctuated the hillside, and just before the Shelby County border a new subdivision called “[Something] Springs” had only a few empty lots left. Suddenly the East End of Louisville wasn't pastoral enough for the sprawlers. Most of these people will or do commute to Louisville, and unlike my grandfather, they probably have no land to cultivate. But of course I can't pass judgment on the sprawlers. I couldn't tell the complete story of my return to St. Lo without admitting I want to build a small house like Bobo's on St. Lo Farm and bring new life back to the place where so many memories—good and terrifying—linger like cattail fuzz in the air.

Standing on the highest hill of St. Lo, my dad looked at me and said “Someday this could be yours, Samantha.” We smiled at each other and I secretly rejoiced. In this moment I realized that whether remembered, forgotten, or totally made up, memories are what keeps us connected to a place, but also place keep us connected to our memories. In this moment, I finally felt connected to something.

Untitled Draft (Place Piece)

The Farm

The farm was dusty. Everything--no matter how many times dusted--had what seemed to be a high-definition coat of dirt. Slightly obsessive compulsive and severely allergic to everything, I honed in on those granules of dust and gave them a-talkin'-to: "Not today pollen. Not today ragweed. Just leave me alone today." I was convinced that this stern conversation worked, and until I was about 10 years old I thought the dust could hear me and refused to listen. But I understood its refusal. It must have had the same condition I had, a complex disorder my grandmother called “selective hearing.”

In hindsight, I shouldn't complain about the dust. Aside from a few million pollen pods, everything else on the farm was on my side. The cows politely mooed whenever I crept near to see their calves. Insects with stingers snickered as they passed by me on their way to torture my cousins (two rough girls who were always dirty.) Even the lay of the land liked me. In the recess of two ridges and behind a wall of cattails was a pond--my own refugee camp, a place where “the city cousin” could find safety and peace from the frustration of step-mothers and dirty cousins. Here, everything was green and mystical. During the day white fluff hovered across the water; at nighttime the glow bugs sponsored a light show far superior to those I would pay to see at the University of Louisville Planetarium in my teenage years. It was a place of magic, and when I spoke to the cattails, unlike the dust, they spoke back.

* * *

St. Lo Farm was named in remembrance of the Battle of St. Lo—the bloodiest and most destructive battle of the Invasion of Normandy during World War II. Because it is a geographic crossroads in France, St. Lo was a pivotal victory for the Allied Forces. My grandfather's first military mission landed him in St. Lo only a month after D-Day. He was a company runner, and as I understand it, he crossed battlefields, literally dodging showers of bullets, to relay messages between infantries. It was a dangerous job, some say the most dangerous, and he was only 19 years old. Like so many WWII veterans, my grandfather's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder went undiagnosed. Decades after the war, he hung himself in the tobacco barn on St. Lo Farm. He came home from the war, but he never made it out of St. Lo alive.

* * *

The farm is located about 40 minutes east of Louisville in Shelby County, Kentucky. Although my grandfather bought the farm after his return from WWII, he never actually lived there. He worked for government employment services in the city and drove out to Shelby County after business hours and on the weekends. On 100 acres he grew tobacco, raised a few cattle for breeding, and kept some horses. But most importantly, St. Lo was a place for two generations of Mudds to learn, to grow, and to explore. Not unlike the the tobacco, my grandfather's kids seemed to grow faster in the sun. Old family photographs document my dad and each of his brothers at every age, traipsing through tobacco fields, fishing, and riding horses. As children they chased floating cattail fuzz like I would decades later—a different pond, the same refuge. As teenagers, I imagine they brought girls to St. Lo to admire the stars. In empty car shells they might have constructed cushioned nooks that afforded optimal boob-grabbing positioning. They covered all the bases out there on the farm, and the existence of my oldest cousins is proof. As adults, three of the four sons would bring their daughters to the farm, probably disappointed in the absence of the rambunctious disobedience promised by boys.

Just off the main road sat a house so feeble it looked like it might collapse if the wind blew too strongly. A perfect crescent moon decorated the outhouse door, and just like most farmhouses, white paint chipped from the splintering wood siding. It was a crumbling shack, but my grandfather rented it out nonetheless, usually to red-nosed fathers with little means of supporting their families. By the time I was visiting the farm, no one lived there. I was instructed never to go near that house, and I never did.

The City

I was raised by my dad and my grandmother in the most Catholic suburb I've ever ridden my bike in. St. Matthews, a neighborhood in Louisville, Kentucky, was an old suburb near, but not too near, the downtown area. We were suburban enough to lock our car doors as we drove downtown, but urban enough to criticize the materialistic attitudes of the rich families building houses in the East End. Members of the Our Lady of Lourdes parish displayed church flags in their yards, a symbol that helped us public-school kids keep separate from the private-schoolers. It never occurred to me that they were avoiding us, too. This petty social life made for great neighborhood bike rides, block-wide hide-and-seek games, and summertime pranks. I loved living there, and even though the house I grew up in has since had an ugly renovation, driving by it evokes a nostalgia I used to worry I may only feel for St. Lo.

The worst period of my life, ages three to six, was spent living outside of St. Matthews. My dad had married a terrible woman whose insistence upon floral-print wall paper and an ideal family would quite literally scar me forever. She hated me because my dad loved me, and for a short time my dad hoped that acting happy might fix things. One step in his let's-act-like-everything-is-okay regiment was giving me and my step-brother awesome gifts, and the most awesome of the awesome gifts were the pet rabbits we got for Easter.

“I'm namin' mine Mrs. Clause.” Damn. My step-brother always stole my ideas. I had to think quick around him, and if I took too long to announce my new bunny's name, he would know he had succeeded in bursting my bubble.

“Charlie Brown. Dad, I'm namin' mine Charlie Brown.” Win. Success. No rainy parades today.

It wouldn't take long before we realized that Mrs. Clause and Charlie Brown were in love. Mrs. Clause climbed atop poor ole' Charlie Brown, cluing us in to our lack of gender sensitivity in naming them. Eventually Charlie Brown gave birth to eight baby bunnies. Then, Charlie Brown gave birth to ten baby bunnies. My dad said he had rabbits running out of his ears, so Grandad had to take them out to the farm so they'd have more room to run around. I hated to see the bunnies go, but my dad did have small ears.

I decided I wanted to go with Grandad to take the bunnies to the farm. I didn't care much for the babies, but I had to give Charlie Brown what my grandmother called “a proper bon voyage.” I had no idea what that meant, but she was always right. So I woke up just before the sun came out, went into the back yard, and situated myself on the swing-set near the creek. On the left side of the swing-set was a box-swing where two people could face each other, and I chose this as my waiting space. It was early in the morning, and despite the crisp air with enough chill to keep most eager children awake, I dozed off. I woke up the sound of a truck door closing, and as I tried to shew away the sun circles that blocked my view of my grandfather, he backed out of the driveway with the bunnies. I had been overlooked, and no one inside the house wondered where I was. And now, instead of going out the farm, I had to go back in there.

Returning

After my grandfather's suicide we sold about 70 acres of the farm, leaving the remaining 30 acres as a reserve of land. I was about six or seven years old when he died, and I don't remember my dad squatting in the corner of the funeral parlor sobbing, or my grandmother's stoic face slowly twitching and crinkling into the face of a hurt widow. I assume they sold one acre for every one hundred tears they cried in public.

No one goes there anymore, so when I asked my dad to take me out to St. Lo, I was nervous he'd find the nearest corner, squat, and sob just like he did at the funeral I don't remember. But never one for unnecessary dramatics, my dad replied with a simple “sure,” and we headed east.

On the way to St. Lo Dad and I lamented our family's negligence, dreading the tall grass and weeds we were expecting to negotiate.

“Maybe we shouldn't-a-brought the dog,” my dad said.

“No. He'll be fine.”

A mile passed before he spoke again. “He might pick up some tics, or fleas. Shit's a pain in the ass to get off that dog.”

“Oh. Yeah.” We were both too busy roping in memories—his no doubt more vivid and painful than mine—to concentrate on making good conversation.

I fully expected this return to skew the memories I acknowledge as parts of my identity: I watched a horse give birth there; I ate apples right off the trees there; for Christ's sake I talked to cattails there. And now it would be different. I imagined that the world of floating cattail fuzz and foot-worn dirt paths had long been taken over by a filigree of weeds. That old house would be refurbished and populated; I'd never get to explore it. The rolling pastures that were as frequently cut as Mike and Carol Brady's lawn (courtesy of the cows) would surely reach to my chest by now. And, having lived its pond life cycle, my pond would have joined my grandfather at that great farm in the sky. This visit would turn my Andrew Wyeths into Jackson Pollocks, and I never was one for Pollock.

Could a change in land create a change in my memories?

* * *

Scott Russell Sanders takes on a similar challenge of confronting the memories and realities of his childhood homestead in “After the Flood.” As a chapter in his book Staying Put, “After the Flood” illustrates how strange it can be to return to a place after years of being gone. His stomping grounds had been bought and flooded by the government, so while artifacts of his childhood memories would be flooded with water, mine would be flooded with much more negotiable weeds. Like me, Sanders entertains expectations about how the area will look and feel upon his return, but unlike me, Sanders experienced his lands' change. He saw the dam wall go up. He watched bulldozers collapse condemned houses. I, on the other hand, have been gone too long. Certain things are preserved in my mind, and I would be a fool if I expected them to be the same. I want to keep them preserved and, as Sanders puts it, “I can return to that drowned landscape as I can return to childhood, only by diving through memory” (5).

For a moment, I considered reconsidering my revisit. I have my memories and therefore access to a happier time and place. But Sanders' is a story about what people do to land. And this, I was sure, would be a story about what people don't do to land.

* * *

We passed the gravel road that led to our land, so rather than turn around, my dad pulled his truck over on the side of US 60. It seemed so out of place—a rebellious act that suburban homeowners would surely throw a fit over. But he said it'd be fine, so I hopped out and leashed up my dog with a piece of twine I found in the truck bed. My fox-looking dog felt right at home in the tall grass beside the road, and once we turned onto the gravel path, I let him go. He ran just like he knew where he was going, and my dad laughed. If we believed in reincarnation, we'd assume at this moment that my grandfather had been begging us for treats and belly rubs for years.

I was unsurprised by the maintained grass and foliage surrounding the gravel road because that lot now belonged to someone else. And it seemed so predictable that once we hopped the black farm fence, we'd react the way you do when you see the pretty girl from high school donning an extra hundred pounds and lipstick on her teeth. “Oh. It's so sad the way she let herself go.” But it didn't happen that way. We hopped the black farm fence to find huge bails of hay resting on the greenest hill I've ever seen in real life.

“Who the hell's been bailing the hay?” I was glad to see my dad shocked too. We kept walking. St. Lo was much more beautiful—and much less dusty—than I remembered.

* * *

Before we left we needed to know who had bailed the hay, so we pulled our truck into the front drive of Middleton Farm. The farm sign looked familiar, and so did the small house about a hundred yards back. I had been there before, but the fact that it remained unchanged for so long was more remarkable than its ability to resurface old memories. An old man rode up on a riding mower, eying us like foxes in a hen house, and rightfully so. My dad had used his shirt to dry off the dog, so he was standing in this man's driveway shirtless. As he put it back on I saw the incision down his belly that was turning into a scar.

“Mr. Middleton?”

“I've heard of him,” Mr. Middleton said.

“Charles Mudd. Paul's son.” He stuck his hand out for a good shake.

Mr. Middleton waited a while before he said anything. “How ya doin' boy?”

I let them talk alone for a while. I knew that Bobo Middleton had been the one to cut my grandfather down when he found him in the tobacco barn, and I wasn't sure if my dad had seen him since the funeral. I walked across the highway where a few bulls grazed near a pond. They stared at me for a while, and I stared back. When I looked over my shoulder and saw my dad smiling, I knew it was safe to wander closer to the conversation.

Bobo's face was wrinkled, but not saggy. Working on Middleton Farm his entire life gave him a nice tan, but the creases on his face looked like they were carved out of wood. He was never in a hurry to reply to my dad's questions; for Bobo returning to silence was less awkward than speaking. During these moments of silence he'd look at his shoes, or off in the distance, shaking his head slowly and pressing his lips together. He must have been lamenting something.

“Well, Wally died just before Thanksgiving,” my dad said. He was referring to my uncle.

“No kiddin'? He was young.”

“52.”

“Dang.”

“Yeah. Breast cancer.” It still hurt to hear this. It still hurt my dad to say it.

“No kiddin'?” Bobo didn't know men could get breast cancer. And my dad moved on, refraining from sharing his own recent victory against prostate cancer.

Middleton Farm had been around for generations. Bobo took over the farm from his father, and although you would never guess from his tiny house and dirty hands, he was most definitely a millionaire. You could tell by his shoes that Bobo agreed with Wendell Berry: the ability to do something is not reason enough to do it ("Preserving Wilderness" 517). My dad said that back in the 60s Bobo had a chance to double the size of his farm, but opted out despite the opportunit to also double his profits. Berry calls this “farming well” and says that knowing how to “preserve, harvest, and replenish... to make, build, and use, return and restore” will lead to a recovery of culture and nature (521). Bobo's unassuming intelligence and wisdom certainly belonged to a culture he had probably never contemplated. It was in him where I understood what Berry meant by these words.

We were back in the truck, feeling glad to have re-met Bobo Middleton.

“He lives the kind of life Wendell Berry wants us all to live,” I said to my dad.

“Yeah, well he was born into it.” True. Bobo never lived off of Middleton Farm. And it was quite clear that he never would. While he knew the frustrations, victories, secrets and politics of farming, he would never understand the intimidation and challenges a new farmer would experience. He'd never have to make an effort to get back to the land.

“So, does he know who's been bailing the hay?” Dad and I were both careful not to call the hay ours.

“Yeah. He's been doing it twice a year since we stopped doing it."

* * *

As we left Shelby County my mind was calmer, allowing me to look out the truck window and see. The old convenient store where my cousins and I ate ice cream sandwiches was still up and running, and aside from expected where-and-tear, it looked exactly the same. Lots of new houses punctuated the hillside, and just before the Shelby County border a new subdivision called “[Something] Springs” had only a few empty lots left. Suddenly the East End of Louisville wasn't pastoral enough for the sprawlers. Most of these people will or do commute to Louisville, and unlike my grandfather, they probably have no land to cultivate. But of course I can't pass judgment on the sprawlers. I couldn't tell the complete story of my return to St. Lo without admitting I want to live there. Standing on the highest hill of St. Lo, my dad looked at me and said “Someday this could be yours, Samantha.” This idea seemed to give my dad and me a feeling of completeness—or at least the feeling that things go on. Grandad's fight against PTSD, a battle lost. Dad's fight against prostate cancer, a battle won. My fight to hang on to memories of them both, not a battle at all.

Food?

It seems like we've been all inching our discussion towards the food industry for a couple weeks, and now that it's time, I don't even know where to start.

After watching Food Inc., visiting my family's abandoned farm, and reflecting on the things I already knew about our food culture, I just keep returning to one question: How in the world did all of this become okay? Michael Pollen asks a similar question: "How this peculiar state of affairs came to seem sensible is a question I spent my day at Poky trying to answer" (949). It is absolutely mind blowing how our food system has become so convoluted and, in a way over-complicated.

On of my first exposures to this food stuff was Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle. In this nonfiction book, Kingsolver and her family up and move from Tuscon, AZ because they are tired of having their food imported. Luckily for the Kingsolver crew, they own some land in WV (I think) and decide to live off of their own land and the neighboring farmer's markets. Although it's been about 3 years since I've read this great book, one of Kingsolver's arguments has vividly stuck with me. After exposing some aspects of industrial farming like those we've read about and watched this week, she says it's no wonder that kids don't like vegetables. By the time they get to our table, they are corrupted blobs of green goop (my words, not hers.) She even discusses how so many people are grossed out by the idea of soil/dirt being on their produce. It seems that our dirty system does everything possible to keep up an appearance of clean, almost sterile food. Is this because the consumer wants it this way?

Along these same lines, Schneider and Slow Food have an interesting perspective of the relationship between food and culture. Slow Food's definition of food as "a thoroughly cultural product linked to issues of quality, sustainability, biodiversity, and social justice" (385) really makes me wonder what our food says about us. The connection they make between food and social justice is really interesting and I wish I had read this earlier. I had my English 151 class read an essay about the role corporations play in American obesity; it touched on the concentration of fast food areas in poor neighborhoods and the masked nutritional and ecological risks involved with corporate/industrial food production. My students persistently argued that corporations don't shove the food down the throats of the obese. Am I wrong in (perhaps frustratedly) assuming that this is the typical perspective of American eaters--thinking that we have more control over what we eat than we really do? I'm thinking particularly of the scene in Food Inc. where they show several common products with genetically modified ingredients.

And finally, our texts also mention the connection between the consumer and the food market. Last week we talked about the role of the public--what can we really do? But it seems like we really do play a significant role in the food industry. I like how Food Inc. characterized our spending as a form of voting. If we stop buying processed food from Wal-Mart and go for the organic stuff, they'll sell more organic stuff. They'll become our Organic Supercenter. But really, is this any better? Is there such thing as a "good, clean, and fair" corporation? This is an honest question. If you had to choose between eating organic from a huge corporation or eating locally, what would you choose?

I'd also like to share part of The Persuaders from PBS. It's a film about the advertising industry. This French guy, Clotaire Rapaille, does some crazy market research for Fortune 500 companies and breaks "codes" that help them more effectively advertise to consumers. The clip is 20 minutes long, but fast forward to about 8:00 and watch for about one or two minutes. His discussion on American cheese (and his hand in the American SUV industry) is really telling. There's also some funny/interesting market research about white bread at the very beginning.

Talkin' the Talk: Ecospeak

Ok, I'm just going to jump right in here, so put on your scuba gear quickly. (I don't know what I mean by that.)

In Ecospeak, Killingsworth and Palmer argue that the terminology we use to talk about environmental issues eventually becomes too familiar, resulting in a flattening or hardening of meaning. Things get oversimplified, and terms/phrases/titles that carry heavy connotations eventually become tagged with some sort of stereotype or stripped-down version of what it use to mean. They cite the abortion controversy as suffering from this oversimplification; anymore the pro-life camp seems to exist solely to contradict the pro-choice stance and vice versa. The environmental language that has suffered this "strippage" is what Killingsworth and Palmer call ecospeak. So, it's got me thinking: How do we navigate the crowded room of ecospeak?

Oftentimes, environmental debates where each side has invested interest go nowhere, kind of like this:



Speaking to my moccasins in French would be productive. And if you're wondering what the GM guy had to say about this...




(PHEW! Thank GAIA I didn't wear my jacket with leather elbows today.)

I find it so striking that these videos (and the more general conversation they represent) depict the way ecospeak is used by various camps to display their severe distrust of other stances. Killingsworth and Palmer's diagrams (11,14) attempt to depict these relationships, but when I think about these debates being argued by real humans with real interests/values, it's evident that diagramming relationships is impossible. At first I was thinking of ecospeak in terms of Orwell's "Newspeak" in 1984, which Killingsworth and Palmer actually allude to; I thought of ecospeak as a voiceless, white-washed language that doesn't hold any real meaning. Environmentalist, for example, represents nothing more than a tree-hugger with a protest sign. But it's easy to forget about the emotions that charge such vocabulary usage. The GM guy was furious at the mere existence of *academic* environmentalists. (He really took a stab at us, didn't he? Especially at the "fuzzy haired" professor...) The environmentalist was appalled with the developmentalist (the GM guy). I guess what I'm saying is this: We use ecospeak to control our audiences or opponents by pegging them with a single identity (12), but how do we get around doing this when we're so emotionally attached to our cause and everyone seems to be playing their roles so nicely?

Another character in this soap-opera of environmental rhetoric is the public. Killingsworth and Palmer, and a few others who we read, note that ultimately the public's voice carries environmental issues to the government, where change can apparently occur. K&P suggest that it's our legislative demand and voting power that act as catalysts, but does anyone else think that
is idealizing the role of the public? For me it's always difficult to distinguish who determines public interest and values: the public, the government, or commercialism, or someone/thing else? With this in mind I found Cooper's take on the activist group Nature Conservancy interesting. Their characterization of themselves presents their mission as peaceful and free from the messy hands of the government, but as we know it's just not so simple.

The LOCAL and the local

Last week in class I mentioned something about whether or not the terms global and local are strictly limited to geography. I couldn't really vocalize it then, but after our class discussion and reading Heise, I realized that what I was trying to vocalize was the idea of scale and relevancy. Heise discusses in chapter three the problem of scale in the local: what is local can be as small as a corner of a room, or as big as a country (or bigger). So with the range of local being potentially huge, the implications of local in various (con)texts can lead to a greater understanding of what we mean when we say local.

For example, in Momaday's "A First American Views His Land" time seems play a integral role in the local, as we are given glimpses of sustenance spanning in time from Paleo-Indian survival to the Native American "conservationist" hunting. Momaday discusses the trust shared by land and humans of these times, suggesting both a timeliness and a timelessness of a relationship with the local. Also, a lot of the pieces we've read (Sanders and Berry come to mind) claim that a staying put is the only way to foster a sense of place--really we can only know the local. If we can only know the local, and as Momaday states, land is sacred in racial memory (580), then what is local certainly has the ability to be geographically distant, yet emotionally and mentally close.

For both hooks, what is local is/can be bodily. In "Touching the Earth" hooks, much like Momaday, recognizes feelings of locality in racial memory. However, she furthers this notion in her discussion of the connections between land (and displacement) with the body, stating, "Estrangement from nature and engagement in mind/body splits made it all the more possible for black people to internalize white-supremacist assumptions about black identity. Learning contempt for blackness, southerners transplanted in the north suffered both culture shock and soul loss" (106). Such a large scale displacement and diaspora as the one hooks discusses equates the idea of local with a collective and physical body. The further one becomes from the geographically local, the more estranged the bodily local becomes. In a foreign place, the body becomes foreign.

Local takes on a more common identity in Di Chiro's "Nature as Community: The Convergence of Environment and Social Justice"--that of the city/neighborhood. But when considering hooks' and Momaday's emphasis of the local as being bred in the bone, we realize that there's much more at stake in Environmental Justice activism than even human lives. A sense of individual and community identity is woven through the local, and poisoning the inhabitants means poisoning a race, a culture, a body.

So, hopefully this exemplifies my questioning of the local from last week, which was spurred initially by Berry's claim that "practice can only be local" ("Preserving the Wilderness" 518). If we open up our perception of what it means to be local, then maybe this statement is less absolute than we originally thought.

Also, I've been noticing how much of my favorite music employs ecocritical tropes. If you have a few minutes to listen to beautiful music and are curious about what goes through my head while I'm washing dishes, here you go; the lyrics end around the 3 minute mark:

(How can I make it so it doesn't cut off the video frame? It's the smallest YouTube embedding size available.)

Desperate Landscaping

While eating breakfast this morning, I was immediately struck by yet another piece of exquisite journalism on NBC's Today Show. Check out this clip on "Desperate Landscaping"-- an interesting representation of suburban toxicity and destruction:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Spirituality and Searching: Berry and Garrard

I mentioned in my last post and in class that I have been getting lost in the ideal of spirituality and nature, finding it difficult to draw lines between science, ecology, religion, and spirituality. Not that lines need to be drawn, but figuring out how these concepts interact with each other and reconcile or accentuate their differences is a personal mess I'm trying to muddle through. I guess you could call it spring cleaning.

So, not unexpectedly, Wendell Berry's "Preserving Wildness" got my ball rolling, especially when considering Garrard's characterization of Berry's sacred relationship with nature. As mentioned in my last post, I read Garrard as pretty much a blank slate. (I had read Berry before, but on a totally nonacademic, uncritical level, so I stand by my blank slate.) His discussion of Berry in "Dwelling" only stood out as an area where Christianity is dragged into the already-complicated mix of concepts in Ecocriticism. However, looking back I can't help but feel like Garrard is implying that Berry's Christian ecology (hmmm...could we call it that? Does that exist?) somehow makes his message easily dismissible. Maybe I feel this way because of Garrard's use of quotation marks, or the fact that he argues that Berry's "neo-Jeffersonian utopia" is, well, a neo-Jeffersonian utopia, thus an oppressive system where outsiders are, according to Garrard, "less human" than insiders. Essentially, I do not think Berry's work is exclusively guilty of such oppression; what ideology doesn't, in some way, consider outsiders to be less? In a way, a feminist regards a misogynist to be less human, right?

It seems as if Garrard is simply brushing aside Berry, characterizing him as just another white, Christian farmer who uses his Christian ideology to make sense of oppression.

Instead, I think Berry's incorporation of religion and ecology/agrarianism fosters a sense of equality. For instance, in "Preserving Wildness" Berry surveys the status of humans and nature: "It is a spiritual predicament, for it requires us to be properly humble and grateful; time and again, it asks us to be still and wait. But it is also a practical problem, for it requires us to do things" (518, emphasis in original). Here he is clearly pitting humans, that is everyone inside and outside of the farming/white/Christian communities, against something bigger like nature or god or whatever--not against each other. I see where his use of "properly" here may be somewhat problematic, suggesting some standard set by someone "in charge," but I also see a greater call of unity. Later, Berry's discussion of nature and human sameness and differences also unifies, noting the inherent similarities of all humans. (I have more to say about this, but for the sake of brevity I'll cut it short.)

Also, I'd like to hear thoughts on technology, ecology, and spirituality. Is technology always an opponent to a spiritual nature, as Berry sometimes suggests? (I thought Garrard's remark that Berry even opposes technology in agriculture is somewhat overblown, as Berry recognizes the inevitability of technology and constantly wrestles with ways in which to coexist with it. I mean, come on, the man drives a car.)

More to come on this...

Garrard and Ecocriticism

Plainly put, I think Garrard's Ecocriticism is a good place to start for someone who, like me, is new to a more formal, constructed study of ecology in English studies. Garrard's approach, or at least his goal, is to provide a horizontal snapshot of ecocriticism as a critical lens, as he provides a run-down of theoretical positions (ecofeminism, cornucopia, Heideggerian Ecophilosophy, deep Ecology, Eco-Marxism, etc.) to verse the reader on terminology and ideology. Garrard constructs this snapshot by using tropes, which act both as an organizational tool and a diving board of sorts. For example, the chapter/trope on "Dwelling" provides Garrard with a space in which to discuss the give-and-take relationship (or lack thereof) between humans and land. But, like the other tropes, "Dwelling" allows space for Garrard and ideally the reader to dive into the current discussion about Georgic Ecology (am I using this term correctly?) and the "Ecological Indian," using key figures, in this case Wendell Berry, John Berger, Kirkpatrick Sale, Leslie Marmon Silko, and Louise Erdrich, to propel the discussion of given topics. At the end of most chapters--all except "Animals" I think--Garrard problematizes the trope.

So, all in all, I felt exposed to new ideas and names in reading Ecocriticism, which is great. However, because I'm not well-versed in ecocriticism (yet), I feel vulnerable to Garrard. I have little to base his "facts" off of, and while he frequently criticizes oversimplification in various aspects of scientific approaches, I can't help but wonder if he's guilty of oversimplification with this text. Can the ideologies presented in "Positions" really be so easily divided and summed up as to fit nicely in Garrard's box? Do Garrard's dismissals and approvals fairly represent general consensus among ecocritics? Probably not.

Despite my feelings of vulnerability, I found a majority of Garrard's work to be a great spring board. From the first few pages onward I was amazed at the number of dimensions ecocriticism embodies. Religion, gender, class, capitalism, health, geography, sexuality, literature/humanities, science--the number of subjects and lenses associated with ecocriticism goes on. Although we're focusing on English studies in class, I think we should keep in mind the reach that ecocriticism truly has and the holistic values it encourages.

Here are a few specific questions/ideas:

• Garrard creates a lot of opposition within the eco-critic community, which made me wonder if these separations are over-shadowing the unified cause? Is there a unified cause at all?
  
• How does the consideration of time in elegy, idyll, and utopia change or represent the way we view time and the environment now? Do we feel like we're running out of time to "save" the environment?
  
• Do we gain anything from positing the old world pastoral against the new world idea of wilderness?
• What exactly is the back-to-the-land Maoist catastrophe Garrard refers to on pg. 115?
• Towards the end (page 151-ish) Garrard discusses the effects of nature documentaries on the general public's perception of nature. I'm intrigued by this idea in a way that's hard for me to solidify. Does it really matter if shows like Life or Planet Earth create Hi-Def, slowed down, sped up, saturated images of nature? Are these shows a celebration or commercialization of nature? And (how) do these effects, or more generally nature documentaries as a whole, change/shape/destroy/inhance/create our images of the pastoral/wilderness/dwelling/pollution/apocalypse/animals. Is that all we can really know of certain tropes?
• Are Christianity and Ecology inherently at odds as Garrard seems to suggest? The whole idea of religion, both monotheistic and polytheistic, really seems to complicate and be complicated by the environment. What can I/we make of this? I always looked at nature, especially the weird stuff, as a sign that there must be something in/up/out/down there to create such an intricate system. But Garrard gives me the feeling that a true ecologist/ecocritic values scientific beliefs over religious ones, which are admittedly human constructs that when interpreted literally are often ridiculous (to me). But where does spirituality fit in?
  

About Me

I am from Louisville, Kentucky--a place surprisingly urban that's constantly working to overcome not-always-insulting Kentucky stereotypes. Throughout my upbringing I spent a good amount of time outside the city visiting my grandfather's farm and hanging out with various uncles in various counties. Later I worked on my BA at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, and the two hour drive from home to school was like driving from the North to the South. Within a block radius of the university, meth-labs, pick-up trucks, and Confederate flags punctuated our otherwise typical college culture. I was a ballet student until my sophomore year, at which point I traded in my ballet shoes for books and became an English major.

Now, in Athens, Ohio I attend a university with a Union army monument--a welcomed contrast to the Confederate memorials dotted around Bowling Green, KY.