OPPapers.com

John Elder

In order to experience the true environment, one must immerse oneself within it. And in order to achieve total immersion, one must stay in isolation and commune only with nature. Or so it seems. Detachment is clearly a prevalent theme in nature writing, and understandably so. Detachment from the normal hubbub and obligations of everyday life allows one to focus and really "see" nature. There are a great number of environmental authorities who agree.
In A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold confronted nature on his own, examining trees, animals, and organisms while isolated to the point of thinking in natural time (weather, sun rise/set, etc.). In doing so, Leopold was able to observe seasons, animal migrations and rhythms, and study flora growth and decay. Like Leopold, John Muir also speculated the environment in solitude, trekking the Sierra accompanied only by his dog. Robert Frost, the author of Directive, writes, "But only with an inclusive perspective on the universal breakdown of organisms can one look past it to new life. Only by adopting a time-line…[of] whole forests may one draw the lesson home"(RMH 99) Frost accomplishes such a personal alchemy because he detaches himself from his community and watches the "changing surfaces of lives not his".
It is obvious that lone exploration into nature allows for a more complete focus and involvement with the environment. But therein lays a problem. What happens to the community and familial aspect of nature? There is meant to be a harmony or a ‘sense of home' in nature. In his book, Reading the Mountains of Home, John Elder opts to explore and discover nature alongside his family, rather than apart from them. Does this make him less of an authority on natural history, or make his observations less viable? Or rather, does his connection with family makes his expedition stronger because it includes the inevitable human factor within nature on earth.
To bring the idea of family and home to the forefront, John...