EcoEnglish--ENG 460

Let's face it. Cronon took Thoreau's ideas and laughed at it. He could not fathom that what the bible used to refer to nature, or anything that was not civilization, as barren or a wasteland, Thoreau could quickly call beautiful. The whole idea of making being within nature a religion just sounded silly to Cronon. I mean it is true that nature can be somewhat godly, but even in the bible, nature was not as beautifully described as Thoreau did it.

Also, this idea of "reclaiming the garden" that Cronon pointed out is just as futile as it sounds. I understand that it alludes to Adam and Eve's banishing from the Garden of Eden, but even so, it is useless to compare nature today to the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden was a paradise, set into a boundary of God Himself. I feel that no amount of comparison of today's nature can truly equal that. Also, when it came to the "retreat" into nature, Thoreau saw it as a religious revival. Cronon disagrees, saying that it was merely for recreation, not for religious enlightenment.

In the end, Cronon's views were more down earth than Thoreau's, whom I believe comes off as really tree-hugger sounding (pardon the bluntness). Cronon recognizes the beauty of nature, but he does not take it as far as Thoreau does.