Forests: The Shadow of Civilization

Rating:
Summary: An important work with appeal to several fields
Review: Although this is clearly a work in literary criticism, it is one that will appeal to those working in other areas. For instance, those working on Environmental Ethics will find a great deal of very information about how forests have been conceived in a great deal of the literature of the greater European world throughout history. Intellectual historians with an interest in how Europeans have conceived nature as a whole will find a great deal to interest them in this book that deals with forests in particular. But the primary audience is students of literature.

The narrative of the book runs chronologically to the dawn of written history to Frank Lloyd Wright, though the vast majority of figures discusses are writers, and of those primarily writers of nonfictional literature. Harrison discusses an immense range of writers and works, from the EPIC OF GILGAMESH to Chaucer to Dante to Shakespeare to Descartes to Rousseau to Wordsworth to the Brothers Grimm to Thoreau. Although Harrison's prose style is not exhilarating, I never found the book to be less than interesting.

Whether someone will find this interesting will depend on whether they want to know more about the way that forests have been conceived in European history. At various periods of time they have been view as scared, as dark places of fear, as resources for human exploitation, or as ecosystems valuable in their own right. Harrison does not touch upon all these aspects, but I don't think anyone interested in Western attitudes towards nature could help but find this book to be of the greatest help.

Rating:
Summary: An important work with appeal to several fields
Review: Although this is clearly a work in literary criticism, it is one that will appeal to those working in other areas. For instance, those working on Environmental Ethics will find a great deal of very information about how forests have been conceived in a great deal of the literature of the greater European world throughout history. Intellectual historians with an interest in how Europeans have conceived nature as a whole will find a great deal to interest them in this book that deals with forests in particular. But the primary audience is students of literature.

The narrative of the book runs chronologically to the dawn of written history to Frank Lloyd Wright, though the vast majority of figures discusses are writers, and of those primarily writers of nonfictional literature. Harrison discusses an immense range of writers and works, from the EPIC OF GILGAMESH to Chaucer to Dante to Shakespeare to Descartes to Rousseau to Wordsworth to the Brothers Grimm to Thoreau. Although Harrison's prose style is not exhilarating, I never found the book to be less than interesting.

Whether someone will find this interesting will depend on whether they want to know more about the way that forests have been conceived in European history. At various periods of time they have been view as scared, as dark places of fear, as resources for human exploitation, or as ecosystems valuable in their own right. Harrison does not touch upon all these aspects, but I don't think anyone interested in Western attitudes towards nature could help but find this book to be of the greatest help.

Rating:
Summary: Link between culture and action by society?
Review: Harrison explains that he is writing a "a physic history from which empirical history derives its inspiration." It is a history of the place of forests in the western psyche. For example, Harrison writes, "But why should forests haunt the mind like some mystical dream or nightmare that every now and then spreads its long, prehisotrical shadows over the ordinary clarity of things modern? On the basis of what "data of prehistory,"...does the forest become dense with associations and monstrous fears?"

His meta narrative is as follows: "Civilization define[s] itself at the outset over and against the forests." There has always been an antagonism between human culture centers and forests. Forests are a huge part of today's cultural memory.

His method is to scan works of culture, namely literature, for expressions of an attitude towards forests. His "ages" include your basic Greeks, Romans, medieval, Renaissance/humanism, Enlightenment, Romanticism, Modernity.

Criticisms: Frequently looks at a bit of literature and concludes "forests were..." or "forests were becoming..." Harrison doesn't make explicit to whom they were "becoming..." That is, he is not too critical about the authors of his sources or the nature of their audiences. Did the limited reading audiences cut down the trees? If not, what were the concrete mechanisms of deforestation? He writes, here is the attitude, then, here is the scope of deforestation, there's no connection in between.
Harrison also has little respect for chronology; for example, Moses becomes an example of the medieval mindset.

Rating:
Summary: Link between culture and action by society?
Review: Harrison explains that he is writing a "a physic history from which empirical history derives its inspiration." It is a history of the place of forests in the western psyche. For example, Harrison writes, "But why should forests haunt the mind like some mystical dream or nightmare that every now and then spreads its long, prehisotrical shadows over the ordinary clarity of things modern? On the basis of what "data of prehistory,"...does the forest become dense with associations and monstrous fears?"

His meta narrative is as follows: "Civilization define[s] itself at the outset over and against the forests." There has always been an antagonism between human culture centers and forests. Forests are a huge part of today's cultural memory.

His method is to scan works of culture, namely literature, for expressions of an attitude towards forests. His "ages" include your basic Greeks, Romans, medieval, Renaissance/humanism, Enlightenment, Romanticism, Modernity.

Criticisms: Frequently looks at a bit of literature and concludes "forests were..." or "forests were becoming..." Harrison doesn't make explicit to whom they were "becoming..." That is, he is not too critical about the authors of his sources or the nature of their audiences. Did the limited reading audiences cut down the trees? If not, what were the concrete mechanisms of deforestation? He writes, here is the attitude, then, here is the scope of deforestation, there's no connection in between.
Harrison also has little respect for chronology; for example, Moses becomes an example of the medieval mindset.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful and impressive, but quite a reading to tackle
Review: I was assigned portions of "Forests" for a research writing class. The writing is just beautiful; the work as a whole is nearly overwhelming. The discussion on Walden in the fifth chapter is not to be missed. Overall an incredible example of literary criticism, almost out of place among current literature, but much welcomed and thoroughly appreciated.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful and impressive, but quite a reading to tackle
Review: I was assigned portions of "Forests" for a research writing class. The writing is just beautiful; the work as a whole is nearly overwhelming. The discussion on Walden in the fifth chapter is not to be missed. Overall an incredible example of literary criticism, almost out of place among current literature, but much welcomed and thoroughly appreciated.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful and impressive, but quite a reading to tackle
Review: I was assigned portions of "Forests" for a research writing class. The writing is just beautiful; the work as a whole is nearly overwhelming. The discussion on Walden in the fifth chapter is not to be missed. Overall an incredible example of literary criticism, almost out of place among current literature, but much welcomed and thoroughly appreciated.

Rating:
Summary: luminous
Review: My old Cambridge tutor said that the only works of modern literary criticism he'd sell his shirt for were *Seven Types of Ambiguity* and *The Wheel of Fire*. For a long time I agreed. Then I read *Forests*. It is quite simply the most profound, the most moving, the best-written, the most important work of literary criticism of the late twentieth century.

Rating:
Summary: luminous
Review: My old Cambridge tutor said that the only works of modern literary criticism he'd sell his shirt for were *Seven Types of Ambiguity* and *The Wheel of Fire*. For a long time I agreed. Then I read *Forests*. It is quite simply the most profound, the most moving, the best-written, the most important work of literary criticism of the late twentieth century.