Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Louv coda

Defending the author from an unfair review

Posted by David Roberts at 4:14 PM on 31 Mar 2006

Sorry for the egregious lack of blogging this week -- a bit swamped with other stuff. Once I get that clone in the mail next week things should pick up around here.

I thought twice about whether to post on this -- I don't make a practice of kvetching about our own content -- but I must say I found Naomi Schalit's review of Richard Louv's new book rather uncharitable. Crabby, even. Lamentable.

Of course the idea that it's good to get kids out into nature isn't going to come as a revelation to a committed environmentalist. The book isn't written for them. But I'd wager even plenty of parents who self-identify as environmentalists find themselves, and their kids, stuck inside way more than they'd like. They face the same problems other parents do: restrictive neighborhood covenants, sterile suburban development, litigiousness, TV and video game ubiquity, and media-driven fear of the danger kids face if left unsupervised. The structure of modern life exerts a pull indoors.

To parents just trying to get by -- not "environmentalists" -- it's not a simple thing to take a step back and question something fundamental about the way life is structured. When you're in the trenches, those kinds of things are invisible, taken for granted. Sometimes it takes somebody digging up that instinct, that intuition, and validating it: Yes, you're right, it really is bad that your kids never interact with nature. More importantly: Here's what you can do.

On one hand, Schalit seems to charge that Louv's thesis is so obvious it's not even worth writing about. But in the next breath she criticizes him for discriminating, in some sense, against those who are unable to get out into nature. "Louv virtually condemns the nature-deprived among us to lives of physical and mental deformation." (Incidentally, no he doesn't.) So which is it?

Particularly unfair is the review's charge that Louv reduces nature to a kind of instrumental value for kids -- makes them smarter, raises their test scores, whatnot. A whole chapter of the book is devoted to countering that impression, and indeed Schalit herself quotes him saying that "nature presents the young with something so much greater than they are; it offers an environment where they can easily contemplate infinity and eternity."

Anyway, I was sorry to see the book dismissed with such an antagonistic and shallow review. I'm sure it's happened before in our books section, and in book-review sections all over the world every day. But in this case I met the author and was entirely impressed, so I've taken a little umbrage.

When I scheduled the interview with Louv I expected to hear the sort of therapeutic psycho-babble one hears all the time these days, about how to further perfect our precious children. But -- and I don't know if this comes across in the interview, since we focused it on the book-related material -- I found Louv to have a solid big-picture grasp of the environmental situation. He understands that environmentalism begins with a sense of connection to nature, and that begins in nature. If the next generation is, as we ask them, going to remake virtually our entire civilization, they're going to need to be inspired and energized. And aside from that, there's a matter of spiritual impoverishment; too continuous an immersion in human affairs leads to pinched, narrow minds.

Louv has chosen to make a contribution not by writing a book full of scientific statistics and fear-drenched apocaphilia, -- lord knows there's no shortage of such tomes -- but by talking directly to parents about how to make themselves and their families happier and healthier. He's made environmentalism into a health issue, a values issue, a family issue. More environmentalists should be doing this, and they shouldn't face reflexive, condescending upturned noses when they try.

I don't know,

... all reviews pale in comparison to the classic: State of Fear.

A review without critique is not to be trusted and a reasonable sounding review like this one may actually get more people to read the book. I for one am now intrigued.

Attention deficit disorder is (I believe) simply the result of trapping children in mind-numbing classrooms all day. Some personalities just can't hack it. It has always existed since there have been classrooms--read Huck Finn. My wife (a physician) thinks the problem is that we now have a diagnosis, and worst of all, medications for it. There is little physical outlet for the poor things. They don't even get to walk to school anymore and many of them spend the entire day in pre and after school care as both parents work full days. It's a modern tragedy really. How parents can justify doing that to afford luxury cars is beyond me.

On the other hand, I agree with what you say here. Our house has become the focus for pre-school children in the immediate neighborhood. A day hardly goes by without kids and parents coming to look at our fishpond and visit our backyard to feed the rabbit and roosters. I hear their squeals as I sit here working on my computer. We have told them to feel free to visit anytime and even leave fish food out. I was warned that a pond would be a liability risk but built it anyway. I watched a little guy nose-dive into it one day. He seemed to enjoy the adventure, but his mom was a bit freaked. She keeps a grip on him now. My biggest problem is with dog owners who let their dogs swim in the pond and visit the rabbit and roosters. They are not welcome but seem to think that their dogs are just little people too and that really bothers me on several levels. The animal rights issue is totally separate from the biodiversity  issue. I wish people would stop confusing the two.

These children are being imprinted. It is in their genes to be thrilled by nature when young. Expose them to nature while those genes are still active and you will, if nothing else, give them warm childhood memories. They will also most likely vote green one day.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Canis familiaris

You are clearly doing excellent work, Biodiv, but please make sure the doggies are controlled, and you break no laws, and nobody, human or otherwise, gets hurt, so that your good work can go on.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks