It was, however, an easy storytime. I agree with the other post that mentioned that the author “writes as if she were talking”. I found it interesting to constrast this week’s reading to the previous one: Abbey wrote that “the personification of the natural is exactly the tendancy I wish to suppress in myself” while Williams described the relationship between man and nature as “erotic”. Two different viewpoints, it would seem. I think Williams is trying to make the case that the wilderness areas in Utah (and likely elsewhere) are more than just wilderness.
Anyways, the relevant discussion for our purposes is likely to be about what should be done with these areas. They represent an in-between; not really protected, but not really developed either. Sadly, the utopia that Williams described early in the book about a time when wild lands would no longer need protection is one that I think is fundamentally incompatible with a market-driven capitalistic economy and country, but maybe I’m too pessimistic. On a side note, if you a) were particularly moved by this week’s reading and b) adhere to the notion that “signing” and online petition will generate actual change in the world, you might be interested in this link.