Welcome to University of Alaska Southeast's blog for the 2012 One Campus One Book selection, Karsten Heuer's Being Caribou. Whether you're a student, faculty, staff, or community member, please feel welcome to comment on the posts here, or send an email to sjray@uas.alaska.edu if you'd like to write your own post!
Search This Blog
Loading...
Sunday, October 28, 2012
ENGL 423: Ecocriticism Blog Posts
This post is where students from Sarah Jaquette Ray's Ecocriticism class will write responses to Being Caribou. Feel free to reply!
And check out what those students are doing on the main class blog-- http://uasecocriticism.blogspot.com.
Sammy Wow! I almost read straight through this book! Karsten and Leanne went on such an adventure, one that I could totally see myself going on in the future. Out of all the chapters in the book the one that I can’t stop thinking about is Kaktovik. In general I was somewhat surprised at their decision to head into Kaktovik for several reasons; first Karsten had just begun talking about how they had finally found their rhythm again along with the thrumming of the caribou; and second they had spoken of their reservations about going to a place where they knew a majority of the local population supported oil exploration/development in the 1002 area. The entire time reading this chapter I was just waiting for Leanne to get into some kind of argument with the local people. For me this chapter was a little distracting because all I wanted them to do was return to the Caribou, I was so nervous that they were going to miss the calving all on behalf of a few greasy burgers! This chapter was the first time where I feel he began to get outright political. It is where he begins to offer his critique of people who support the oil drilling and what that would mean for the caribou. Does he need this juxtaposition of him and Leanne vs. the oil supporters in an Inupiat village in order to do this? Why does he not start to really get into the politics behind his trip until he heads to Kaktovik? In one of his journals while in Kaktovik he states, “I don’t know who or what to believe anymore. Nothing is as straightforward or openly honest as it was with the Caribou.” I loved their journey and I think that it is one that is very important as far as human powered travel and experience being a form of activism, however I can’t help but think of all of things that are missing from their perspective in relation to the people who are living in Kaktovik. Heuers answer to this question seems to be tourism (119)? But doesn’t tourism have it’s own impacts to a place? Is this really a better answer?
Like Sammy, the “Kaktovik” chapter also struck me. Though, I am not certain that Heuer was advocating for a turn to polar bear eco-tourism to save the caribou. To me, it seemed that this was a reaction to the very difficult question “if not gas and oil, then what’s it going to be” (119), that represented what was immediately present to Heuer – sensorially and mentally – during his time in Kaktovik. Should this be taken to represent a normative claim for what should be done? I would probably have been so mentally and physically fatigued in his situation that simply understanding that question would have been a grand achievement. I am excited to watch the film, and hopefully see them in person, to hear what they advocate for. I do not think that eco-tourism in Kaktovik is a friendly alternative to drilling 1002, but I shouldn’t let myself get too broad. It was refreshing to read a very concretely situated piece, more along the lines of nature writing than ecocriticism, because it made me realize how often I revert to ecocentric utilitarian thinking: “drilling 1002 will impact people and caribou, among many other species, but traveling to Kaktovik – as I have done – requires A LOT of fossil fuel. Hmmm, how can the happiness of all of Nature be maximized and suffering minimized? We have to always think about many other implications.” Being Caribou has helped me try to rethink my ecocritical approach, not by looking at more localized phenomena as isolated and issues-in-themselves, but by knowing that my method is prone to be flawed. This is where it becomes increasingly tricky. Either I evade the issue by thinking too broadly and letting the topic dissolve into abstraction, or I evade the issue by spending more time on the fallacies within my approach than on the issue-at-hand. Maybe I am not any better off after all. I thought that this was a beautifully written story that moved like liquid. There was always a wave of sorts, whether it was the movement of the narrative or the description of caribou herds, it all had a rhythmic quality that carried through to the end.
I really enjoyed reading this book and moved by what they have done to tell the true story about wildlife and native people in AK and Canada. I haven't done such a big trip like them, but I could imagine how hard traveling and camping those places are for such a long time, so that sometimes I could see how stressful they were from their conversations, I really enjoyed reading those because I understand some of them as an outdoor person. I also liked how they described and compare themselves and caribou when they spent many times and truing to be caribou, "The poles still flex, the tent still pops, but instead of a life or death situation, the caribou reminds us, it is just another day." The most interesting part for me was a part when he explains the difference between what he has seen during his trip and what we experienced after the trip in the Capital city of US. When they visited senators and congressmen, they only allowed speaking 5 minutes about their 5 month trip to the aid and what she said after hearing their story was “That sounds like a wonderful trip.” I think it illustrates that we are, especially people who live in urban areas are very far from wildlife and the life and culture of native people both geographically and also mentally. I don’t think people who make big decisions about developing oil and gas in Arctic area don’t know much about caribou and other wildlife, and those animals are important for native people as a food source, so that they don’t care about those things. Therefore making movie and writing book about it was great way to awaken those people’s mind and take action. “Time will tell, I suppose, but unfortunately time is running out.” He also mentioned many times in his book that we don’t have much time, because it seems the development starts soon and it really affects caribou’s migration and many other wildlife and native people. I am really excited watching movie soon, and as an outdoor person and photographer, I really want to go places they had visited and see caribou migration near the future.
I like how this book comes from the perspective of a scientist but in a novelistic narrative form. Being Caribou is the story of an adventurous journey following the migrating of Caribou in the Yukon – launched by a desire to protect the land that the Caribou are crossing and to fight for the lives of the Caribou as well. I get a huge sense of ‘activism’, merely because of the reasons why the journey began and what it is the author/journeyer is attempting to prove or say. I also think that this book gives us a nice break from the Ecological Indian – in that at the beginning we hear from a Native man about the connection – deep connection – to the land and the pattern of migration of the Caribou, as well as the Caribou themselves, and then the two white people that carry on the journey end up receiving and building that same connection. While these journeyers aren’t necessarily able to speak for the Caribou, they speak so wonderfully about them and with them. Is the voice of the one that ‘walks’ beside nature an acceptable enough voice of nature, or do we need something more? In other words – is it wrong to try to speak for an aspect of nature that cant really be spoken for in general – but, at least we try to recognize, identify, and share the best we can….is this technique detrimental or is it way to slowly learn and understand natures voice in general – by practicing to listen and to record then repeat to the best of our ability what we learned there? I think this book does a good job of showing the ways in which we cant necessarily be natures sole voice, but that we can learn to walk beside nature to learn what nature is genuinely like – which I think can further help to build what might be a possible attempt to have a voice – some kind of representation whether we are scientist or not. What do you think? Does this book seem like a good path to take to help support natures voice, and needs or is it just another way that man thinks he is helping but merely gets in the way and stifles the voice yet again?
Sammy
ReplyDeleteWow! I almost read straight through this book! Karsten and Leanne went on such an adventure, one that I could totally see myself going on in the future. Out of all the chapters in the book the one that I can’t stop thinking about is Kaktovik. In general I was somewhat surprised at their decision to head into Kaktovik for several reasons; first Karsten had just begun talking about how they had finally found their rhythm again along with the thrumming of the caribou; and second they had spoken of their reservations about going to a place where they knew a majority of the local population supported oil exploration/development in the 1002 area. The entire time reading this chapter I was just waiting for Leanne to get into some kind of argument with the local people. For me this chapter was a little distracting because all I wanted them to do was return to the Caribou, I was so nervous that they were going to miss the calving all on behalf of a few greasy burgers! This chapter was the first time where I feel he began to get outright political. It is where he begins to offer his critique of people who support the oil drilling and what that would mean for the caribou. Does he need this juxtaposition of him and Leanne vs. the oil supporters in an Inupiat village in order to do this? Why does he not start to really get into the politics behind his trip until he heads to Kaktovik? In one of his journals while in Kaktovik he states, “I don’t know who or what to believe anymore. Nothing is as straightforward or openly honest as it was with the Caribou.” I loved their journey and I think that it is one that is very important as far as human powered travel and experience being a form of activism, however I can’t help but think of all of things that are missing from their perspective in relation to the people who are living in Kaktovik. Heuers answer to this question seems to be tourism (119)? But doesn’t tourism have it’s own impacts to a place? Is this really a better answer?
Like Sammy, the “Kaktovik” chapter also struck me. Though, I am not certain that Heuer was advocating for a turn to polar bear eco-tourism to save the caribou. To me, it seemed that this was a reaction to the very difficult question “if not gas and oil, then what’s it going to be” (119), that represented what was immediately present to Heuer – sensorially and mentally – during his time in Kaktovik. Should this be taken to represent a normative claim for what should be done? I would probably have been so mentally and physically fatigued in his situation that simply understanding that question would have been a grand achievement. I am excited to watch the film, and hopefully see them in person, to hear what they advocate for.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that eco-tourism in Kaktovik is a friendly alternative to drilling 1002, but I shouldn’t let myself get too broad. It was refreshing to read a very concretely situated piece, more along the lines of nature writing than ecocriticism, because it made me realize how often I revert to ecocentric utilitarian thinking: “drilling 1002 will impact people and caribou, among many other species, but traveling to Kaktovik – as I have done – requires A LOT of fossil fuel. Hmmm, how can the happiness of all of Nature be maximized and suffering minimized? We have to always think about many other implications.”
Being Caribou has helped me try to rethink my ecocritical approach, not by looking at more localized phenomena as isolated and issues-in-themselves, but by knowing that my method is prone to be flawed. This is where it becomes increasingly tricky. Either I evade the issue by thinking too broadly and letting the topic dissolve into abstraction, or I evade the issue by spending more time on the fallacies within my approach than on the issue-at-hand. Maybe I am not any better off after all. I thought that this was a beautifully written story that moved like liquid. There was always a wave of sorts, whether it was the movement of the narrative or the description of caribou herds, it all had a rhythmic quality that carried through to the end.
Love these comments, keep 'em coming!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this book and moved by what they have done to tell the true story about wildlife and native people in AK and Canada. I haven't done such a big trip like them, but I could imagine how hard traveling and camping those places are for such a long time, so that sometimes I could see how stressful they were from their conversations, I really enjoyed reading those because I understand some of them as an outdoor person. I also liked how they described and compare themselves and caribou when they spent many times and truing to be caribou, "The poles still flex, the tent still pops, but instead of a life or death situation, the caribou reminds us, it is just another day." The most interesting part for me was a part when he explains the difference between what he has seen during his trip and what we experienced after the trip in the Capital city of US. When they visited senators and congressmen, they only allowed speaking 5 minutes about their 5 month trip to the aid and what she said after hearing their story was “That sounds like a wonderful trip.” I think it illustrates that we are, especially people who live in urban areas are very far from wildlife and the life and culture of native people both geographically and also mentally. I don’t think people who make big decisions about developing oil and gas in Arctic area don’t know much about caribou and other wildlife, and those animals are important for native people as a food source, so that they don’t care about those things. Therefore making movie and writing book about it was great way to awaken those people’s mind and take action. “Time will tell, I suppose, but unfortunately time is running out.” He also mentioned many times in his book that we don’t have much time, because it seems the development starts soon and it really affects caribou’s migration and many other wildlife and native people. I am really excited watching movie soon, and as an outdoor person and photographer, I really want to go places they had visited and see caribou migration near the future.
ReplyDeleteI like how this book comes from the perspective of a scientist but in a novelistic narrative form. Being Caribou is the story of an adventurous journey following the migrating of Caribou in the Yukon – launched by a desire to protect the land that the Caribou are crossing and to fight for the lives of the Caribou as well. I get a huge sense of ‘activism’, merely because of the reasons why the journey began and what it is the author/journeyer is attempting to prove or say. I also think that this book gives us a nice break from the Ecological Indian – in that at the beginning we hear from a Native man about the connection – deep connection – to the land and the pattern of migration of the Caribou, as well as the Caribou themselves, and then the two white people that carry on the journey end up receiving and building that same connection. While these journeyers aren’t necessarily able to speak for the Caribou, they speak so wonderfully about them and with them. Is the voice of the one that ‘walks’ beside nature an acceptable enough voice of nature, or do we need something more? In other words – is it wrong to try to speak for an aspect of nature that cant really be spoken for in general – but, at least we try to recognize, identify, and share the best we can….is this technique detrimental or is it way to slowly learn and understand natures voice in general – by practicing to listen and to record then repeat to the best of our ability what we learned there? I think this book does a good job of showing the ways in which we cant necessarily be natures sole voice, but that we can learn to walk beside nature to learn what nature is genuinely like – which I think can further help to build what might be a possible attempt to have a voice – some kind of representation whether we are scientist or not. What do you think? Does this book seem like a good path to take to help support natures voice, and needs or is it just another way that man thinks he is helping but merely gets in the way and stifles the voice yet again?
ReplyDelete