Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
In The Fatal Environment, Richard Slotkin examines the way in which a national mythology, built up mostly through literature, contributed to Americans’ beliefs on what constitutes nature versus civilization. As Ian seemed to be driving at in the beginning of his post, Slotkin believes that lots of American literature glorifies as heroic the application of civilized values to the more dangerous, savage nature. For example, according to Slotkin, James Fenimore Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales, and their main character of Natty Bumpo, represent this theme. Specifically, he believes the character’s dealings with nature and with Native Americans (generally seen as a part of nature rather than civilization) are meant to assert the belief that Americans are entitled to self-government. (89)
My high school offered a mandatory class that blended the study of American literature and history in much the same way as Slotkin does in his book. We studied many classic works of American literature, including the Leatherstocking Tales, to look for certain veins of thought in the American consciousness. It was one of my favorite classes in high school and provided me with great experience in analyzing literature within its historical context. Like Slotkin, I would definitely agree that a work’s literary themes can reveal a lot about people’s thinking in its time. However, I believe the problem is that it is difficult to say the ideas reflected in literature could truly speak for all Americans’ thinking at any given time, and perhaps not even a majority. For example, it is difficult for us to know how many Americans ever read the Leatherstocking Tales. At the time of those books’ release, a significant amount of the American population (mostly non-elite) was not literate. As for those who could read, we cannot really know what percentage of them actually read those books. And, for those who did read them, who is to say that they understood and/or agreed with the books’ themes? Furthermore, it is a bit difficult to say that a handful of authors and newspaper writers had their hands on the pulse of the entire country’s consciousness—in fact, I would argue no one is capable of that. Literature is a great way of understanding the thinking of certain segments of the population, but it is difficult to say just how many people that applies to. In that way, I believe Slotkin opens himself up to some justified criticism.