Wilderness Mini-Conference schedule

Per our discussion tonight, here's the panels/sequence of presentations for the next two weeks.

Wednesday November 27
5:30-7:00 PANEL 1: Ariel, Brittney, Alex, Blake
7:15-8:30 PANEL 2: Jesse, Carty, Phil

Wednesday December 4
5:30-7:00 PANEL 3: Leah, Mike, Florence, Chris
7:15-8:30 PANEL 4: Chelsea, Ellen, Nick, Gina

Please post your title in the comments section here.

You have 10-12 minutes to present your ideas, which translates to about 5-6 pages of written text if you plan to read.  I've pasted below the suggestions from the handout from last week, in case they are useful.

Sometime before the end of the semester, you also need to compile your blogs posts into a single document and include a paragraph-long self-evaluation of your work for the assignment. Additionally, I am requesting that you do a self-evaluation of your two presentations, following the format from the paper I distributed in class tonight. For your reference, I've also pasted that below.  

English 418 The Wilderness Act at 50:  Conference Paper Guidelines

The conference paper genre is unique.  How you frame your delivery when speaking to an audience for 10 minutes is different from having an audience silently reading for the same amount of time.  What does this mean? 

1.    First, and most notably: your paper should be written to be heard, not read.  Think about how the words will sound, which punctuation marks will translate, how long a listener can keep an idea in mind, how to mark transitions so a listener will follow your reasoning.

2.     Given that your audience won't be able to look back at what you said earlier, it is especially important to keep the essay focused. 

3.    Structure of argument: You can start small and point to a larger context, or the other way around.  But remember that it's best to focus on single ideas that an audience can follow.  I find the question/answer format to be really helpful.

    

4.    If you are finding that you have too much to say, remember that it is sometimes better to be provocative rather than definitive or thorough.  Conferences in the humanities are intended to explore works in progress, so feel free to raise questions and posit possible answers, but don’t get bogged down in the details of your argument. This might also mean dispensing with the literature review (or with the careful exploration of long arguments others have made). A good rule of thumb is to limit the number of scholars you cite, and when you have to cite, it is often better to suggest a debate rather than summarize specific positions.

5.    Read your paper out loud several times before the presentation.  This helps with timing (use a stopwatch!), syntax emphasis, flow, rhythm, breaking down complex sentences, etc.  You don't want to stumble over your own words!

6.    You can provide meta-commentary for what you’re doing (i.e. “I will look at these three examples to illustrate my claim that…” Or, “I just argued X, Y, and Z.”) This kind of meta-commentary is often considered “throat-clearing” in scholarly writing, but can help when you’re reading aloud.  On the other hand, don’t feel you need to do this if your logic is clear and you practice reading aloud.

7.    If you’re not planning a 5-page scholarly paper meant to be read, you need to plan your time even more carefully. Practice your talk with your other materials, whether they be Power Point slides, photographs, or maps.  Your talk should still be 10 minutes, but remember visuals add another element of complexity in presentation.  The audience needs enough time to digest the visuals, and your verbal commentary should remain the primary focus.  That is, be clear about what you’re showing the audience, and what they should notice or make of the visuals. Don’t leave digesting the visuals up to the audience. 

_________________________________________

Presentation Self Evaluations

Student: ___________________________________________________________________

1.     Discussion leading panel for class session on _________________________

a. describe your work in preparation for the “panel” as well as how things went in class. 

b. List one thing that went well and one thing you would do different. 

i.               success:

ii.              could have gone better:

c. Recommended grade for your part of the panel________

2.     Wilderness Case study presentation on ____________________

a. describe your approach to the assignment (the choice of your place, the research, and the presentation)

b. List one thing that went well and one thing you would do different. 

i.               success:

ii.              could have gone better:

c. Recommended grade for your place presentation________

This evening's plan...

Apologies for the late post here, but I wanted to remind everyone of the plan.  Per our democratic decision last week, we will plan to spend the evening reading each other's essays, so please bring whatever you have in duplicate.  Ideally, you will have 5-6 pages of either your final seminar paper or of your conference presentation for next week. Please also bring your critical thinking skills and be prepared to read drafts and offer good constructive feedback.

In addition to peer review, we will set the schedule for presentations in the next weeks and go over the guidelines again, too.

Until this evening, happy writing,

Kevin

Rambunctious Gardens

As our last reading assignment before turning to our presentations and papers in earnest, my hope is that Rambunctious Garden will help you think about your research project.  (As we discussed in class, everyone will read the first two chapters, and chapters 9 and 10, choosing two of the remaining chapters that seem interesting or useful for your project).  Feel free to use your question and short response to the reading as a place to work out ideas for your paper.  Emma Marris, the author of the book, will Skype in to answer questions for 30 minutes or so during class, so you could also use the blog post as a way to think about what you'd like to ask her.

As a reminder:  Blake, Nick, Ellen, Ariel, Florence, Jesse, and Chelsea have volunteered to present their work on November 20, with everyone else presenting on the 27th.  I will go over strategies for writing a good presentation in class on Wednesday.

Until Wednesday!

Kevin

PS Don't forget to bring two copies of the first few pages of your first draft of your essay!  Outlines are OK, but the more you have, the more feedback you'll get.

Shadows on the Koykuk

For next week, we'll read Sidney Huntington's classic memoir, Shadows on the Koyukuk.  Per our decision last night, please read as much of the book as you can. I think you'll find it compelling.  In keeping with the trend of discussing a scholarly text one week, and a more literary text the next, my hope is that it will be an easier one to work through, and that we might all make it to conclusion.  

Before we discuss Huntington, however, we will return to Thornton for a bit, working through a bit more of his argument than we were able to last night.  In particular, we will use this classic William Paul speech to return to the questions many of you posed here on the blog last week.  If you weren't in class to get the handout, here's a link to the text of the short speech.  http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ancsa/testimony/afn_paul/we_own_the_land.htm

Finally, don't forget to work on your annotated bibliography for next week.  Looking forward to seeing where you are going with your papers.  As always, feel free to contact me with questions, concerns, or laments.

Until Wednesday...

Kevin

Being and Place Among the Tlingit

Thanks for a good--albeit sometimes bizarre and tangential--conversation about Durbin's book tonight.  I still haven't recovered from the awfully embarrassing vanishing e-mail that clarified last-week's burdensome reading assignment, so, again, apologies.    

In any case, per the plan announced in class tonight, here's how we will approach Thornton's book this week.  

Everyone will read the first two chapters, and the last chapter.   Chelsea, Florence, Alex, Brittney, Blake, Leah, Sarah, and Michael will read chapter three, reporting to the class on the contents; while Ellen, Gina, Phil, Carty, Chris, Ariel, Nick, and Jesse will read chapter four.  As we discussed, the book is dense at times, but there's a lot of really important stuff here.  In particular, in light of our robust critique of Durbin's sometimes too-simple narrative about Southeast Alaska's recent history--and in particular her treatment of ANSCA and Native Corporations--Thornton's book will offer an important counter narrative.  He's not really responding to Durbin or any of her questions, I should clarify, but the book highlights what's at issue in Southeast Alaska land debates, and will help us think more carefully and critically about the legacy of wilderness ideas.  I look forward to your questions and comments in the comments here, and to our discussion next week. 

Until next Wednesday,

Kevin

PS As I don't trust UAS Online anymore, I'm posting a copy of the handout detailing important paper dates here:  

SEMINAR PAPER DETAILS

English 418: The Wilderness Act at 50

Per the description on the syllabus, your 12-15 page seminar paper may be about any text(s) we've read for class and/or any topic related to wilderness that you find interesting. It should be informed by your careful reading of key secondary materials, but you should use these secondary sources as a means to enter into an ongoing scholarly conversation surrounding the text or issue you choose rather than as "support" for your position.

Here are some of the steps that will make this paper process more productive. 

Wednesday Oct 30.  Prospectus. (optional, but HIGHLY recommended)

The prospectus should be a very quick (no more than a page in length) summary of what you imagine will be the main points of your paper.  It should gesture toward a scholarly conversation you imagine you might enter, noting the key questions at issue surrounding your text.  It should also indicate your position, and outline or hint at some of the textual evidence you might use to defend your position. 

 Wednesday Nov 6.  Annotated Bibliography.

The annotated bibliography should include a mostly complete bibliography with at least 4 secondary texts (properly formatted following MLA style guidelines); 2 items in this bibliography should be annotated.  These annotations must be no longer than 150 words and should contain:  a clear articulation of the argument of the essay or book, a brief explanation of this argument, and a quick sentence or two that explains its relevance to your own argument.  (As a point of reference this paragraph contains 85 words—concision is key). 

Wednesday Nov 13.  Preliminary Draft.

After discussion, we will complete a peer review workshop of your papers.  You should have at least 3 pages written for this workshop.  

Wednesday Nov 20 and 27.  Wilderness Conference.  

There will be more details distributed in class, but as described in the syllabus, you will give a 12-minute conference presentation on one of these days.  Your presentation should be a preview of the seminar paper you will complete in the following weeks.  You will also submit a 5-6 page paper with your presentation.

Wednesday Dec 4.  Full draft workshop.

Entire session will be dedicated to a peer review workshop of your papers.  You should have at least 9 pages.    

Wednesday Dec 11. Final paper due

Please bring the final version of your paper with the prospectus,

annotated bibliography, and peer review drafts for final submission.

Tongass

Given the lackluster attendance last week and the fact that nobody finished the reading assignment, my hope is that Durbin's book is a little easier to get through than the more academic articles from last week.  I'm working through it, but it's taking longer than I expected for me to read.

So here's a solution (that I hope isn't coming too late!):

Let's all read the first section, "Part 1: To 1980"; everyone will also read the "Epilogue" and "Five Years After: An Update."  Let's then divide and conquer.

Chelsea, Florence, Alex, Brittney, Blake, Leah, Sarah, and Michael will read "Part II: 1980-1990."   While Ellen, Gina, Phil, Carty, Chris, Ariel, Nick, and Jesse will read Part III: After 1990."  The project in class, then, will be to have each group report back on the key points of each section, so please take some notes and be ready to help your classmates through the section they didn't read.  If this presents problems--like maybe you've already read the entire book!--just drop me an e-mail.

Remember, also, to bring your research question for your final paper to class.  You won't be wedded to the idea you suggest, but the more refined your question, the the more help you'll be able to get, so spend a bit of time thinking about the direction of your final paper this week, too. I have office hours on Tuesday from 3-4:30 if you want to talk about your project.

 Until Wednesday,

Kevin

Wilderness Arguments, Wilderness Critiques

Yosemite Traffic Jam

Thanks for a really good discussion last night.  As I mentioned, I didn't expect to spend so much time talking about gender, but it was a really important conversation--so thanks to Leah for framing the question so eloquently, and thanks to everyone for engaging it so carefully.  

My hope is that this week's readings will not only lead to similar conversations, but that they might be particularly useful as you begin to formulate your seminar paper topics, too.

To that end, as promised, I've photocopied the Nelson, Guha, Cronon, and Plumwood essays and placed them in the box outside my office door.  I have also posted a .pdf of them on the course website, if that is more convenient.

I look forward to hearing what you think about the essays.

In the meantime, let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns.

Kevin

Kerouac questions...

Hope you've having fun with Kerouac this week--the book is more, uh,  far out than I remember it being, but an interesting cultural document nonetheless.  Looking forward to talking about it with you...

Per our usual routine, post your question and 12-minute answer in the comments here.

See you Wednesday,

Kevin

Key Places: Glacier Bay, Glacier, and ANWR...

Apologies for the delay in getting this post up; the week slipped away from me.

The reading assignment this week is to read the photocopied packet I distributed in class, therein you will first find two anthropological essays. As I mentioned last week, if you are pressed for time, you can skip all the "comments" to the first essay in the packet, Hunn's "Huna Tlingit Traditional Environmental Knowledge, Conservation, and the Management of a 'Wilderness' Park," but be sure to read the essay itself as well as the Dombrowski essay.  The third reading is a chapter from Louis Warren's 1997 book The Hunter's Game entitled "Blackfeet and Boundaries at Glacier National Park," and finally read the short selections from Jonathan Waterman's 2013 book Northern Exposures.  

Wednesday's class will take a slightly different format, as we will begin with a short presentation and discussion with Chris Behnke, a UAF graduate student working on a thesis exploring management conflicts in Glacier Bay National Park.  We will have a bit of time for our own discussion, and then we will conclude class with a visit from Jon Waterman, who is in town to promote the book we are reading selections from.  While Behnke will make a short presentation and lead us through a discussion of the first two anthropological articles, we should be prepared to ask him questions.  For Waterman's visit, we will need to ask the questions, so please think of things you may want to ask him about the readings in the packet.  Waterman is also giving a public lecture Thursday evening (details are here).

See you Wednesday!

Kevin

PS I'll bring page 81 from the Waterman book to class on Wednesday... sorry for the omission!

McPhee and Brower

After two weeks of history we will turn to a bit of literature--or at least some literary non-fiction.  I hope you have fun with John McPhee's breezy portrait of the the fellow leading the charge here.  I'll let you read without too much set-up, but I do want to say that if Robert Wernick's arguments in "Let's Spoil the Wilderness" weren't persuasive for you, I suspect a few of the interlocutors McPhee finds for David Brower will develop some rebuttals to the wilderness idea you might find compelling.

You are welcome to read the entire book, but we will focus on sections 1 and 3.  As per the usual routine, post your questions and meditations in the comments here--and don't hesitate to e-mail with any questions, comments or concerns.

Until Wednesday,

Kevin

Week Two: Roderick Nash's Wilderness and the American Mind

Following Carolyn Merchant's lead, we spent considerable time reading this famous John Gast painting tonight.  I hope you had as much fun as I did doing this interpretative work!

We decided that, as the title "American Progress suggests, the narrative argument of this painting furthers the story of westward expansion that a progressive version of history might champion--hunters fight off Native Americans, making way for settlers, which is followed by agriculture, and eventually trains, commerce, and civilization.   We also crafted a antithetical or declensionist narrative in response to the painting, noting that this version of history doesn't do justice to the genocide implied in this westward colonial march, nor does it tell the ecological history of the decline of the buffalo, the Dust Bowl, or the laundry list of environmental problems associated with industrialization.  Seen from one angle, this painting depicts the advent of a great nation; seen from another, it depicts the unjust use of force and ideology by one culture over another, leading to great ecological trouble.

Based on this good discussion, I tried to ask what I think will be the central question of our course.  Namely, I wanted you to think about stories from American environmental history that might help us better address future ecological problems.  We could argue that the declensionist reading of this painting might serve as a one such cautionary tale, reminding us not to overreach in our quest for progress.  This might help us, then, tell a story what would "help perpetuate life from the land" in the future, to borrow Merhcant's phrasing.  That is, we might avoid a future dustbowl, say, or we might argue that our lives would be better if we avoid destroying cultures that have stories about how to effectively perpetuate life from the land. The question for us to ponder this semester, then, is whether the wilderness story--that is, the history of the idea, the politics, and narrative implied in the word--is a story that might similarly help guide our behavior.   As I scribbled on the board, that is, does the wilderness story help us perpetuate life from the land?  

My hunch is that our reading of Roderick Nash will help us answer this.  I think his answer is a yes--and I suggested tonight that it will be fairly enthusiastic yes--but I hope you can use the tools and questions Merchant offers to really engage with Nash's famous book.  

As a reminder, you should read the preface, introduction, prologue, chapters 1-3, 12-14, and the epilogue.  This is about 200 pages of reading--I hope you find it engaging and fun.  I look forward to reading your questions and answers about the book in the comments here.