How would you define his approach to the field, and what aspects of his approach do you like or dislike?
For example, I really like the way he pairs readings of 'canonical' texts like Wordsworth and Thoreau with unconventional texts, like events. I also like the way he frames ecocriticism's fraught relationship with science, and his gloss of the issues we raised about language on the day we read Gary Snyder.
Also, I like his definition of ecocriticism as a way of reading the world, and I like the organization of the book in "tropes" rather than chronology, or case studies, or other ways of organizing books.
What did you make of his unique organization?
Is this a good introduction to the field, or are you left wondering what he's missing?
