"The books seem to serve as totems, indicators of membership in class within a class: the group of Concerned Lovers of the Earth. There is a curiously earnest sort of narcissism at work here I think."
Why only that? It's that too perhaps, but why so dismissive?
I think at this point, given the eco-catastrophes and the medical catastrophes of the "advanced" world, there is every reason to question our relationship to nature and to consider alternatives.
I have a black neighbor who owns a Ford(?) truck from the thirties. This is a car he purchased and rebuilt, bit by bit, over a period of four years. Then he painted it a spectacular cerulean blue and he drives it like a king all over the neighborhood.
He told me he was raised on a farm (with some pride) and that since he was a little boy he has had to learn to do much with little. He said this experience helped him take on the rather daunting task of rebuilding this truck, and to keep at it, dabbling, inventing, and making things up as he went along. He said he loved keeping something alive ...and lots of other stuff I can't remember.
Maybe some people read Logsdon as a form of fantasy; I don't doubt it. What's wrong with the fantasy of living on honorable and harmonious terms with the earth? What's wrong with the fantasy of unalienated labor? You think agri-business has a better approach?
Joanna