Second Nature: A Gardener's Education [Paperback]

I had to read this for a college course. I didn't know what to expect, but half way into the book I was enraptured. Literally. Pollan is a very adept writer, and he has a lot of depth to what he writes. He piles metaphor on top of symbolizm on top of metaphor. If you don't pick up on everything, that's alright because the book is simply enjoyable. His anecdotes about life and gardening are the icing on this book, and I'd recommend it simply for that pleasure. But there is substance here. Pollan is making a statement about the relationship between culture and nature. He writes about how we, as a species, as a culture, try to seperate what we live in (culture, cities, whatever) from what we live near (nature, the environment, wildness). He says that that is more detrimental than any polution or destruction we could possibly do to our earth. We, as a culture, need to learn to live not simply "in" nature, but "with nature." In response to the chapter on Cathedral Pines, he uses that to illustrate how the Conservationists, the people who owned the land, were trying to save this little "virgin" land. This little area in this New England community that was untouched by humanity. It was destroyed by nature (in the form of a tornado) and they, as a community, should let nature do with the forest as it wanted. Nature knows best. What Pollan says is that that forest wasn't untouched by man. Man had inhabited the area for over two hundred years (not including Native Americans - which no one ever does) and the trees they were saving WERE affected by civiliztion. That forest, as the community knew and loved it, was destroyed by nature. The community could've possibly planted knew trees, cleaned out the old dead ones, and made everything back the way it was. The Conservationists didn't want that because "nature knows best." But it depends on how you look at it. In a way (and I'm not going to further in depth, because it's all in the book) the forest WAS a garden, it was created, changed by mankind. There was nothing truely "nautral" about it. Therefore, why couldn't they, as a community, make the decision on what to do with it? If the tornado ripped through the town and destroyed houses, people would rebuild. It's that simply. No one would throw up their hands and say, "Well, nature knows best!" But when it comes to Cathedral Pines, they left the fallen trees there to rot, cleared a wide swath around the forest to protect the community from possible fire, and called it a "preserve." This benefited no one, and time will tell what course nature will take. Maybe the fire that will burn the brush and dead wood will be too strong and damage the soil. The forest wouldn't grow back, and instead of a beautiful forest you'd have a field of brush and "weeds." Sure, nature took its course, but it's not as important as one may think.

This is long winded, and you may not understand it all, but if you read the book and pay more attention to what Pollan says, and less on how he says it (how well it's written and how entertaining it is), you'll pick up on the philosophical stuff. You'll pick up on the meaning. And I suggest that you do, you'll rethink a lot of the thoughts you may have on the environment and on culture.

I don't intend to question Pollan's ability as a writer, nor do I care to check up on his interpretation of the history of hybrid roses or British garden design, but as a gardener who entered this endeavor from the ecologist/naturalist end of the spectrum, I found plenty of bones to pick with him.

A previous reviewer mentions Pollan's rant about The Nature Conservancy, which -- much to his chagrin -- declined to harvest, clean-up, or replant the trasured Cathedral Pines after they were damaged by a tornado. Pollan is clearly very comfortable with his position about how gardens fit along the spectrum between wilderness and human culture, but too often he relies on straw-men and oversimplified truisms to represent the views of those with whom he disagrees.

Examples abound, but some that galled me the most were his conclusions that: (1) the American environmental movement is too hung up about preserving Wilderness to care about the other 90+% of our lands (absurd! ever hear of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts? the Endangered Species Act?); and (2) the moral and scientific bankruptcy of this philosophy has led to the 'degradation' of Yellowstone National Park, as exemplified by the forest fires of the late 1980's (or could this just be an example of the renewing power natural process, without the hand of human 'gardeners'?).

I accept that Pollan is a journalist and a (fine) writer, not a scientist, but a little more effort to gain an deeper understanding of both the science and the philosophies of those whose view differ from his would have been greatly appreciated.

Of course, it is Pollan's book, and a popular non-fiction, not an academic treatise, so some hand-waving to help justify his mostly-sensible views is his prerogative. I appreciated the humor and passion of Pollan's writing, and I am sure I would greatly enjoy a walk down his garden path.

Great book for both seasoned and beginner gardeners, for anyone who loves nature. Interesting insights into the relationship we, as North Americans, have with nature. As always, Michael Pollan provides food for thought.