![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Rather dubiously following the call of the wiiiiiild
I was very taken with this article (from 2008) about a genre of nature writing, and how, really, it's very dubious to invoke wild and untamed NAYCHUR in our green and pleasant land.
Wild and not-wild is a false distinction, in this ancient, contested country. The contests are far from over. When the wild is protected by management, or re-created by the removal of traces of human history, you have to ask, who are these managers? Why do conservationists favour this species over that? Whose traces are considered worth saving, whose fit only to be bulldozed? If the landscape is apparently empty, was it ever thus?
I mean, we are all about nature, but here I am in London Zone 2 and we have wildflower plots at the edge of the local playing field and an eco-pond, and little copses of woodland and apparently an RSPB sparrow meadow in the local park, rus in urbe, hmmm. In fact London is one of the world's greenest cities, a development which might have surprised dear old Mad William when he was trudging along the chartered streets.
It's also wonderfully codslappy about a certain type of (male) writer going alone into the Wild Places (and not meeting the existential horror that attacked poor Moley in the Wild Wood before he found Badger's house).
It seems to me to resonate with this other thing I came across lately about Rights of Way. Which is of particular interest to me since I am pretty sure that the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 owed rather a lot to my dear fubsy interwar progressives rambling and occasionally organising mass trespasses because the countryside was for The People and they had a Right to Roam. And was much more about collective enjoyment.