Analyse af Edward Abbeys 'Desert Solitaire'

Needing a break from reality and civilization is something many of us can relate to one way or another. Abbeys as one has tried exactly that by living alone in the desert for 6 months, seeking solitude in the beauty of the wilderness. The question now is just if Abbey´s experience proves whether or not it is possible for humans to live and be satisfied with “only” the things nature has to offer. What conclusion comes out of living alone in the desert for so long? This paper seeks to discuss exactly that while identifying Abbey´s writing style as well as his use of rhetorical devices and literary techniques.

Nature has three fundamental meanings which can be looked at with different views; a dualistic view, a monistic view, or an adverbial view.

It seems like Abbey sees nature with a dualistic view because of the way he distinguishes between nature and humans, and what they have to do with each other. Throughout the entire book, he makes it very clear that he does not think that nature should be touched or changed by humans. It is beautiful as it is. When talking about the chapter “Bedrock and Paradox” an example of this can be seen already at the very beginning of the first page where Abbey talks about the tourists who have visited the desert: “The tourists have gone home. Most of them. A few still rumble in and ramble around in their sand-pitted-dust-choked iron dinosaurs […] returned to the smoky jungles and swamps of what we call, in wistful hope, American civilization.” – The way he talks about the tourists and their take-off from the dessert on top of the knowledge we have from the rest of the book; how much he appreciates nature, gives us quite the impression that they are not welcome because they do not leave nature untouched by humans as the dualistic perception suggests.