Article Analysis of Wallace Stegner's Wilderness Letter

Argumentative writing is great because it causes one to ponder. Not that individuals are void of thinking on a day to day basis, but in the sense that one must consider both sides of a given debate, the evidence brought forth, and ultimately the conclusion to the argument. One example of an argumentative piece is Wallace Stenger’s Wilderness Letter, a piece written to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, urging for the preservation of the wilderness. Stegner urges for its preservation for the spiritual aspect, rather than the more classical topic of sustainability. Stegner’s Wilderness Letter is passionately written, but it suffers from numerous instances of a common logical fallacy: unwarranted assumption. This piece is riddled with fallacies that make it hard to separate speculative belief from argument. Anyone with a conscience can form an opinion based on this piece. Whether or not they agree with Stegner;however, is irrelevant. Stegner claims that the preservation of nature would revive individuals’ liveliness, that the destruction of nature is dangerous for people as a whole, and that those interested in progress and industrialization are blind to the benefits of nature. These arguments are presented well; however, without evidence how is one to believe what is being stated? You cannot, in good faith, do so.

The worst point revolves around the following statement: “as the remnants of the unspoiled and natural world are progressively eroded, every such loss is a little death in me. In us.” (Stegner 3). Not only is there a lack of factual evidence or expert opinion, but Stegner displays an unwarranted assumption that as nature is destroyed, it is a death in any given individual. Although it can be argued that the destruction of nature is bad for the human race, it is important to note that Stegner’s main argument revolves around the spirituality of nature, and therefore this is a metaphorical death. This unwarranted assumption feeds into the overall circular argument of the piece, as it is apparent that Stegner has very little to back his argument up with besides the idea that: It is bad because it is bad for us, and it is bad for us because it's bad. The main issue here is that not everyone cares about nature, especially to the point of being invested in the erosion of nature’s spirituality. Because of this, this statement and the explanation that follows feel very far-fetched, and the point goes nowhere. It goes in circles.

The next case of unwarranted assumption, explains a hypothetical benefit to the preservation of nature’s presence: “I do not expect that the preservation of our remaining wilderness is going to cure this condition. But the mere example that we can as a nation apply some other criteria than commercial and exploitative considerations would be heartening to many Americans, novelists or otherwise.” (Stegner 2). In this instance Stegner’s point is that with the preservation of nature, there would be an increase in productivity and creative stoking if you will to many individuals. Once again, there is a fair point being made, however without an expert’s input, factual evidence, or even a secondary opinion this statement feels very personal and emotional to the point where It could hardly be considered an argument. What about artists that comment on the natural happenings of society, dystopian writers, or those that, again, just don’t care about what happens to nature? If one is looking solely at Wilderness Letter they will not likely find out.

Last, Stegner’s least compelling argument comes in the form of an Ad Hominem style character attack, reliant solely on once again, the unwarranted assumption that those interested in progress are likely unable to appreciate nature for what it is. “Being an intangible and spiritual resource, it will seem mystical to the practical minded--but then anything that cannot be moved by a bulldozer is likely to seem mystical to them.” (Stegner 1). In saying this Stegner attempts to dismiss the viewpoint of those not interested in nature's spirituality by using a practical mindset in a demeaning tone. It is unprofessional to attack one's character instead of an argument. Stegner is clearly guilty of this.

When all is said and done, Stegner’s Wilderness Letter is a passionate work regarding the preservation of nature’s spiritual aura. Stegner argues that the death of nature is the death of all of us, along with any positive mental effects that may come with it. Due to the presence of logical fallacies, Wilderness Letter can only be considered a statement, not a true persuasive piece. It is void of evidence, expert opinion, and barrages the reader with unwarranted assumptions. Thus, Wilderness Letter as a piece does poorly through the lense of  argument, but is admittedly a well written letter indeed. Novelist Alice Walker once said about nature, a quote that applies well to Stegner’s Wilderness Letter: “In nature, nothing is perfect and everything is perfect...”