Scan barcode
mariscrane's review against another edition
3.0
Eh, not everything aged well in here, but an enjoyable enough read. Kind of unlikeable characters. Want to check out more of Abbey’s nature writing, though. Three and a half stars!
mattbeatty's review against another edition
4.0
Classic Abbey. He finds new and amazing ways to describe sunrise, sunset, night sky, desert, canyon, river, et cetera, over and over. The man is amazing. His descriptions haunt me and stay with me. He's also a genius--he knows intricate details of war, guns and ammunition, health and medicine, climbing, whitewater rafting, 4WD vehicles, botany, zoology, very specific names of remote ridges, cliffs and canyons, all of the sciences. He's a master of all trades.
I like that he pushes boundaries. He switches tense all the time, runs around with free indirect discourse, stream-of-consciousness, jumping into and out of characters. He is self-referential at times, makes exploratory use of language, with many puns and plays on words, alliteration, combines new words into compound words and portmanteaus. His use of language reminds me sometimes of Cormac McCarthy (a huge compliment to Abbey, perhaps a blow to McCarthy), and even James Joyce. Maybe I'm off my rocker, but I see it in him.
The man does have some rascist and misogynist tendencies. Bonnie Abbzug is very stereotypical in terms of feminine beauty and desires (the little love-jumper). Would she really have fallen in love with Hayduke, the same Hayduke about whom I'm reading? Also, he belittles the Indians constantly, especially through Doc Sarvis. Calls them names, insults their lifestyle. All this beautiful, wondrous talk about the southwest and canyonlands country, and only *once* in the entire book does he mention an Anasazi ruin. No petroglyphs or pictographs or anything above and beyond that one brief mention. I don't know why he loved the desert so much, but found so little to love in the Indians, the desert's original keepers.
Also, I think that Abbey wrote himself into Hayduke. Now personally, I'd much rather be Seldom Seen Smith than Hayduke. Hayduke is impulsive, illogical, destructive, and rude. Smith knows the wilderness inside and out, including scientific names and locations and uses and has experiences with all the types of terrain the southwest offers. He thinks and analyzes and is logical. The opposite of Hayduke in many ways. I guess perhaps Hayduke + Smith = Abbey. That would make more sense, that he show two somehow complementary but very differing sides of his own character. Hayduke does have some qualities that are worthy, and he can be a sympathetic character at times, but as the primary protagonist I question him sometimes . . .
In fact, that's part of the appeal of this book. I question the actions and motives of the protagonists. I am very much an environmentalist, a conservationist with an *enormous* love and passion for the southwest, southern Utah in particular. But ecoterrorism isn't, and probably will never be (?), my thing. Maybe partially. But sometimes--I'll be honest--I'm rooting for Bishop Love and his Search and Rescue Team. They'd be heroes if they found the Monkey Wrench Gang! They'd pull those criminals right out from their vandalistic shoes. You know--not really. But it makes the novel fun to have the heroes be in reversed roles. Usually you root for the law enforcement to catch the criminals.
I think this would make an excellent screenplay. It has humor, seriousness, romance and a love triangle, beautiful scenery, plenty of action and swearing and tension and suspense and so on. Good job my friend and mentor Edward. Good job.
I like that he pushes boundaries. He switches tense all the time, runs around with free indirect discourse, stream-of-consciousness, jumping into and out of characters. He is self-referential at times, makes exploratory use of language, with many puns and plays on words, alliteration, combines new words into compound words and portmanteaus. His use of language reminds me sometimes of Cormac McCarthy (a huge compliment to Abbey, perhaps a blow to McCarthy), and even James Joyce. Maybe I'm off my rocker, but I see it in him.
The man does have some rascist and misogynist tendencies. Bonnie Abbzug is very stereotypical in terms of feminine beauty and desires (the little love-jumper). Would she really have fallen in love with Hayduke, the same Hayduke about whom I'm reading? Also, he belittles the Indians constantly, especially through Doc Sarvis. Calls them names, insults their lifestyle. All this beautiful, wondrous talk about the southwest and canyonlands country, and only *once* in the entire book does he mention an Anasazi ruin. No petroglyphs or pictographs or anything above and beyond that one brief mention. I don't know why he loved the desert so much, but found so little to love in the Indians, the desert's original keepers.
Also, I think that Abbey wrote himself into Hayduke. Now personally, I'd much rather be Seldom Seen Smith than Hayduke. Hayduke is impulsive, illogical, destructive, and rude. Smith knows the wilderness inside and out, including scientific names and locations and uses and has experiences with all the types of terrain the southwest offers. He thinks and analyzes and is logical. The opposite of Hayduke in many ways. I guess perhaps Hayduke + Smith = Abbey. That would make more sense, that he show two somehow complementary but very differing sides of his own character. Hayduke does have some qualities that are worthy, and he can be a sympathetic character at times, but as the primary protagonist I question him sometimes . . .
In fact, that's part of the appeal of this book. I question the actions and motives of the protagonists. I am very much an environmentalist, a conservationist with an *enormous* love and passion for the southwest, southern Utah in particular. But ecoterrorism isn't, and probably will never be (?), my thing. Maybe partially. But sometimes--I'll be honest--I'm rooting for Bishop Love and his Search and Rescue Team. They'd be heroes if they found the Monkey Wrench Gang! They'd pull those criminals right out from their vandalistic shoes. You know--not really. But it makes the novel fun to have the heroes be in reversed roles. Usually you root for the law enforcement to catch the criminals.
I think this would make an excellent screenplay. It has humor, seriousness, romance and a love triangle, beautiful scenery, plenty of action and swearing and tension and suspense and so on. Good job my friend and mentor Edward. Good job.
bwagler's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
trentthompson's review against another edition
5.0
Loved the prose (esp. the dialogue and humor), plot, and point. Kind of makes me want to get into trouble...
Excerpts/quotes that I loved:
- [Hayduke] made coffee on his tiny Primus stove. “Chemicals! Chemicals! I need chemicals!” he chanted (p. 32).
- Hayduke: We’ll work it out as we go along. Let our practice form our doctrine, thus assuring precise theoretical coherence (p. 89).
- Doc: If constructive vandalism turns destructive, what then? Perhaps we’ll be doing more harm than good. There are some who say if you attack the system you only make it stronger. Hayduke: Yeah—and if you don’t attack it, it strip-mines the mountains, damns all the rivers, paves over the desert and puts you in jail anyway (p. 142).
- Hayduke: My job is to save the fucking wilderness. I don’t know anything else worth saving (p. 291).
- Hayduke and Abbzug camped illegally (not even a fire permit) against all regulations far from the blacktop down a closed-off fire road under the aspen trees. They woke up late and had breakfast in bed. Birds singing, sunshine, et cetera. Afterwards she said, “now I want something to eat” (p. 311).
Excerpts/quotes that I loved:
- [Hayduke] made coffee on his tiny Primus stove. “Chemicals! Chemicals! I need chemicals!” he chanted (p. 32).
- Hayduke: We’ll work it out as we go along. Let our practice form our doctrine, thus assuring precise theoretical coherence (p. 89).
- Doc: If constructive vandalism turns destructive, what then? Perhaps we’ll be doing more harm than good. There are some who say if you attack the system you only make it stronger. Hayduke: Yeah—and if you don’t attack it, it strip-mines the mountains, damns all the rivers, paves over the desert and puts you in jail anyway (p. 142).
- Hayduke: My job is to save the fucking wilderness. I don’t know anything else worth saving (p. 291).
- Hayduke and Abbzug camped illegally (not even a fire permit) against all regulations far from the blacktop down a closed-off fire road under the aspen trees. They woke up late and had breakfast in bed. Birds singing, sunshine, et cetera. Afterwards she said, “now I want something to eat” (p. 311).
aitzin's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
2.5
zodwallop's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
informative
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
I hated every character in this book. It felt like NIMBYism taken to the extremes.
But the book is very well written. It is entertaining to read even as I got sick of listening to Seldom and Heyduke opine.
It feels very 1970's in the same way that Tom Robbins does, with the writer at times intecting his personality into the narration without talking directly to the reader.
But the book is very well written. It is entertaining to read even as I got sick of listening to Seldom and Heyduke opine.
It feels very 1970's in the same way that Tom Robbins does, with the writer at times intecting his personality into the narration without talking directly to the reader.
beierlu's review against another edition
funny
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
3.0
jyunker's review against another edition
5.0
Whenever I speak to people about the eco-fiction, this book is the most commonly mentioned.
And it should be.
It’s the first book to put a name and face to the movement to protect the planet — or at least “throw a monkey wrench” in developments.
Published in 1975, many aspects of the book are remarkably timely, which is quite sad, of course. As the book is about four people who join forces to throw a monkey wrench into developments that are destroying local environments. This ranges from burning billboards to torching a clear cutting operation, destroying bridges, and, ultimately, trying to destroy the Glen Canyon Dam. The spirit of Ned Ludd looms large over this book.
The spirit of the book is infectious: four revolutionaries traveling across the Southwest desert destroying signs of commercialism and extraction along the way. It’s easy to see how this book has inspired a generation of activism. The firebrand of the group, Hayduke, sums it up nicely when he says:
“My job is to save the fucking wilderness. I don’t know anything else worth saving.”
What I like most about this book is how Abbey captures the “tilting at windmills” mentally of the characters. I empathize with their need to strike out, to say no in whatever fashion they can. But the more they destroy, the closer they get to being caught.
Near-misses multiply. People get sloppy. And the authorities get more persistent.
Abbey portrays a vivid, exciting world of living on the edge of society. And for these people, once they go to the edge and beyond, it’s clear they’re not coming back. Which is how I feel at times, though for different reasons.
There is a major flaw to this book, which is quite obvious to me. A number of characters are upset with developments that kill trees or damage native wildlife, and yet they all eat meat without any remorse. It’s a shame there is a disconnect among the characters regarding the detrimental effects of animal agriculture on the environment. But, then again, it’s the early 1970s. If this book were updated for today, that’s the only thing I would change. The rest of it, sadly, is as timely as it was when it was published.
One final point: I like how two of the characters are older — one is in his sixties. I look around today and sometimes wonder what happened to all that activism that sprouted in the 1970s only to go fallow in the ’80s and ’90s.
Review originally posted on EcoLit Books:
http://www.ecolitbooks.com/2013/08/book-review-the-monkey-wrench-gang/
And it should be.
It’s the first book to put a name and face to the movement to protect the planet — or at least “throw a monkey wrench” in developments.
Published in 1975, many aspects of the book are remarkably timely, which is quite sad, of course. As the book is about four people who join forces to throw a monkey wrench into developments that are destroying local environments. This ranges from burning billboards to torching a clear cutting operation, destroying bridges, and, ultimately, trying to destroy the Glen Canyon Dam. The spirit of Ned Ludd looms large over this book.
The spirit of the book is infectious: four revolutionaries traveling across the Southwest desert destroying signs of commercialism and extraction along the way. It’s easy to see how this book has inspired a generation of activism. The firebrand of the group, Hayduke, sums it up nicely when he says:
“My job is to save the fucking wilderness. I don’t know anything else worth saving.”
What I like most about this book is how Abbey captures the “tilting at windmills” mentally of the characters. I empathize with their need to strike out, to say no in whatever fashion they can. But the more they destroy, the closer they get to being caught.
Near-misses multiply. People get sloppy. And the authorities get more persistent.
Abbey portrays a vivid, exciting world of living on the edge of society. And for these people, once they go to the edge and beyond, it’s clear they’re not coming back. Which is how I feel at times, though for different reasons.
There is a major flaw to this book, which is quite obvious to me. A number of characters are upset with developments that kill trees or damage native wildlife, and yet they all eat meat without any remorse. It’s a shame there is a disconnect among the characters regarding the detrimental effects of animal agriculture on the environment. But, then again, it’s the early 1970s. If this book were updated for today, that’s the only thing I would change. The rest of it, sadly, is as timely as it was when it was published.
One final point: I like how two of the characters are older — one is in his sixties. I look around today and sometimes wonder what happened to all that activism that sprouted in the 1970s only to go fallow in the ’80s and ’90s.
Review originally posted on EcoLit Books:
http://www.ecolitbooks.com/2013/08/book-review-the-monkey-wrench-gang/