Love It or Hate It: Reviews of Nature's Metropolis

I received my undergraduate degree in the performing arts. When I decided to pursue a degree in history, I quickly realized I had entered a new and alien world. I had to learn to read historical works critically rather than for pleasure. It was an outright revelation when I grasped that bibliographies could have utility -- an entirely foreign concept!

One of my early lessons was the value not only of reading an historian’s work, but also of reading book reviews to see what other historians had to say about the work. I learn almost as much from the criticism as I do from the author him- or herself, especially when the critiques are not uniform.

Such is the case with William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (W.W. Norton & Company: New York, London. 1991. Pp. xxv, 530). The reviewers vary widely in their estimations of Cronon’s book. Lawrence H. Larsen, of the University of Missouri, Kansas City, reviewing Nature’s Metropolis for The Wisconsin Magazine of History (Vol. 76, No. 1, Autumn, 1992, pp. 54-55), foe example, chastises Cronon rather extensively for “pretentious phrasing” that adds nothing to what is otherwise a “useful monograph.” (55) With that out of his system, he then praises Cronon’s research and innovative use of sources, asserting that the book successfully achieves its author’s intent to explore the relationship between Chicago and the Great West.

Reviewing for The Journal of American History (Vol. 79, No. 2, Sep., 1992, pp. 612-613), Samuel P. Hays of the University of Pittsburgh provides a more careful, nuanced critique. He focuses his attention on the value each chapter brings to the whole, noting his satisfaction with 3-5, his approval of “subordinate but integral” chapters 6-7, and his befuddlement regarding the weakest chapters, 1, 2 and 8: “This mélange of collateral subjects seems to be held together, not by their inherent connection as historical subjects, but by Cronon’s own personal journey through the urbanization of modern American life.” (612) Hays concludes with praise for Cronon’s analysis of urban mercantilism and its shaping of hinterland commercial relationships, despite his “highly selective” approach and some important missing factors (e.g., population shifts between rural and urban communities during this time). (613)

While Larsen and Hays identify some frustrations with Nature’s Metropolis but overall give Cronon props for his contribution to the historical canon, Peter A. Colcanis goes hard for the jugular in his review, “Urbs In Horto”, in Reviews in American History (Vol. 20, No. 1, Mar., 1992, pp. 14-20). Like Hays, Colcanis feels Cronon’s best work is found in the middle chapters (2-7), which he applauds for their “informative discussions”. (15) Having dispensed with the niceties, however, Colcanis then bares his fangs: his issues with the book arise from its “imbalance, and its author’s lack of empathy with man, his cities, and his desire for material gain.” He takes Cronon to task for indulging a self-important, smug tone, calling the book “vainglorious and preening”, “didactic” and “condescending”, and pointing out Cronon’s tendency to focus on himself, as Hays did in his review. (16) He observes that Cronon ignores other prominent Chicago industries that may counter his thesis, industries like textiles, steel, and machine-shop products. (17) Colcanis is clearly offended by Cronon’s starkly environmentalist tone and his lack of feeling for the pioneers and capitalists who felt the need to try to better their circumstances. “In pushing and pushing his green line, the author fundamentally distorts both the nature of capitalist development in the Great West and Chicago’s history.” He dissents from Larsen and Hays in the overall value of Cronon's work, deeming Nature’s Metropolis “disappointing”. (19) Of course, we must be mindful that Colcanis is not only an historian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, but that he explicitly notes in his byline that he is a card-carrying teamster, an affiliation that offers insight into his priorities.

Such wide differences among scholars gives me pause. Has the author inserted too much of himself into his work? Where is the line between editorial license and self-indulgence? Should we not as historians acknowledge the baggage we bring to a subject? I believe Colcanis is overly harsh in his polemic, yet I also think that Cronon’s narrative does feel as though it is trying too hard to ensure that we indict these 19^th century Americans as evil environmental rapists. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.