Abbey’s writing in this novel is nothing short of beautiful as he gives tribute to the Arches National Monument (now National Park) that he knew. Although he has some unsavory opinions on certain things, such as misogynistic viewpoints and ableism, it isn’t the central focus of the novel and can largely be attributed to his generation (though that doesn’t make it right), the book was still highly enjoyable and an interesting read for those who love National Parks and believe in conservationism.

Removed half a star because Abbey had a staggering lack of self awareness at times (whining about tourists and trash but rolling a tire into the grand canyon, complaining about roads and cars but driving himself all around the greater Utah area in a government vehicle, writing a whole chapter on the sad state of native Americans with zero mention of why they have so many problems--white men committed genocide on their populations, etc).

But other than him being a Racist and Sexist White Man of a Certain Age, the book is gorgeous. You will be transported. I read this after 4-5 trips to Utah in the Moab/Arches/Canyonlands/Lake Powell areas and i loved visualizing all the places i love so well and what they were like decades ago before significant development. Arches, exploring canyons, rock scrambling, floating the Colorado past Bullfrog, and in the very last chapter they go to the Maze, one place i haven't been--ugh, so good. If you miss Utah, read this book. If you don't life Utah yet, read this book and get there.

I'll be looking for similar works next, but without the obnoxious narrator. Going to try pilgrim at tinker Creek again, then make for Terry Tempest Williams.

An American classic in nature writing - with all the implications of latent sexism and racism that accompanies a “classic” written by a middle aged white man in the sixties. Still, that’s part of the importance and even charm - this book is a study in contradiction, all the more because Abbey is intensely self-aware. But is that awareness enough? Abbey would probably say no, as his college self rolls a tire into the Grand Canyon.

 This was a reread for me; my first read was back in high school for a university extension course, about 15 years ago. Honestly, I didn't remember much about it beyond the first few chapters, and perhaps that's all we read...

There's no denying that Abbey has some beautiful prose, and the beginning of the book starts off very strong. Unfortunately, it goes downhill hard, as his terrible views and factual inaccuracies become more pronounced.

The book is a memoir of his time as a park ranger for Arches National Monument in southern Utah. What it does well is describe the beauty of the region across the half of the year spanning from April to September. It also includes his philosophy and opinions on a number of things relating to the people of the region, tourists to it, and everyone's relationship with its wilderness. This is where his misanthropy, bigotry, ignorance, hypocrisy, etc. sours things.

A frequent idea Abbey brings up is essentially that increasing access to national parks and natural monuments somehow cheapens them. This insufferable idea that something is ruined if *other* people can experience it is not a recent phenomenon. Railing against increased accessibility is also rather ableist, and he does say explicitly ableist things in the process. And while his concerns about the careless variety of tourists trashing sites are valid, he's hardly better when he brains a rabbit with a stone just to prove he could, or accidentally sets the brush in a side canyon off Glen Canyon on fire and bails.

Then there's the deeply racist treatment of the impoverished Navajo reservation in the chapter, "Cowboys and Indians Part II." While some of it may be a little tongue-in-cheek, as he clearly disdains industrialization and "industrialized tourism" too, he still uses a lot of common racist terminology and descriptions about natives, and even spouts the straight up genocidal idea that they were having too many children and could be "helped" by compulsory birth control.

Beyond the ignorance behind these sentiments is a broader ignorance of facts. There were inaccuracies that honestly had me questioning whether he even had an editor on this. He claimed the native people had vacated the area seven hundred years ago, yet there were pictographs including horses, so clearly they were present within the last four hundred years. He mistakenly stated the poet Everett Ruess disappeared at 26, when Ruess had been only 20. And he had a peculiar tendency to refer to the "new moon" when he was clearly talking about the full moon.

There are also a few stories like the "legend" of Albert Husk, which he almost certainly made up entirely himself. Paired with the lack of fact-checking, the book is not trustworthy as a source of historical information.

So what purpose can be found in it, if it's inaccurate as nonfiction and insufferable as opinion or philosophy? If you wish to preserve a positive opinion of the book and Abbey, read the first few chapters for the beautiful descriptions of the desert and don't bother with the rest. But there are probably better treatments on the region out there.