Status Updates From Must Love Trees: An Unconve...

too many similarities to previous trees to be truly archetypal. I want to see over-accentuated features! Limbs dangling and reaching and twisting, crowns either glittering or dulled, roots demonstrating connections to earth and groundedness. The book concept is STRONG but the execution feels unfinished. 2/2

We also lose out in the depiction of trees as just… trees. That’s all well and good in a traditional field guide, but this one anthropomorphizes EXTENSIVELY, and yet our visual cast of characters are without defining features. They have personalities per Mitnick, but all we readers see is a drawn tree with… 1/2

get continuity of material and style to reinforce learning and appreciation for Mitnick’s perspective. Right now, it just feels like someone is ranting at me about a topic I love in snark, expecting me to respond to the abrasiveness, and then getting snarkier when I do make any response. Not a very welcoming atmosphere, nor is it an atmosphere conducive to learning 2/2

I think what this book needs is a narrative. Short stories centered on this hypothetical high school *featuring* the characters in this field guide. All this information just as a pseudo-field guide but written in a frequently sarcastic tone feels like genre bending to the detriment of the material. BUT if Mitnick continued in this sarcastic style in short stories, readers would… 1/?

THIS FORMATTING IS DRIVING ME BONKERS. Just put a picture on all of them!!! Why so much blank space!! Why so much inconsistency in the information presentation!!! I get that it’s more of a satirical field guide than a true one but aaaaaAAAAAA! It could’ve been made in a MUCH better way.

The conifer bias is bonkers. I had to skip so so many of the conifers in this middle section and get to the angiosperms bc I was losing my mind. They all look like this 🌲 with only very SLIGHT differences, and those slight differences aren’t accentuated enough in the drawings. Also?? Why are the drawings only on some pages?? ANGIOSPERMS FTW

Continues to be funny and informative if a bit heavy on self-criticism

The “I turned into a tiny man who lives in a pine cone and it was once wondrous but is now a solitary and deeply lonely life” thing as a cautionary tale on avoiding the temptation of escapism doesn’t work bc if the author did indeed turn into a tiny man, then there would be TWO tiny men who could have a nice little partnership together and therefore stave off loneliness. Presumably more tiny men would follow.

“What you’re actually angry with, you pitchfork-wielding, tree-scapegoat obsessed mob of outdoor enthusiast, is a civilization that made it possible for the Bradford pear to exist in the first place. A civilization whose hubris begot the distorted illusion that the Bradford pear would remain sterile, as opposed to finding fertility through pollen transference with other similar cultivars.“

I’m only seeing Robert van Pelt’s “inimitable” Forest Giants of the Pacific Northwest as Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast. Assuming they’re the same but noting here for further research

"is it shameful to have more emotional access to sadness on behalf of an old tree being cut down than to human beings who will be immiserated?"
oof that IS a bummer of a thought

not sure what it says about my nerd level for trees that i immediately thought "YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE A PINECONE" and was relieved by the explanation that it was with ranger permission lol

"just a guy having a good time feeling small next to a tree" that's me right there

tbh i would watch the heck out of most of these movies lol

on Meandering: "discover whatever pace or energy is required so that time can stop for you" this is speaking to meeee