?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A load of croc?

Crikey!

But there are far worse ways to view the natural world than through the eyes of a young child, and Mr. Irwin offered a far more temperate version of the classic 6-year-old-boy approach, which is to confront a wild animal, marvel at its strength and ferocity, and then try to hit it with a rock. For Mr. Irwin, wild nature was something to wonder at, and he did so with an enthusiasm indistinguishable from love. Animals — even deadly ones — are good, poachers are evil, and, crikey, that’s pretty much it.

September 6, 2006
Appreciations
Crikey!
By LAWRENCE DOWNES
When I heard that Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, had been killed by a stingray in Australia on Monday, my heart went out to a friend, a 6-year-old boy named Sean who considered Mr. Irwin’s the definitive example of a life well lived.

It was a life of strenuous exertion, of mud and blood and the tireless pursuit of muscular creatures with jaws, claws and the ability to eat you up. My young friend concocts his version with crayons, Legos and pointed sticks, and acts it out in the fevered jungle of his imagination. Mr. Irwin went after actual creatures, including crocodiles, vipers and, tragically, the ray that pierced his chest.

They weren’t that different. Mr. Irwin, with the thick Aussie accent and khaki outfit that mean “explorer” in any language, tromped around subduing dangerous animals and spouting exclamations like “She’s a beauty!” and “Crikey!” He was 44 going on 6, and lived, like Sean, in a world of fun and excitement that seems a lot richer than most people’s.

It was easy to parody Mr. Irwin’s boisterous shtick, and many people did. It is easy, too, to shake our heads at the relentless peddling of nature as TV entertainment, and to lament that the only animals people ever bother thinking about are either fuzzy-cute or man-eating. It is all too obvious that Mr. Irwin was no biologist, that exploring the world on cable TV is a lot different from actually plunging into it, that wild animals really are dangerous, and blah blah blah.

But there are far worse ways to view the natural world than through the eyes of a young child, and Mr. Irwin offered a far more temperate version of the classic 6-year-old-boy approach, which is to confront a wild animal, marvel at its strength and ferocity, and then try to hit it with a rock. For Mr. Irwin, wild nature was something to wonder at, and he did so with an enthusiasm indistinguishable from love. Animals — even deadly ones — are good, poachers are evil, and, crikey, that’s pretty much it.

Call that simple-minded, call it dumb, but it resonates. Future environmentalists and conservationists have to come from somewhere, and if the energetic wonderment of the Crocodile Hunter has seeped into the brains of significant numbers of children — as it did that of Sean, who went trick-or-treating as Mr. Irwin last year, who turned 6 with a crocodile cake, who wears khaki and boots and fills notebooks with meticulous drawings of reptiles — then Mr. Irwin used his 44 years remarkably well.

Copyright The New York Times and Lawrence Donnes

Of course some people don't see it that way

I really understand the argument in the second article, but agree more with the first...

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
shutterbug12
Sep. 6th, 2006 07:31 pm (UTC)
I think I agree more with the first as well. It would be awesome to live your life with a job that you love and be around and spread awareness of the animals that inspire you. I don't agree with those people who say, "He should have known better, the idiot." Well, chances are he was aware of the personal risks but loved what he did and the latter was more important. I don't think that's stupid. It's like being an astronaut. There are obvious risks involved, but the people who choose that career path enjoy their job, fully aware of the fact that the job that they love may someday be the cause of their death.

I didn't watch his show very much, but what he did was pretty cool. There will always be people who feel like they knew better and that nature is having its revenge and whatnot. Whatever.
moonykins
Sep. 6th, 2006 08:11 pm (UTC)
I'm not even going to look at the second one, because people putting him down, making puns about his death, and whatnot piss me off.

He was a fantastic man, and he did SO much for wildlife preservation and whatnot.

That first article? Complete and utter love. I'm reposting it to my journal, it needs to be spread :)
elsh
Sep. 7th, 2006 01:48 am (UTC)
I agree...he was phenomenal and did so many ground-breaking things. I am still in awe that he's dead. It is so depressing.
dragonsangel68
Sep. 7th, 2006 07:42 am (UTC)
The first article is certainly a more accurate look at what the man was like in life. Like you, I can understand the second article - as a mother watching this man handle deadly creatures on the tv in front of children just sent chills through me (remembering that quite a lot of the creatures live very close by to me). But none of that really matters when it's weighed against what he did for conservation, not only here in Australia but worldwide.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2009
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow