University of Nebraska Press

Hamlin Garland Biographer Interviewed on the Donna Seebo Show

Keith Newlin, author of the biography Hamlin Garland: A Life, was recently interviewed on the Donna Seebo Show. The author discusses a variety of topics during the program, including how he discovered Hamlin Garland as well as the agricultural environment in which Garland grew up and then chose to leave for a writing career. Listen to the interview from the BBSRadio link at the bottom of the author's web page:

http://people.uncw.edu/newlink/Garland_Bio_info.htm

Keith Newlin's biography of Hamlin Garland is the first to be published in over 40 years. In recognition of his achievements in literature, Hamlin Garland (1860–1940) received four honorary doctorates and a Pulitzer Prize. Newlin traces the rise of this prairie farm boy with a half-formed ambition to write who then skyrocketed into international prominence before he was forty.

The University of Nebraska Press is the publisher of several Garland books, including Main-Travelled Roads, Boy Life on the Prairie, The Book of the American Indian, Rose of Dutcher's Coolly, and Selected Letters of Hamlin Garland. Keith Newlin is also the editor of the new book, A Summer to Be: A Memoir by the Daughter of Hamlin Garland by Isabel Garland Lord, available through Whitston Publishing Company.

The High Cost of “Cheap” Food

An Interview with John E. Ikerd

With a wealth of recent media attention focused on the concept of sustainable agriculture and the wild success of like-themed literature, such as Michael  Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, some of us may be left wondering, what is sustainable agriculture and why does it matter to me? John E. Ikerd, author of the eye-opening book Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture was kind enough to answer this agricultural amateur’s questions on the definition, importance, and implications of a sustainable form of food production.

What is sustainable agriculture? How does it differ from our current agricultural system?

A sustainable agriculture must be capable of maintaining its productivity and value to society indefinitely. It must meet the needs of the present without compromising opportunities for the future. All productivity comes either from nature or society. Thus a sustainable agriculture must be ecologically sound and socially responsible in order to sustain its productivity, and thus be economically viable over time. Nothing lasts forever, so continual renewal and regeneration of both natural and societal resources are necessary for long run agricultural sustainability.

The conventional industrial approach to agriculture is very efficient in using both natural and human resources to produce things of economic value. But it does nothing to renew or regenerate the productivity of either nature or society needed to ensure that those of future generations will have adequate resources to meet their needs as well. Agriculture is currently depleting the natural and human resources upon which its productivity ultimately depends and thus is neither economically viable nor ecologically and socially sustainable over time.

Pardon the pun, but where does sustainable agriculture have its "roots?" Where, when, and how did it originate?

The modern concept of sustainable agriculture evolved from the natural foods movement, which was part of the "back to the earth" movement of the 1960s. The back to earth movement was basically a rejection of environmental pollution and human degradation associated with over-industrialization in all sectors of the economy and society. The rejection of chemical pesticides and fertilizers and the establishment of intentional communities that grew and marketed their own food were natural consequences of the rejection of industrial agriculture.

The organic food movement evolved from the earlier natural foods movement and is currently evolving into the local foods movement, in response to the "industrialization of organics." All of these food movements are part of the larger sustainability movement, which rejects industrialization because it lacks social, ecological, and economic integrity.

What are the major benefits of practicing sustainable agricultural methods?

People obviously benefit personally from reduced exposure to agricultural chemicals and biological wastes in their food, air, and water. There is also growing evidence that sustainably produced foods are more nutritious and healthful. In addition, the current trend toward sustainably grown local foods reduces fossil energy use, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and supports local economies and communities, in addition to providing fresher and more flavorful foods.

However, the greatest benefit for both producers and consumers is that sustainable agriculture helps restore integrity to our relationships with each other and our relationship with the earth. We need healthy food because we are material beings, but we also need healthy families, communities, and societies because we are social beings. We need the sense of purpose and meaning in life that comes from stewardship of the earth because we are ethical and moral beings. The things we do to promote sustainable agriculture enhance the material, social, and spiritual dimensions of our quality of life.

What are the drawbacks/major costs?

Sustainably produced foods cost more than industrially produced foods because industrial producers don't pay the social and ecological costs associated with their production practices. It's simply cheaper to extract from nature and to exploit society than it is to renew and regenerate the natural and human resources that are used in the process of production. That being said, some sustainable producers today can create as much or more food at an equal or lower cost than can their conventional neighbors. And over time, as the productivity of resources in industrial farming operations are depleted, their productivity will fall and their costs will rise. So, the costs of sustainably produced foods in the future will actually be far lower than the costs of foods produced by industrial farmers on depleted and eroded soils with unskilled farm workers using fertilizers and pesticides made from high cost fossil energy. In the meantime, however, producers and consumers of sustainably produced foods must be willing to pay the full ecological, social, and economic costs of sustainable agriculture.

Another challenge of sustainable agriculture is to find enough people who are willing to learn to farm in this manner, which requires far more knowledge and understanding of soils and biological systems as well as more innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship than industrial agriculture. However, we have more than enough bright, young people who would like to pursue a life in sustainable farming if they thought they could find a way to make a decent living. As the market for sustainably produced foods continues to grow, better economic opportunities will become more common, and there will be enough farmers to create a sustainable food system.

In your view, who can we look to as a model of a successful, sustainable agriculturalist? Is there an archetypal farm we can look to as a positive test case for this kind of system?

There are literally thousands of successful sustainable agriculturalists scattered all across the U.S. and around the world—and they are all different. There is no archetypal sustainable farm. Sustainable farming is a matter of farming according to fundamental ecological, social, and economic principles, rather than using any specific set of farming enterprises, methods, or practices.

Fortunately, it isn’t very difficult to find information on individual sustainable agriculture enterprises. A good place to start is the USDA SARE program’s New American Farmer publication, which profiles more than sixty sustainable farmers. It’s available at http://www.sare.org/publications/naf2/index.htm. Another good source is the New Farm Magazine’s “1000 Stories of Regenerative Agriculture” at http://www.newfarm.org/archive/1000_stories/1000_stories.shtml. Also, many states have developed profiles of local sustainable farmers, most of which can be found online.

Who seems most resistant to this type of farming? Who, on the other hand, seems most eager to adopt its methods? Why?

Those most resistant to sustainable agriculture are those who have benefited the most from industrial agriculture. This includes the agribusinesses that sell fertilizers, pesticides, fuel, and the other commercial inputs that industrial agriculture depends on for its productivity. Most commodity organizations are opposed to sustainable agriculture because sustainability requires enterprise diversity, rather than specializing on one particular commodity. Some of the major farm organizations, such as the Farm Bureau Federation, oppose sustainable agriculture because of their close political ties with agribusiness and commodity organizations. Many large-scale industrial farm operators oppose sustainable agriculture because it would force them to change the ways they farm, and industrial farming is still working for them.

Those most eager to adopt sustainable farming methods are those to whom industrial agriculture never made sense or never quite seemed to be socially or ethically right. This includes some conventional farmers, but far more operators of the small farms that have been marginalized and largely ignored during the industrial era of agriculture. Sustainable farming also appeals to many people who grew up on a farm, but left to find a better job and now would like to return to the farm. Perhaps most important, sustainable farming appeals to many young people who would like to make their life in farming. Unfortunately, many of these young people don’t have access to land, don’t have a lot of money, and are having problems finding a way to get started farming.

Is the key to sustainable agriculture a return to the small family farm? Has the American agricultural system simply become too industrial? Would it even be possible to do away with big "agribusiness?"

It probably is not impossible to farm sustainably on a large farm and certainly all small farms are not sustainable—regardless of how we might define large and small. That being said, it is easier to farm more sustainably on a smaller farm, other things being equal. Sustainable farming requires an intimate knowledge of the land and the biological systems that function on the particular farm being operated, as well as an understanding of what can and cannot be done sustainably in a particular climate, community, market area, etc. Sustainable farming is about maintaining healthy relationships with the land, one’s neighbors, and customers. It is difficult to really know, understand, and care about a whole lot of land or a whole lot of people, which effectively limits the size of truly sustainable farms.

In addition, most farms today are large because they have followed the standard industrial strategies of specialization, standardization, and consolidation of control, becoming bigger and bigger farms. If they abandoned those industrial strategies, as they must to become sustainable, they would have to become smaller in order to survive economically. As farms reduced their reliance on commercial fertilizers, pesticides, and fossil energy, agribusiness would become far less significant. In fact, significantly higher costs of fossil energy could foretell the end of big agribusiness.

How does your book, Crisis and Opportunity, compare to Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, which also delves into the importance of and challenges to a sustainable American agricultural system?

Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma is an excellent book and I recommend it to everyone who is interested in sustainable agriculture. Pollan is an excellent writer, reporter, and story teller and he uses these talents to convey an important message. He explains how we have encouraged the industrialization of America agriculture through government programs, including public research and education, and focuses on the unintended negative consequences for the American food system and American consumers.

Crisis and Opportunity is broader in scope, focuses more directly on sustainable agriculture, and uses a very different format. The book is a collection of essays, written over the span of more than a decade, that address the most important questions of the sustainable agriculture movement:  Why did it begin? What is it about? How can it succeed? Sustainable agriculture is diverse and thus cannot be captured in a few examples, stories, or studies. Over the past twenty years, I have made hundreds of presentations at various public events related to sustainable agriculture. In preparing for these events, I wrote several hundred papers. Over time, I refined my themes and messages, based on what seemed to communicate with my audiences and what seemed to make sense, particularly to farmers. This book presents a significant number of those essays, each addressing the whole of sustainable agriculture, but within a specific context and oriented toward a specific audience. Together, the essays tell a united, holistic story of a dynamic and diverse sustainable agriculture.

What are the immediate and long-term risks should we fail to adopt sustainable agricultural practices in this country?

The immediate risks involve threats to the natural environment and human health associated with industrial agriculture. The longer term risks are depletion of the productivity of the soil and other natural resources and the demise of family farms, degradation of rural communities, and continued disintegration of both rural and urban society. We risk destroying the ability of the earth’s biological and social systems to produce enough food—enough biological energy—to support the future of our society and of humanity. Over the long run, we simply cannot afford the cost of cheap, industrial food. 
   
Lately, there has been a great deal of media attention on the increasingly important role of organic, local agricultural products in the consumer market. But, as a consumer, it's often hard to determine which products to buy to support the quest for sustainable agriculture. How do we navigate the grocery store aisles to find the products that are best for us, our families, local communities, independent farmers, and the environment?

When shopping in conventional supermarkets, organic foods are probably a more sustainable choice than most conventional foods. If the supermarket features “locally grown” foods, check to see if there is any indication that they have been produced using more sustainable methods, such as organic, natural, pesticide free, hormone and antibiotic free, or humanely raised. Most local growers know their customers are looking for foods fundamentally different from industrial foods. Claims made for local foods are more likely to be valid because customers have the opportunity to check up on local growers, and local growers know it. The same basic reasoning holds for finding sustainably produced foods in restaurants. However, the fact that pictures of local farmers are hanging in a store or are on a menu doesn’t mean that the products offered for sale that day necessarily came from those farmers. You have to check the labels or ask the chef for verification.

The best way to know that you are buying sustainably produced foods is to buy from people you know personally, or at least know a lot about—from people you know and trust to produce foods that have ecological, social, and economic integrity.

*****

For more information on Crisis and Opportunity, please visit http://nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Crisis-and-Opportunity,673343.aspx.

Author Lee Lowenfish on Lincoln Radio Station

Lee Lowenfish, author of Branch Rickey: Baseball's Ferocious Gentleman will take part in an interview on the 1400AM KLIN Morning News program on Monday, April 7th at 8:35 AM. Tune in for what promises to be an exciting, insightful interview on baseball history. For more information, visit the KLIN Web site here.

Interview with Field of Schemes Author Neil deMause

Check out this link to an interview with Neil deMause, author of Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit for the National Review Online's "Between the Covers" feature with John J. Miller.

http://radio.nationalreview.com/betweenthecovers/post/?q=MThjNTFhZTY2NDUyMTkxOGMwOGNjMDZiZmYzY2RhYzc=

Field of Schemes is a play-by-play account of how the drive for new sports stadiums and arenas drains $2 billion a year from public treasuries for the sake of private profit. For more information, visit the book's site at http://nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Field-of-Schemes,673388.aspx or the author's Web page at http://www.fieldofschemes.com/.

A Bulldog, Babe, and Baseball History: An Interview with Daniel R. Levitt

Daniel R. Levitt, author of Ed Barrow: The Bulldog Who Built the Yankees' First Dynasty, answers our questions about the origins of this engaging biography, the man behind the story, and the major happenings in the history of baseball directly influenced by this "bulldog" of baseball.

Why did you pick Ed Barrow for your biography?

I've always been fascinated by team building. Why do some franchises win consistently while others spend years without making the playoffs? My first book, Paths to Glory: How Great Baseball Teams Got That Way, which I coauthored with Mark Armour, focused on a number of teams, some great, some not so great, and examined why they developed the way they did. As the architect of the Yankees' dynasty—one of the longest runs of sustained success in the history of American sports—Barrow makes for a terrific subject.

When did Barrow take over the Yankees, and what level of success did he achieve?

The Yankees hired Barrow as their de facto general manager after the 1920 season. Up until that time the franchise had never won the pennant. With Barrow on board, the Yankees captured the 1921 pennant and during his tenure won a total of fourteen pennants and nine World Series victories. 

So how did Barrow create such a dominant team?

There were two questions relative to Barrow and the Yankees that I sought to answer:  how did baseball's competitive environment evolve, and how did the Yankees come to dominate it? The economics of team building at the time were quite fluid. In the early 1920s, Barrow followed up on the purchase of Babe Ruth from the Boston Red Sox and spent over $400,000 acquiring owner Harry Frazee's best players. When that avenue dried up and major league teams were under little pressure to sell off their talent during the roaring twenties, he needed another talent source. Barrow and his great scouts correctly identified the top players in the then independent minor leagues, and Barrow purchased several future Hall of Famers. When the rules for minor league team ownership changed in the early 1930s, Barrow, at the instigation of owner Jacob Ruppert, developed the best farm system in the American League.

Anything interesting in the process of changing those ownership rules?

In the book I quote and analyze at some length the 1931 winter meeting that led to the new rules governing minor league ownership, effectively eliminating the obstacles to a functional farm system.  The meeting itself reads more like a farce than any rational analysis of the situation, as the owners and baseball commissioner Landis struggle not only with what rules they want, but what the existing rules actually were and how they were enforced.

What did Barrow do before joining the Yankees?

Prior to jumping to the Yankees at age 52, Barrow had held just about every job in baseball except player. In the late nineteenth century, he managed and owned a minor league team and later became a minor league president. To help generate interest for his league, he brought in heavyweight boxing champion Jim Corbett and female pitcher Lizzie Arlington. He also participated in one of the first attempts at night baseball in 1896. During the American League's bid for equality with the National in 1901, Barrow ran the Toronto franchise in the high minor leagues. During this chaotic period, Barrow spent his time trying to get his Toronto team into the American League and battling to keep his players from jumping to the majors.

In 1903, Barrow received his first shot at the majors when the Detroit Tigers hired him as manager. In midseason 1904, Barrow resigned under pressure from Frank Navin, destined to become one of the key executives in the history of Detroit baseball. Like Barrow, Navin was young and ambitious, and the two would cross swords many more times until Navin's death.

Later Barrow became president of the International League, a minor league just below the level of the majors. He led the International league during its disastrous conflict with the self-proclaimed major Federal League in 1914 and 1915. To survive, Barrow schemed to have a modified version of his International League recognized as a third major league within Organized Baseball. Despite his best efforts, Barrow's political talents were not up to the task, and after some apparent successes, the major leagues rejected his pleas.

Anything else?

Perhaps most notably, in 1918, Barrow managed Babe Ruth and the Boston Red Sox to their last World Series title before the "curse." During his years at the Red Sox helm, he had several high profile confrontations with the childlike Babe. Barrow was also at the center of the Carl Mays controversy that nearly tore the American League apart.

Was Barrow involved in the sale of Babe Ruth to the Yankees?

When Red Sox owner Harry Frazee sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees after the 1919 season for $100,000 and a loan of $300,000, Barrow was still manager of the Sox. When Frazee broke the news to the frustrated, but not completely surprised Barrow, Barrow maintained some hope that Frazee might release some of the cash proceeds to help rebuild the team. Unfortunately, the cash-strapped Frazee plowed little if any of his windfall back into the Red Sox.

What about the sale itself? Why did Frazee sell the greatest player in the history of baseball?

For roughly eighty years after the sale of Ruth, the notion that Frazee sold Ruth and other players because he needed the money moved beyond conventional wisdom and into the realm of historical fact. I am not aware of any serious baseball histories that dispute this view. Recently, however, a revisionist history has taken root suggesting that, in fact, Frazee was financially well-off and did not sell Ruth because he needed the money, but because he actually believed the team would be better without the youthful star. Shockingly, this revisionism has now been accepted by many as the new conventional wisdom.

Using recently available and unexamined information—including the New York Yankee financial records on file at the Baseball Hall of Fame and the Frazee papers at the University of Texas—I debunk the new revisionism and show conclusively that Frazee sold Ruth because he was in desperate need of the money.

At the time of Barrow's hiring by the Yankees, how were baseball franchises run, and how did Barrow fit in?

Most baseball teams were still run like small businesses. They were run by a team president, typically a major stockholder, and the manager. The distribution of authority between manager and president depended mainly on the level of control the president wished to retain for himself. As a de facto general manager, Barrow was thrust into a baseball position that remained largely undefined. The Yankee owners recognized they needed a baseball man to help make player personnel decisions and mediate between the owners and manager. They willingly delegated much of their authority over the players to Barrow and over time allowed him to reorganize and assume control over nearly all of the front office.

How did Barrow's reign end?

With the death of owner Jacob Ruppert in 1939, the ownership of Ruppert's estate passed to a trust for the benefit of three beneficiaries, two nieces and a young lady friend. The trust named Barrow president of the Yankees, and for several years he sat the pinnacle of his beloved franchise. Estate tax issues quickly materialized, however, and the trust began evaluating sale options. Several potential sale alternatives were languishing when America entered World War II, virtually eliminating all non-war related economic activity.

Nevertheless, the estate tax issues could not be postponed indefinitely, and Barrow and the trust began discussions with a triumvirate of construction magnate Del Webb, wealthy sportsman Dan Topping, and baseball maverick Larry MacPhail. Barrow and MacPhail had feuded publicly for many years and Barrow hated to see "his" team go to his rival. At one point early in the sale negotiations, Barrow declared that MacPhail would take control of the franchise "over [Barrow's] dead body." Nevertheless, in January 1945, the trust sold the Yankee organization to the three for the war-depressed price of only $2.4 million.

*****

For more information on Ed Barrow: The Bulldog Who Built the Yankees' First Dynasty, please visit the book's Web page at http://nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Ed-Barrow,673413.aspx.

Yacking in Yakima: Radio Interview with Mike Barenti

Attention Yakima, Washington-area bloggers! Tune in to KIT Radio 1280-AM on Monday, March 17th at 7:40 AM to listen to an on-air interview with Kayaking Alone author Mike Barenti. You'll hear all about the author's awe-inspiring and thought-provoking solo journey along the Columbia River and its tributaries, from the Idaho mountains to the Pacific Ocean, as well as the environmental issues surrounding the salmon population in the Northwest. Don't miss it!

Farmer on ForeWord.com

Daryl Farmer, author of Bicycling beyond the Divide, has been featured on the ForeWord Magazine Web site. Check out his interview here.

Interview with Mike Barenti & Daryl Farmer

“The Same Ten Questions”

Both Mike Barenti and Daryl Farmer penned travel adventure narratives published this month by the University of Nebraska Press. The former wrote of his two-month kayaking journey from Idaho’s Salmon River to the Pacific Ocean in Kayaking Alone and the latter of his twice-made cross-country bicycling tour (trips spaced twenty years and seventy pounds apart) in Bicycling beyond the Divide. We set out on our own quest to discover the impetuses behind these parallel yet disparate expeditions and the lessons learned by each of these men as they reflected on their travels in writing. We posed the same ten questions to both authors. Let’s see how their answers stacked up.

1.  What inspired you to set off on your journey?

Barenti: No one thing inspired me, but the biggest single factor was my work as a newspaper reporter. I reported on salmon and the Columbia River for my job with the Yakima Herald-Republic, and while I thought I did a good job, I also thought my coverage was somewhat piecemeal—which sometimes is the nature of newspaper reporting. I also had my own questions about the river and society’s relationship with the river that I wanted to explore, and at some point I got it in my head that the best way to really understand everything was to see a big long stretch of river. Since I love to kayak, a long kayak trip seemed like a natural fit. 

Farmer: Like all the best stories, this one begins with a crush on a girl. Her name was Sandy, and after our junior year, she moved back to her home state of Oregon. Having scarcely been out of Colorado, Oregon seemed entirely exotic to me then, not only because of her, but also because of the ocean, which I had never seen. I started reading about the natural areas of the state, and knew I wanted to visit. Then one day in my high school library, I was reading a magazine called Campus Life and there was an article about bicycle touring. It was spring. That February, I'd finished my final basketball season and it was becoming clear that the scholarship I'd long dreamt of was not forthcoming. Escape by way of bicycle seemed the perfect antidote. As I started planning the trip, I began reading about more of the natural areas of the West. I actually planned the trip around the locations of National Parks.

It took me to years to plan and save the money for the trip. When I got to Oregon, I did see Sandy, who was then married and had a son. But it didn't matter—by then my ride was about the journey, and not about the girl!

What inspired me to take the trip again twenty years later were three things: I needed to get in shape, I wanted to see those places again, and I wanted to write about both experiences.

2. How did family and friends react when you told them of your plans?

Barenti: My wife (we were engaged at the time) was very supportive, although I learned after the trip she also was a little worried about my safety. My parents were definitely worried about safety. I think a lot of my friends, especially the ones I kayak with, wanted to come with me for one portion or another of the trip. I didn’t object, but also decided I didn’t want to have any type of set schedule, and let them know that they would have to work around that fact. So in the end, I didn’t paddle with any of my friends.

Farmer: Initially, on that first trip, my father didn't want me to go. On the surface, he wanted me to finish college and get a job. But beneath that, I think, was a deeper concern for my safety, for all the things that could happen to a naïve 20-year-old on a bicycle. My mom was worried too, but I think she sensed that I needed to grow up a little, and this would help me. In the end, they were proud of the trip, and now they have a book dedicated to them!

On the second trip, my wife, Joan, was very supportive. For a time we'd discussed taking the trip together. She herself once rode from Jasper, Canada to Missoula, Montana by herself, so she knows a little bit about bicycle touring. But without me saying so, she understood that it was something I needed to do alone, and she encouraged me to do so. 

3. Did you ever doubt your ability to finish what you set out to accomplish?

Barenti: I never doubted my ability to finish, which is strange because in hindsight, it’s clear so many things could have gone wrong.

Farmer: Not on the first trip because, though I had sketched out a rough map of places I wanted to go, I was really not tied to a specific schedule or destination. My goal was just to go where the road took me.

But on the second trip, I had my doubts. I was out of shape, and I hadn't ridden the bike much for years. My second day out, I rode over Hoosier Pass, which is over 11,000 feet. It was only four miles to the summit, but I stopped a lot. It took me all morning to get to the top. But I figured if I could make it, I'd be okay the rest of the way.

4. What was the highlight of your trip?

Barenti: It’s hard to point to just one thing, which I know sounds like a cop-out. I tend to over analyze things sometimes, which is probably an occupational hazard of being a writer and journalist, but at certain points in my trip, simply because of the sheer physicality of it, I could put that tendency away and just sort of exist in the moment. That was nice, although hard to write about. 

Farmer: I couldn't pick just one highlight. I met so many great people, and the whole experience kindled and rekindled a love for the West that lasts to this day. But making it across Nevada on the second trip was a highlight for me—it felt like a sort of victory, because on the first trip I had had a difficult time making it across the state.

5. What was the lowest point during your travels?

Barenti: I had two low points. The first came right at the beginning, which surprised me, but now makes sense. I had trouble coping with the sheer distance of the trip. I mean, the first day I paddled maybe twenty-five miles, which is a decent distance in a kayak, but then thinking about the trip it was like, “crap, I still have 875 miles to go.” All those river miles really weighed on me.

The second came after I made it out of the Columbia River Gorge. For me, the gorge starts just downstream from Umatilla, Oregon and stretches almost to Portland. Because of local weather conditions, it’s really windy, and I was dealing with thirty and forty knot headwinds on an almost daily basis along that stretch of river. In a kayak, that’s just exhausting. After I made it below Bonneville Dam, all the effort caught up with me. I just sort of crashed for a few days and was low both physically and emotionally.    

Farmer: You would think I would say when my bicycle was stolen in Oregon, and that might be right. But I don't remember it that way, because that theft and all that came after it was a turning point in terms of the narrative. In other words, I think the book is better because my bike was stolen. The low points came during periods of loneliness, especially on the second trip when I missed Joan.

6. What was the most beautiful and/or awe-inspiring sight along the way?

Barenti: Again, it’s hard to point to just one thing. After I finished kayaking one day, I hiked up a ridge where I could look down on the Columbia River. I was up high enough to look down on an osprey while it fished. Ospreys always seem like they hit the water pretty fast when they go after fish, and this one was no different. But when it came up from the water, I lost track of it against the river. The Columbia’s water is a very dark green and ospreys have dark backs, so the bird blended in with the water. Even though I lost sight of the bird, I could see the ripples made by water falling off the invisible flying bird hitting the river. It was amazing to watch. 

Farmer: There were so many! Seeing a grizzly bear in Yellowstone was definitely one of those moments. And while kayaking in the San Juans, we had Orcas swimming very near us. Seeing the ocean for the first time, camping on the beach, and watching the sun set over the Pacific was another. But there were a lot of those moments. I think that something about being on a bicycle—feeling the wind against your skin, smelling the pine trees, listening to the birds—just lends itself to a heightened sense of awareness, with a connection to the natural world. Food tastes better, the world seems more beautiful. At times I'd just get these electric tingling eye-watering waves of joy.

7. Which single experience during your trip was most life-altering?

Barenti: You know, I hate to say this, but I’m not certain this trip was life altering. Of course I didn’t really set off with the goal of altering my life, so you know… I think the trip did reinforce some things for me. I’m from Virginia originally, but I love the Northwest and can’t imagine living anywhere else, although circumstances do change. And I think the trip connected me more to the place I now call home and makes it feel like home. In the years since I took the trip, I’ve been back to some of the places I traveled through, and now I have my own personal stories about those places. My wife has had to listen to me talk about how I camped someplace or how long it took me to get through the gorge because of the wind. Stuff like that. I’m sure when my kids get older I will bore them to no end talking about that stuff. Isn’t that what fathers are supposed to do?

Farmer: I think meeting Randy Randall in Oregon, after the bike was stolen, and listening to him tell his story about Vietnam, his PTSD, the drugs and violence, and then his description of the hand of God touching him on the shoulder. I'm not one to wear my faith on my sleeve, but you can't be around Randy and not be inspired by him.

8. Did you know that you wanted to write of the experience before you began your adventure? What compelled you to chronicle your journey in writing?

Barenti: I did know I wanted to write about the trip before I took it, but I also gave myself permission not to write about it if at the end I found I didn’t have enough material for a book. I knew when I took the trip that it would be a good way to look at the pressing environmental issues we face in this country, especially what to do about Columbia River salmon.

Farmer: Not on the first trip, but when I left on the second trip, I already had the book contract. On the first trip, I kept a journal daily, but I never imagined it being read by anyone other than myself. I just wanted to remember everything and have a record of it for later.

9. Did you find the writing process difficult? What was your greatest challenge?

Barenti: I love to write, but I have to work at it, maybe more so than some other writers, so it’s always a difficult process.

With this book, dealing with the science, particularly the salmon biology, was definitely the hardest part. Integrating the science in a way that didn’t disrupt the book’s narrative was challenging. It also took a lot of work to keep the scientific information accurate. There’s always what I like to think of as a flattening out process when you take something from a scientific paper and re-write it for a general reader. There’s a lot of information that a scientist needs, but that a lay reader doesn’t, and as a writer you try to winnow that out. But that flattening process can introduce errors, and it takes a great deal of effort to make certain it doesn’t happen. I went back again and again to a variety of scientists, often letting them review chapters for accuracy as I worked on them.

Farmer: It wasn't so difficult to write the initial draft. The challenging part was deciding what to leave out, because I had so many memories from the first trip, and I'd kept meticulous notes on the second.

10. What message do you hope readers take away from your book?

Barenti: I don’t know that I have a message I want the readers to take away from the book. I hope instead that the book makes them think not just about the Columbia River and its problems, but about the full range of environmental problems we face around the world, while providing a framework for looking at those problems so that maybe we, as a society, can start to find some solutions.

Farmer: I hope the book inspires people to bicycle more. It's such a great way to travel. If more people bicycled to work, think of the problems it would solve: health problems, money problems, pollution problems, traffic problems, parking problems.

Also, the book is a celebration of the country, beyond a shallow show of patriotism. The West in particular is filled with interesting people and beautiful landscapes, and so full of stories waiting to be told! 

***

We hope you enjoyed our interview with Mike Barenti and Daryl Farmer. Perhaps they will inspire you to set off on your own adventure—whether in a kayak, on a bike, or from the comfort of your armchair reading one of these exciting books.

Kooser Radio

"Tune in to Ted"

Can't get enough of Ted Kooser and his newest poetry collection, Valentines? Check out this link to a recent radio interview with the former U.S. poet laureate and winner of the Pulitzer Prize in Poetry on South Dakota Public Radio's "Food for Thought."

http://www.sdpb.org/archives/ProgramDetail.asp?ProgID=6880

Happy listening!

Andy Brumer on the Radio

Andy Brumer, author of The Poetics of Golf, will take part in an interview this Saturday, January 26th on "Golf Innerview" with Ann Liguori on WLIU 88.3 FM Radio. The interview will air at 9:35 am EST in the Long Island and Connecticut areas. Located elsewhere? No problem. Anyone can catch the interview online at http://www.wliu.org/. Happy listening!