Analysis Of Richard Louv's Last Child In The Woods

In 2008, Last Child in the Woods was written by Richard Louv. In one section of the book, Louv develops an argument that states that technology has separated people, specifically those of the technological generation, from nature. In the passage from Last Child in the Woods, Louv uses anaphora, rhetorical questions, and appeals to ethos to develop his argument regarding the gap technology is forming between people and nature.

Firstly, Louv uses anaphora in the passage from Last Child in the Woods to emphasize the growing cavity between people and nature. Louv specifically points out the differences between generations, emphasizing the fact that the generation of technology is more so cut off from nature compared to the generation before it, especially in his final paragraph, which he writes, “‘Yes,” we’ll say, ‘it’s true. We actually looked out the car window.’ In our useful boredom, we used our fingers to draw pictures on fogged glass as we watched telephone poles tick by. We saw birds on the wires and combines in the fields. We were fascinated with roadkill, and we counted cows and horses and coyotes and shaving-cream signs. We stared with a kind of reverence at the horizon, as thunderheads and dancing rain moved with us. We held our little plastic cars against the glass and pretended that they, too, were racing toward some unknown destination. We considered the past and dreamed of the future, and watched it all go by in the blink

of an eye.” The repetition of the word ‘we’ at the beginning of each sentence allows the reader to comprehend that looking out the window of an automobile was only done by one specific generation; only they gazed out the windows of a car, the generation after them didn’t, any every generation that follows won’t, and it makes it sound that this generation is superior to any generation.
In addition, Louv also uses rhetorical questions to emphasize the growing gap between people and nature. When he asks, “Why do so many Americans say they want their children to watch less TV, yet continue to expand the opportunities for them to watch it?” he is using a rhetorical question to help point out the irony that, while parents say that they want their kids to play outside and be more appreciative of nature, they are the ones who provide the means for children to watch television. Louv then goes on to ask, “More important, why do so many people no longer consider the physical world worth watching?” Louv is asking what have people done to the world that allows it to be so easy for kids to turn to a television screen. He actually answered himself earlier in the passage when he said, “Advertisers already stamp their messages into the wet sands of public beaches. Cash-strapped municipalities hope corporations agree to affix their company logo on parks in exchange for dollars to keep the public spaces maintained.” In short terms, nature has become so littered that there are only a few places still considered untouched by mankind, and places such as those are often preserved for commercial use.
Finally, using real life examples and quotes from other people, Louv uses appeals to ethos to show the gaping hole between people and nature. To begin with, Louv used the story of the time his friend went to get a car: “A friend of mine was shopping for a new luxury car to celebrate her half-century of survival in the material world. She settled on a Mercedes SUV, with a Global Positioning system: just tap in your destination and the vehicle not only provides a map on the dashboard screen, but talks you there. But she knew where to draw the line. “The salesman’s jaw dropped when I said I didn’t want a backseat television monitor for my daughter,” she told me. “He almost refused to let me leave the dealership until he could understand why.”” In this example, Louv shows us that having a television in the car is considered the norm for parents and any parent that doesn’t want to shut their kids up with cartoons and mindless television shows are strange unusual beings. However, Louv does prove he’s not alone in his idea that technology is taking over society and is effectively distracting people from nature. Additionally, Louv quotes writer Matt Richtel in regards to advertisement: “There are countless possibilities for moving ads out of the virtual world and into the real one. Sponsorship-wise, it’s time for nature to carry its weight.” This reveals that Louv isn’t making this battle up in his head, there are actually people out there who are on technology’s side of the argument. The quote gives him a chance to respond to one of technology’s arguments in their battle to prove that there is nothing wrong with technological advances. Over all, the input of quotes lead the reader into thinking that they too should jump on the bandwagon and join nature’s side of the argument.
In conclusion, Louv makes a compelling argument for nature in the nature vs technology argument by using anaphora, rhetorical questions, and appeals to ethos.

In doing so, he ensures that the readers walk away from his writing thinking of the unnecessarity of technology and how it distracts one from nature. He encourages the reader to think about what they can do to minimize the amount of technology in their life so they may be more attuned to nature. In short, Robert Louv wisely uses rhetorical devices to form a persuasive

argument.