Okefenokee Swamp Analysis

n the two written passages, the two detailed descriptions of Okefenokee Swamp written by two different authors, both seem to be factual, however when it is put together as a combination, it shows that at least one author is informing us about the Swamp, meanwhile, the other is entertaining us with figurative language about the Swamp.
To begin with, going beyond the contrast in the atmosphere of the swamp, the two analyses are even contrary with the most quantitative observations. However, In the first passage, the swamp is described to be home to 175 species of birds, and yet in the second passage, it has shockingly hosted a massive immigration, now being home to 225 species of birds. The writers differ extraordinarily in their views of the

swamp, while the first author sees it as a bit of natural utopia, a refuge for the simplicity of biology, the author of Passage 2 sees a "swamp archetypal", a "hellish zoo" where things do nothing but "fester" and "caterwaul", a ghost house, disgusting and a mar on the front of nature. The author of the second passage punishes the swamp for being "primeval," while the first author respects and appreciates it for being "primitive." Where the author of the first passge seeks calm and simplicity in past states, the one from the second passage sees ferocity.
Furthermore,even though both passages mention certain similar attributes of the swamp, the tone that is used to do so creates an aura that in no way could coalesce to be one singular entity, to be a single swamp.

In passage one it shows respect for the unique environment of the swamp "floating mats of peat" are not at home in the midst of rivers as they are in Passage 2. In the first Passage since it was here to inform, they were given a scientific name, "hummocks," and they are accepted as part of the terrain. Additionally, the mental picture each purports is entirely in contrast with the other's Passage 1 yields "extensive prairies," "bald cypress trees festooned with moss," "meandering channels of open water," and "exotic flowers." The imagery that is pictures in the firs passage is of freedom, of beauty, of the easygoing simplicity and relaxation we seem idealize in nature. The moss "festooning" the "bald" cypress trees lends a sense of spirit and independent joy to the life in the swamp, a high order, but a place still flowing as freely as the water in its trees. the second passage, however, is not home to flowing water, it is home to "muck, mud, slime, and ooze." There are no flowers in this swamp, there are only "leaf-choked acres" yearning to end. Here, there are not "rare" species of flowers, but "seething galaxies of gnats... paramecia that exist only to compound the misery of life." Here, the swamp is not a place of joy or idealism, but a place of punishment, of agony, of torture and ugliness which is the imagery that the author chooses to show

us.
Moreover, the second passge introduces Okefenokee Swamp as being "unconquerable," but the author of the first passage doesn't even see the need for the swamp to be conquered. It is a place for one to enjoy, to appreciate, to take a little, but also give, it is a place where a visitor can be a part of the symbiotic life unraveling in the swamp. Passage 2, however, shows a swamp full of parasites, who exist only by living off of others. Maybe, this speaks to the nature of the tourist expected by the author of Passage 2 as well, a person who seeks only to take, not to enjoy and to ask what she can give.
In conclusion, This is where the differing views of the two authors are born, it seems. Passage 1 sees beauty in the swamp because it appreciates its simplicity, and can look past smells and swarming mosquitoes and sees merely the "hummocks" in the the "meandering" waters and the "floating hearts, lilies, and rare orchids," even though all the first author was to do was informs us. Where the author of Passage 2 is here to entertain, he only on a search for aesthetic, "Hollywood" beauty, and that he will not find. There is beauty for all who search for it, however to find beauty, one should be able to look past the ugliness of it and see both the beauty and respect and appreciate the ugliness for its depth and its diversity. I don't think one of the passages lied in its description of the swamp, I just pity the writer of the second passage who cannot take joy in simplicity and completeness, and understand that the swamp is still a beautiful place even though it may not be the "Hollywood" definition of beauty, because it has a soul, and a completed identity.