[This was an in-class writing so it's a bit unpolished... Forgive me... Also forgive the lack of the two passages on this page. I'm too lazy to type them, but I don't think you really need them to understand the writing, anyway.]

  In the discussion of the various aspects of human life, one is often forced to question the meaning of truth in our lives, and to wonder if there is such a thing as a fact. The two descriptions of Okefenokee Swamp in Florida both seem to be factual, but when viewed as a combination, show that at least one author is taking liberties with his or her "factual" depictions of the swamp.

   Beyond the contrast in the aura of the swamp, the two analyses are discrepant with even the most quantitative observations. In Passage 1, the swamp is home to 175 species of birds, yet two years later in Passage 2, it has astoundingly hosted a massive immigration, now being home to 225 species of birds. A two-year time period may indeed allow time for the immigration of a couple new species, but surely not 50! -- and evolution cannot happen during 2 years alone - it needs more like 2000.

   The writers clearly differ extraordinarily in their views of the swamp: while the author of Passage 1 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 Passage 2 condemns the swamp for being "primeval," while the first author respects and appreciates it for being "primitive." Where Author 1 seeks calm and simplicity in past states, Author 2 sees ferocity.

   Though both passages mention certain similar attributes of the swamp, the tone which they use to do so creates an atmosphere that in no way could coalesce to be one singular entity, to be a single swamp. Passage 1 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 Passage 1, they have 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 picture in Passage 1 is of freedom, of beauty, of the easygoing simplicity and relaxation we 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. Passage 2, 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.

   Passage 2 introduces Okefenokee Swamp as being "unconquerable," but the author of Passage 1 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. Perhaps 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.

   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 (it mentions neither), and sees merely the "hummocks" in the the "meandering" waters and the "floating hearts, lilies, and rare orchids," where the author of Passage 2 is only on a search for aesthetic, "Hollywood" beauty, and that he will not find. There is beauty for all who seek it, yet to find beauty, one must look past the ugliness of something 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. In a world where we so often lose track of ourselves, the swamp should be appreciated for its simplicity and its symbiosis -- for even though they may be growing in a place with the stench of the swamp, the flowers surely have found a way to use this stench and flourish.