OCR Text |
Show 427. were higher than those surrounding Yosemite. Pointing out that "this new yosemite is longer and deeper, and lies embedded in grander mountains," or asserting that the waterfalls "of the new valley are far less striking in general views, although the volume of falling water is nearly twice as great and comes from higher sources," Muir was making mechanical comparisons. Seeing this area in terms of Yosemite and using the language of Yosemite was a hindrance. The architecture of the region was of a different style from Yosemite, and so any exposition based on points of interest was doomed to failure. The names of the main landmarks were still not fixed by common usage, and were not familiar as those of Yosemite had become. In fact, no one landmark was as impressive as those in Yosemite, though Muir argued that the valley contained "the highest, most elaborately sculptured, and the most beautiful series of rocks of the same extent that I have yet seen in any yosemite in the range." When comparing the Palisades to El Capitan,. he was forced to confess that "neither in bulk nor in sublime boldness of attitude can it be regarded as a rival of that great rock." The closest he ever came to catching the flavor of this area's architecture was in describing the Glacier Monument, an analogue to Half Dome: It is upward of a mile in height, and has five ornamental summits, and an indescribable variety of sculptured forms projecting or countersunk on its majestic front, all balanced and combined into one symmetrical mountain mass |