OCR Text |
Show 353. they said that one attraction was better or more impressive than another, when they admired one Sequoia because it was bigger than another, when they persisted in judging falls by the quantity of water, rather than by their individual character, Muir responded, As far as the falls are concerned, it seems to be pretty generally believed that the greater the quantity of water the greater the beauty, and it certainly seems pathetic that at this stage of evolution it should be necessary to state that every waterfall has an individual character, and that each possesses a series of beauties changing with the seasons, and all the various types of beauty blending with one another inseparable and incomparable. He sometimes despaired of finding the end to this kind of response from the tourist, at a place like Kings Canyon: The waters of the new valley effect their descent by a series of comparatively short leaps and inclines, which, according to the vague classification in vogue in these dark pretentious days, would mostly be brought under the head of cascades. . . . Nevertheless, it may be long ere waterfalls have their beauty measured in any other way than by plumb lines and tape-lines. The American preoccupation with the biggest, oldest, tallest, was offensive because it assumed a false standard of judgment. Thus he pointed out that Mount Whitney had "no special geological significance," and possessed "little appreciable individuality." Just because it was the highest, it was not |