Werbanowska 1

Marta Werbanowska
Dr. Elisa Oh
ENGG-213
10 November 2016
Potentially Radical, If It Does What It Promises: A Review of Simon C. Estoks Ecocriticism
and Shakespeare: Reading Ecophobia
With his first published monograph, the environmentally-oriented Shakespearean scholar
Simon C. Estok makes clear his academic and activist objectives. In the books introductory
chapter, the author of Reading Ecophobia promises to fill in some of the gaps created by recent
attempts to do ecocritical readings of Shakespeare, to follow the paradigm of ecophobia as it is
expressed in Shakespearean drama, and to define clearly the need for this paradigm within and
beyond Shakespearean scholarship (12). Avowedly presentist and activist in his approach, Estok
substantiates the need for an ecocritical reading of early modern literature as a means of
recognizing the importance of discursive pasts for material presents (8). However, having
stated these certainly laudable purposes for his book, Estok does not quite successfully deliver
the radical ecocritical intervention he initially promises. While Reading Ecophobia introduces an
interesting and potentially useful analytical framework for ecocritical literary studies, it too often
falls short of convincingly demonstrating the intended activist relevance of an application of its
main ideas to, and especially beyond, Shakespearean scholarship.
Ecocriticism and Shakespeare: Reading Ecophobia, divided into eight chapters and a
coda, and delivers an ecocritical readings of Shakespeares canonical as well as his lesser known
plays. In the first chapter Estok introduces his critical/activist project and defines ecophobia as
an irrational and groundless fear of or hatred of the natural world, as present and subtle in our

Werbanowska 2
daily lives and literature as homophobia and racism and sexism (4). He further observes the
ubiquity of this fear of nature in modern civilizations, pointing out that the ecophobic impulse
sustains the personal hygiene and cosmetics industries and generates phenomena such as
landscaped gardens and trimmed poodles in womens handbags on the Seoul subway system
(4). Finally, he makes it clear that ecophobic discourse is ultimately about power and control; it
is what makes looting and plundering of animal and nonanimal resources possible (4). This
expanded definition successfully establishes the relevance of his critical concept as an analytical
tool for discussing our contemporary society and culture; it also illustrates the need of tracing the
origins of ecophobic discourse, whose history from the Old Testament to European imperialism
and the Industrial Revolution Estok briefly delineates.
Throughout the rest of his monograph, Estok examines instances of [i]magining badness
in nature and marketing that imagination in short, writing ecophobia in Shakespeares
dramatic ouvre (5). He opens the discussion by tracing the elements of ecophobic consciousness
in King Lears characterization of weather as unpredictable, chaotic, and therefore hostile to
humans. He then moves on to analyze the conflated fears of transgressive homosexuality and the
uncontrollable natural world expressed in Coriolanus, and then to examine the marginalization of
vegetarianism in Henry VI. In chapters 5, 6, and 7, Estok reads the semiotics of cannibalism
(15) in Othello and Pericles; the fear of pollution combined with misogyny in The Winters Tale;
and the exoticization of madness in The Tempest and The Merchant of Venice, respectively. The
closing chapter of the book is concerned with the uneasy representation of sleep as an
interstitial space between the human and Nature in several of Shakespeares plays (16).
Estoks intriguing analysis reads the ecophobic discourse in Shakespeares works as a
complex, multifaceted, and often subtle presence (as opposed to simply an overt expression of

Werbanowska 3
any conscious dislike for non-human nature); however, the activist relevance or scholarly
significance of his arguments is neither equally clear nor compelling in all of his essays. For
example, while the discussion of sleep-related imagery in Hamlet, The Tempest, and Macbeth as
symptomatic of an underlying fear of the loss of human agency seems well-grounded and
compelling, it fails to clearly indicate what the larger relevance of this study for contemporary
ecological criticism and activism would be. Estoks close textual analysis of Shakespeares
works, combined with their contextualization within early modern philosophical writings on
sleep, makes a convincing case for the reading of sleep as (in)activity that intimates bestiality
and that, when pursued during the day, disturbs humanitys place in natures order (111).
However, the authors claim that the importance of his analysis must be defensible
insofar as it offers foundational work on conceptual connections (119) and thus pursues one of
the key objectives of ecocritical study (that is, the search for interconnections between linguistic,
human, and non-human natural spheres) leaves much to be desired in terms of providing a
rationale for its relevance. The chapters final section states that ecocritical inquiry is potentially
radical, if it does what it promises (120); somewhat ironically, it is not exactly clear how this
radical promise of ecocriticism is delivered by the authors repetition of the oft-discussed
association of darkness with danger or by his very general conclusion that sleep is clearly a
complex issue, one acutely implicated and imbricated with discourses about environment (121).
In contrast, Disgust, Metaphor, Women: Ecophobic Confluences stands out as the
strongest part of Estoks study. Unlike most other sections of the book, the textual analysis in this
chapter is preceded by a thorough theoretical discussion, in this case of the imagery of rot and
pollution as a metaphoric vehicle for ecophobia and misogyny. According to Estok, what makes
rot of such concern to theories of ecophobia is . . . its imagined unpredictability, its . . . blurring

Werbanowska 4
of borders, and its perceived alliance with an antagonistic nature (87). This idea takes on a
gendered aspect when one considers the relation between the transgression of culturally
significant boundaries, bodily orifices being one such set of boundaries and the long history of
Western imagination where women who speak out of order become sites of pollution as do
menstruating women (87). Consequently, the ubiquity of the metaphor of rot and pollution in
the works of Shakespeare has the effect of forcing the audience, both in contemporary and
Elizabethan times . . . into ways of thinking both about figures of otherness and the environment
that allow for the societys undervaluation and subsequent mistreatment of the other, whether
female or non-human (91). The chapter closes with an insightful case study of The Winters Tale
as a play that, through its consistent commodification of nature, fails to challenge ecophobia
yet does manage, though inadvertently, to challenge gynophobia by presenting Leontess
phobic approach to Hermione and Paulina as irrational and anomalous (95).
As a whole, Reading Ecophobia promises some potentially fascinating interventions into
the fields of both early modern and ecocritical studies, yet it generally falls one step short of
living up to the full potential of these promises. Estoks captivating discussion of early modern
environmental concerns such as the so-called Little Ice Age and air pollution that troubled
sixteenth-century London successfully deconstructs the narrative that poses late modernity as
the sole temporal location of ecological crises. However, the argumentative strength that this
account might have if given a chapter of its own gets lost due to the books organization, which
places bits and pieces of this information as mere preambles to the discussion of individual
works by Shakespeare. Similarly, the authors argument for the significance of Shakespeares use
of the ecophobic discourse for the contemporary readers environmental activism, although
consistently implied throughout the monograph, is never quite carried through. The concept of

Werbanowska 5
ecophobia offers a compelling perhaps even radical, as Estok would like to see it theoretical
framework for the analysis of literary discourse and its impact on environmental practices, but it
can only be effective if the origins, continuations, and aftermaths of these discursive-socialmaterial connections are clearly traced and thoroughly discussed. Reading Ecophobia offers a
good starting point for such scholarly intervention but fails to reach the full activist and academic
potential of reading ecophobia in literary texts as well as social discourses. Hopefully, this can
be achieved by future scholarly works that, perhaps, will employ Estoks analytical framework
and theoretical vocabulary to deliver insightful and stimulating readings of ecophobia across
various time periods, geographical locations, genres, and authors.

Works Cited
Estok, Simon C. Ecocriticism and Shakespeare: Reading Ecophobia. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2011. Print.