I read the intro and I'm reading the sections on/by Quammen, Ray, Oelschlaeger, Ortiz, and Sanders. Based on the intro, those were the ones that interested me. I'm more interested in the stuff about how place influences us, not so much on things generally seen as environmentalism or nature writing I guess. (Although I am sort of wondering if I'll eventually find that is an artificial or otherwise crappy division I am making.)
I was surprised in the intro to hear the editors sort of misgivings about how they paired (originally) oral interviews with written responses and how this created a sort of imbalance. I got the sense that there were some heated exchanges. As I read, I'm looking for those. I'm seeing a few responses that I could see being sort of feather-ruffling, let's say. And some of them seem kinda dirty. Not sure what to do with this, but it is interesting.