2.5
It's hard for me to critique this book without also critiquing permaculture as a movement. So let's focus on my problems with the whole movement, in re gardening, which is this book's focus. I'll probably be ranting before I'm done.
1. There is nothing original in the ideas of permaculture gardening. It's cobbled together from previous ideas and given a shiny new name.
2. It's internally inconsistent. "Work with nature. Be minimal in your designs." But also, step 1, do major earthworks, step 2, install a humongous water cistern and a bunch of plastic watering tubes. There's plenty of that disconnect in this book.
3. Permaculture is cultlike in general and in many details and trends. Like…comfrey, comfrey, comfrey. I'm sick of hearing about it. You must mail-order some special weed roots, and they're shipped to you via diesel truck, along with all the other plants that are "in" right now, while you ignore the carbon cost of that truck trip. You had perfectly nice dock and chicory in your yard, but hey, comfrey is IN. And except with comfrey, the special plants seems to shift from year to year, which makes sense only for the sellers profiting from selling them, which leads me to…
4. $1000 US and upwards to get a "permaculture design certificate." Eff me sideways, what a racket. This book, which you can probably get from your library for free, is equivalent to one, so bypass the classes and read this instead. Which leads me to…
4b. The whole movement is really bourgeois, and this book is full of that 'tude. First you buy your four acres in a nice place, and then you hire your permaculture designer for $20,000, and then you do your major earthworks, and then you put in your solar system and special appliances, and then you mail-order $10,000 worth of exotic plants. Not needed. The way I do no-till organic gardening is to beg tree services for free wood chips, take home free cardboard when I shop, rake other people's leaves for them, and buy 25-cent seeds at my local Dollar Tree (yes, they're open pollinated varieties just like those $4 seeds online).
5. Some of it doesn't make a lick of sense. "Food forests" is not a way to grow tomatoes. If I'm going to build no0till garden areas, which includes moving a lot of tons of crap around with my aging bod for two or three years, and nurture my seed starts indoors, and harden them off over two careful weeks, and trellis them and prune them and possibly have to spray them with baking soda during bad blight years, I'm doing it to eat some damned tomatoes at the end of that work. (Don't get me started on "no work" gardening. Tomatoes are work. They just are. Many other food plants can take care of themselves after you stick the seed in soil, but tomatoes are needy.) Most vegetables don't produce well in shade, so a food forest for veg is nonsensical. ("Food forests" for fruit are really just orchards with some understory, so again, it's making up a fancy word for something people have been doing for generations.)
6. It's sexist. It's sexist in its culture from what I've seen and read, and it's sexist that a lot of these ideas come from aboriginal women and from Westernized women like Ruth Stout and Esther Deans and that English woman of 100 years ago who I admit I'm forgetting the name of today. Seldom are those women referenced (One line in this book mentions Stout.) None of those women got rich off the core ideas. Nope. A bunch of men came along and capitalized on the ideas. You might counterargue, "Hey, that's just capitalism doing its thing. They stepped up to grab the available money and the women didn't." But these people allegedly hate capitalism, except, it seems, when they are charging for courses and consultations and raking in adsense money and "gofundme"ing their new greenhouses.
7. Permaculture attracts wackos. Seriously, go to Youtube and ask for this months' permaculture videos and you will see bug-eyed people who'll believe anything. (Like they'll believe they have to replace their perfectly fine local weeds with comfrey because it's a Very Special Weed.) They can't stop with claiming "homegrown vegetables taste better and, picked at their ripeness, are probably more nutritious than those at your supermarket." They have to promise increased spiritual awareness from their produce. (Dudes, I grew some pretty good tomatoes this year, but they didn't make me see gods. Maybe other people are eating them after they've fermented? Or can tomatoes get ergot?) They talk about unscientific crap like focusing our mental energy to create some physical change in the world or about comets out at the orbit of Jupiter changing your gardening experience in Witchita or about solar minimums and the End Times, and oh my god, it's Wackdoodle Central! Not, not every one of them is so bad. (I would refer you, for instance, to the sensible Nova Scotian who posts there as Maritime Gardener or to One Yard Revolution's moribund channel.) But a majority of them are more than a little crazy. How can I believe in anything these people say when 75% of them have clearly let their avocado slip off their toast? In the defense of this author, though, he isn't like this often or strongly in this book, and he even says that science shows that orally perpetuated myths about "companion planting" vegetables are nonsense. So a tiny "yay" for him for paying attention to science in that case.
8. You can't claim to be no-carbon-impact and off the grid if you're on the internet. The internet is the griddiest grid that ever gridded.
But anyway, enough bitching about the movement and onto this book in particular. I did get a list of plants beyond comfrey that have deep taproots that I can use to chop and drop for mulch and that I can start from plants or seed I can get cheaply or already grow and can propagate to that end. The book needed more illustrations/plans of gardens to make his points, in my opinion. He relied too much on his own two properties for examples.
If you have drunk the permaculture kool-aid with a total lack of critical thinking, this is a four-star book, I'm sure. If you're a skeptic like I am, if you notice internal inconsistencies between permaculture's stated principles and practices, it's maybe 2.5 stars. Negative 1.5 stars of that is really a critique of permaculture as a movement, not of this author in particular. He's parroting the party line. It's just that I see a bunch of stuff wrong with the party line.