Abstract The “new nature writing” has been seen as a response, especially in the United Kingdom, to the growing sense that earlier paradigms of nature and nature writing are no longer applicable to current geographical and environmental conditions. At the same time, some writers who have been associated with the “new nature writing” dislike the term, criticizing it for its residual parochialism, its continuing class and gender biases, and its paradoxical adherence to the very categories – particularly wildness – it wishes to confront. This article does not set out to dismiss the “new nature writing” or to assess which writers might be the best fit with it; instead, it looks at its indebtedness to the earlier literary and cultural traditions it claims to interrogate and deconstruct. This debt is often expressed in terms of belatedness, whether acknowledged or not, in relation to earlier notions of wilderness and wildness – inherently slippery categories that multiply and ramify in the “new nature writing,” which has neither managed to dissociate itself from wildness nor to redefine it for our ecologically troubled times.

中文翻译：

---

回到未来：“新自然书写”、生态厌倦、野性回忆

摘要 “新自然写作”被视为一种回应，尤其是在英国，人们越来越意识到早期的自然和自然写作范式不再适用于当前的地理和环境条件。与此同时，一些与“新自然写作”相关的作家不喜欢这个词，批评它残留的狭隘主义、持续的阶级和性别偏见，以及它对类别的矛盾坚持——尤其是野性——它希望去面对。本文并不打算否定“新自然写作”或评估哪些作家可能最适合它；相反，它着眼于它对它声称要审问和解构的早期文学和文化传统的亏欠。这种债务通常表现为迟到，