
The end of the road? What The Salt Path scandal means for the nature memoir
But it wasn't the first nature memoir to top the charts, by any means. In 2012, Wild by Cheryl Strayed described the 26-year‑old's hike across the west coast of America in the wake of her mother's death and the end of her marriage, and after soaring up the book charts it was made into a film starring Reese Witherspoon two years later. That same year, H Is for Hawk by Helen Macdonald was a surprise bestseller, telling the story of a year spent training a Eurasian goshawk as a journey through grief after the death of their father. In 2016, Amy Liptrot's The Outrun saw her return to the sheep farm on Orkney where she'd grown up in order to recover from addiction through contact with nature; it was also recently filmed, with Saoirse Ronan in the lead role. Meanwhile, in last year's bestselling Raising Hare, foreign policy adviser Chloe Dalton describes moving to the countryside, rescuing a leveret and rediscovering her relationship with the land.
There is clearly a thriving market for this particular blend of nature writing, personal memoir and a specific form of self-help in which the embattled individual – or in the case of The Salt Path, a couple – finds solace, sustenance and even redemption by withdrawing from everyday society and launching themselves into the great outdoors. It's not difficult to see why such narratives are attractive, but what do they tell us about ourselves and our relationship with the natural world? And what damage might The Salt Path affair do to this genre of nature memoir?
It is not given to any of us to know the definitive truth, of course, and any memoir is subject to the pitfalls of perception, memory and judgment. But the two most significant accusations levelled against Winn are that, some time before the journey described in The Salt Path, she embezzled large amounts of money from an employer, and that she exaggerated the severity of Moth's illness. She denies both, and is particularly insistent that neither she nor Moth intended to suggest that their travels were a miracle cure for his condition.
However, the book tapped into a strong desire among readers for narratives of healing through nature. For Melissa Harrison, author of novels for adults and children as well as nonfiction ranging from memoir to nature guides, these kinds of nature books represent 'proxies through which we can relate to the natural world in a way that most of us don't have the time or the inclination to in real life'. Reading about someone else's deep dive into forest, field or water furnishes us with the sense that we're participating in an environment that, for much of the time, is at arm's length. 'That mediated experience is reassuring: it tells us that we still have the capacity for a certain depth and intensity of feeling, and that one day, when whatever the circumstances are that prevent us from doing so currently are over, we can pick up our relationship with nature where we left off – most likely in adolescence – and find meaning and belonging again.'
Harrison adds a cautionary note, however, about the 'healing narrative' or 'quest structure' in such nature writing. Having admired Dalton's work, for example, she observes that 'for every Raising Hare there are five books in which it seems the author simply wanted to write a nature memoir and cast about for some kind of experience to structure the book. Readers deserve better – and publishers should do better than this.'
Harrison is not the only writer I speak with to bring up the issue of publishers' responsibilities. Indeed, the post-Salt Path conversation has included criticism of Winn's publisher, Penguin Random House, and its perceived failure to carry out due diligence on her manuscript. While the more trenchant comments seem tinged with a post-hoc lack of realism – can editors really be expected to play detective and, for example, interview a prospective writer's wider circle to establish veracity? – there is more justification for the feeling that the industry will publish relentlessly into an area it deems likely to achieve mainstream success, even if that means green-lighting repetitive or imitative work.
Mo Hafeez, a commissioning editor at Faber, agrees that there has been a certain homogenisation of writing about the natural world, especially in work coming through after the pandemic. 'People were engaging in nature more, purely by virtue of being in lockdown and not being able to see each other,' he says. 'There was this surge of nature writing that came through, and often, instead of it being career-long naturalists or academics or people who had been writing in this area for a long time, it was everyday people's engagements with nature. Which in a way was very lovely, and it democratised the genre quite a lot, but it got to a point where it was quite a saturated area of the market.'
The challenge, he thinks, is to resist expectations of what a nature memoir should look like, and remain open to work from unexpected angles – he has recently been reading the poet Jason Allen-Paisant's nonfiction exploration of rural landscapes in the UK and in Jamaica, for example.
There are numerous writers who sit within the genre but are writing according to their own imperative, rather than a notional market: an incomplete list might include Noreen Masud, whose book A Flat Place observes trauma through the lens of different landscapes; poet Polly Atkin, author of a biography of Dorothy Wordsworth and a memoir, Some of Us Just Fall, in which she contemplates her own chronic illness; and Natasha Carthew, writer and founder of the Nature Writing prize for working class writers.
It's likely that none of these writers will compete with Raynor Winn in terms of sales. Bestselling books become so because idea, execution, publishing knowhow and the zeitgeist combine in precisely the right way and at the right moment to capture readers' imagination. One can certainly see what made The Salt Path successful: a compelling piece of storytelling in its own right, it tapped into deeply held anxieties about the sudden loss of home and health, and countered them with a portrait of resilience against the odds.
It is the accusation that Winn misrepresented her husband's illness, and that the books allowed, if not encouraged, readers to believe that the couple's walks and wild camping had led to an improvement in his condition, that has provoked the most vehement negative reactions. That strength of feeling is telling.
'What I'm interested in,' says Rachel Hewitt, author of In Her Nature, 'is that use of physical illness as morally unambiguous. It's a shield, isn't it?' She argues that the full story – whatever the truth of it – would have made a more interesting narrative. But it is easier to market the more crafted tale, which is 'actually very simple: a walk from illness to recovery, a walk from homelessness to finding a new concept of home. You know, all those things are quite simple, and there's clearly something within publishing houses or within readers that really responds to that.'
Writing about illness is an intensely personal and immensely delicate undertaking, both in terms of the challenges it holds for the writer and the impact it can have on the reader. Susan Sontag famously outlined the dangers in Illness As Metaphor; Hilary Mantel counselled that 'illness strips you back to an authentic self, but not one you need to meet. Too much is claimed for authenticity. Painfully we learn to live in the world, and to be false.'
Hewitt suggests that there might be an inherent smoothing over of complication in the stories that publishers find it easiest to present to the public; and that a woman in her 50s, with a necessarily involved past, constitutes a challenge to that narrative simplicity. Hewitt is currently contemplating writing about grief from the perspective of her own widowhood, and has become increasingly aware of 'these sort of neat, linear narratives that have become such a staple of nature writing, but don't represent human experience'.
In terms of writing about the natural world, author Nic Wilson believes this approach is symptomatic of 'much wider societal attitudes towards nature and the transactional way that quite a lot of our society goes into the relationship with nature'. Her debut book, Land Beneath the Waves, has been published recently, and she explains how she initially resisted the idea of writing about her family history and her own chronic illness in relation to nature, deterred partly by an awareness of the limitations of memory, and partly by a belief that her story was too 'ordinary'.
'I think perhaps even some of the books that are billed as healing narratives are more complex than that. It's just that this becomes sort of a trope that's talked about. And I think it simplifies things, and sets a precedent that other books are expected to follow, which is not helpful to [having] a diversity of voices within memoir, particularly within nature memoir, because the greater diversity of voices we have, the more people's individual experiences are validated and spoken to.'
Through all these conversations, there's a clear insistence that we need to see 'nature' not as a resource, but as a multifaceted and interdependent series of contexts and environments. 'Let's be honest, it's full of death, isn't it?' says James Rebanks, whose accounts of his life as a farmer in The Shepherd's Life and English Pastoral have recently been joined by The Place of Tides, a memoir about time spent with a wild duck farmer on a Norwegian island. As he points out, nature is 'full of death and disease and failure and decline. It isn't all butterflies, sunshine and healing, is it? In my last book, I was trying to make it more complicated: nature can be lonely. Nature can be too quiet. It can be too isolated. It can lead to you not being in the right place. And nature itself is broken, so it can make you depressed. It's falling apart around you. I find it more interesting when it's less about personal redemption and more of a mirror on the big things that I care about: the politics, the economics, what's actually really happening in the world.'
Rebanks, who loves Tolstoy and the American writer Wendell Berry and thinks of himself in the tradition of the agrarian radical, is an engaging presence, both off and on the page and, like the best writers on nature, is alive to the frequent contradictions in portraying it in either fiction or nonfiction. Helen Macdonald, too, whose prize-winning H Is for Hawk has been made into a film with Claire Foy and Brendan Gleeson, is acutely aware of the expectations we bring to the genre.
'Nature is considered to be the one place free of human artifice, the place where deep universal truths can be uncovered that are not to do with us,' Macdonald says, 'which, of course, is bullshit. That's not the case. We put all our deepest human meanings into nature. We sort of force them in there, and then we use them to prove the veracity of our own concepts back at us, which is what nature writing does all the time.'
Macdonald highlights a literary-critical tradition that is useful in understanding both the success of The Salt Path and the reaction to its alleged departures from fact. 'Tramp' or 'vagabonding' literature, which flourished in the 19th and 20th centuries, was by its nature highly individualistic and accepted to contain fabrications; it encompassed writing by those who were marginalised from society, and those, like George Orwell, who put themselves in that position in order to analyse societal structures. It's a world away from contemporary memoir and the idea that nature can be instrumental in making us feel better.
So is the genre now facing an existential crisis? Is there still room in the market for stories of journeys into the wilderness, complete with a healing narrative? For Jessica Lee, author of books for both adults and children and the founder of The Willowherb Review, which ran from 2018 to 2022 and aimed to provide a platform for writers of colour, the issues raised by The Salt Path furore present us with an opportunity to explore innovative ways of writing about nature.
'If we're talking about wanting to write about the natural world,' Lee says, 'we can't get rid of ourselves. We can't write ourselves out of the narratives; we're the ones telling the story. But what we can do is allow the world to inform the shape that we take.' That means resisting the idea of linear progression, or redemptive arcs, in favour of the cyclical and the messy. 'The personal, with us at the centre, can be the door that opens the story. But then we really need to be very proactively seeking to undo that the second we've opened that door.'
Meanwhile, the fallout from such microscopic attention to a huge bestseller offers us a window into the realities of nature publishing, where experimentation and complexity persist, but often do so without the resources afforded to more commercially appealing narratives. A salutary lesson, perhaps, but not one likely to deter the most adventurous and committed of those attempting to survey our threatened environment and to capture both its wonders and its fragility.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trump tears apart 'racist sleazebag' Charlamagne Tha God after he criticized the president in front of his daughter-in-law
Donald Trump lashed out at Charlamagne Tha God, calling him a 'racist sleazebag' after he openly criticized the president in front of his daughter-in-law. 'The Breakfast Club' radio host sat down with Lara Trump, who is married to the president's son Eric Trump, on Saturday night as she asked him to rate her father-in-law's performance in office over the past six months. 'I wouldn't give it a good rating - simply because the least of us are still being impacted the worst,' Charlamagne, whose real name is Lenard Larry McKelvey, replied. 'Like when you look at something like the 'Big, Beautiful Bill'. That's something that I'm going to benefit from because of the tax bracket that I'm in. But there's going to be so many people that's hurt by that bill,' he added. Trump signed the 'Big, Beautiful Bill', a landmark piece of tax cuts and spending legislation, into law in early July. 'And you know, anything that, you know, takes away Medicaid from people and puts them in a worse financial situation then they were previously in - I'm not for,' Charlamagne, 47, added. Trump was not happy with the comments the media personality made - prompting him to make a scathing post on his Truth Social platform at 1.49am on Sunday. 'The very wonderful and talented Lara Trump, whose show is a big ratings success, put racist sleazebag Charlamagne 'The God' (Why is he allowed to use the word 'GOD' when describing himself? Can anyone imagine the uproar there would be if I used that nickname?),' Trump wrote. The president then ripped into the radio host, who voted for Kamala, for saying his Democratic presidential opponent is currently looking 'pretty, pretty good.' 'But this dope, Charlamagne, would vote for Sleepy Joe or Kamala? Remember, one year ago our Country was DEAD, now it's the 'HOTTEST' Country anywhere in the World. MAGA!!!,' the commander-in-chief wrote. He went on to call Charlamagne a 'Low IQ individual' who doesn't know what he's saying and does not know about the president. 'He's a Low IQ individual, has no idea what words are coming out of his mouth, and knows nothing about me or what I have done - like just ending 5 Wars, including a 31 year bloodbath between Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, where Seven Million people have died, and there was no end in sight,' Trump added. 'He didn't know that, or India and Pakistan or, wiping out Iran's nuclear capabilities, or closing the horrendous open Border, or creating the greatest economy, where prices and Inflation have come way down, and where STUPID and CORRUPT JOE BIDEN set the record for doing the Worst Job as President, EVER.' During the nearly 30 minute interview with Lara, Charlamagne said Americans are disappointed they are not getting the 'day one change' Trump promised during his campaign. 'Right now people are hurting! He campaigned on immediate change. Day one change,' he told her. Lara then asked: 'And you don't think you've felt any change?' He went on to call Charlamagne a 'Low IQ individual' who doesn't know what he's saying and does not know about the president 'No,' Charlamagne replied bluntly. She then went on to ask him specifically about his feelings on border security and Iran. 'Do you feel safer knowing that Iran will not have the ability to develop a nuclear weapon?,' she asked. 'Sure. If you're telling me that a county won't have the ability to build a nuclear weapon,' Charlamagne responded. When asked if he feels 'better' that American borders are closed, Charlamagne said he does, but he wants to see actual 'criminals and illegal immigrants' being deported, 'Not people who are here trying to go through the process of being in this country legally.' 'When you see people actually getting deported and getting detained and they're actually trying to go through a process of being American citizens, that's not right,' he continued. Although he voted for Harris in the 2024 election, Charlmagne is no stranger to lashing out against Democrats. 'When you look at Democrats' approval rating in this country, when you look at Republicans' approval rating in this county, you see that America's just fed up with it all,' he told the Fox News host. 'Like, Democrats suck. We know that already though. You know what I mean? So it's like…I knew that Trump would probably get in office again and fumble. 'But I also knew that Democrats wouldn't have the team put together properly to recover the ball. So what you're seeing right now from the American people is just a backlash to everything. People want something different.' Lara then asked if he thought the former vice president was the 'best representative' for Democrats in the recent election. 'Yes. If you look right now, she's looking pretty, pretty good because a lot of the things that she said President Trump would do, he actually did,' he answered. 'I did a segment on the Daily Show after he became president, and I was like, "Prove people wrong. Everything that everybody is saying about you, everything that they say you're going to do, all you gotta do is simply not do." But he did it anyway.'


Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Stephen A. Smith blasts Michelle Obama over Trump comments
Stephen A. Smith has snapped back at Michelle Obama after her brutal assessment of ESPN this week — taking aim at the former First Lady over 'offensive' comments she made about voting for Donald Trump last year. Obama savaged ESPN and its on-screen personalities, including First Take star Smith, on the latest episode of her 'IMO' podcast after comparing the network to reality TV show The Real Housewives of Atlanta. She said: 'It's the same drama, and they're yelling at each other, and they don't get along, you know? I mean, Stephen A. Smith, he's just like every other talk show host.' In the wake of her 'Real Housewives' jibe, Smith responded to Obama on the latest episode of his YouTube show. After urging her to invite people onto the IMO podcast with 'dissenting opinions', he hit out at the 61-year-old for her rhetoric about Trump and the Republican party ahead of last year's presidential election. 'Michelle Obama, I wanna take this opportunity to remind you that while you are revered by me personally, and I truly, truly mean that with the greatest sincerity, I'm still a bit salty at you,' Smith said. 'When you were campaigning on behalf of the former Vice President Kamala Harris, you said a vote for Trump was a vote against you and a vote against y'all as women. I want to say for the record — I took major offense to that. 'I think to this day that is the only thing that I didn't like that you said, I didn't appreciate it. Because there's so many things that go into deciding where your vote is going to go. For some people, it's all about the economy. For others, it's all about national security. For some people, it is immigration. For some people, it's safety in the streets of America. Long before they think about pro-choice or pro-life.' Smith then briefly praised Obama after branding her 'sensational' and claiming that both she and husband Barack would beat Trump in an election if either of them decide to run in the future. He then addressed her comments about ESPN, which he 'respectfully disagreed' with after hearing the comparison to the Real Housewives. 'So this doesn't have anything to do with what you were talking about, how sports and reality TV mirror one another, even though we would beg to differ,' the ESPN host continued. 'Because a lot of things on reality TV are made-up situations and scenarios to provoke reactions and all of that stuff. We're at sports, that's live entertainment, and you're actually competing against one another is big time. No, reality TV is not like that. You're so wrong about that, about that assertion, but that's neither here nor there.' 'You will never hear me utter a negative word about you, but I respectfully disagreed and still remain pretty salty about what you said about us,' Smith said, before adding that Obama 'sort of blackmail[ed] us emotionally into trying to compel us to vote one way or another.' Smith, widely considered the face of ESPN, emerged as a shock presidential candidate earlier this year after a national survey revealed that he would receive more support than several high-profile Democrat hopefuls in three years' time.


Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Stephen A. Smith blasts Michelle Obama over 'offensive' Donald Trump comments after ex-First Lady turned on ESPN
Stephen A. Smith has snapped back at Michelle Obama after her brutal assessment of ESPN this week - taking aim at the former First Lady over 'offensive' comments she made about voting for Donald Trump last year. Obama savaged ESPN and its on-screen personalities, including First Take star Smith, on the latest episode of her 'IMO' podcast after comparing the network to reality TV show 'The Real Housewives of Atlanta '. She said: 'It's the same drama, and they're yelling at each other, and they don't get along, you know? I mean, Stephen A. Smith, he's just like every other talk show host.' In the wake of her 'Real Housewives' jibe, Smith responded to Obama on the latest episode of his YouTube show. After urging her to invite people onto the IMO podcast with 'dissenting opinions', he hit out at the 61-year-old for her rhetoric about Trump and the Republican party ahead of last year's presidential election. 'Michelle Obama, I wanna take this opportunity to remind you that while you are revered by me personally, and I truly, truly mean that with the greatest sincerity, I'm still a bit salty at you,' Smith said. 'When you were campaigning on behalf of the former Vice President Kamala Harris, you said a vote for Trump was a vote against you and a vote against y'all as women. I want to say for the record - I took major offense to that. 'I think to this day that is the only thing that I didn't like that you said, I didn't appreciate it. Because there's so many things that go into deciding where your vote is going to go. 'For some people, it's all about the economy. For others, it's all about national security. For some people, it is immigration. For some people, it's safety in the streets of America. Long before they think about pro-choice or pro-life.' Smith then briefly praised Obama after branding her 'sensational' and claiming that both she and husband Barack would beat Trump in an election if either of them decide to run in the future. He then addressed her comments about ESPN, which he 'respectfully disagreed' with after hearing the comparison to the Real Housewives. 'So this doesn't have anything to do with what you were talking about, how sports and reality TV mirror one another, even though we would beg to differ,' the ESPN host continued. 'Because a lot of things on reality TV are made-up situations and scenarios to provoke reactions and all of that stuff. 'We're at sports, that's live entertainment, and you're actually competing against one another is big time. No, reality TV is not like that. You're so wrong about that, about that assertion, but that's neither here nor there. 'You will never hear me utter a negative word about you, but I respectfully disagreed and still remain pretty salty about what you said about us,' Smith said, before adding that Obama 'sort of blackmail[ed] us emotionally into trying to compel us to vote one way or another.' Smith, widely considered the face of ESPN, emerged as a shock presidential candidate earlier this year after a national survey revealed that he would receive more support than several high-profile Democrat hopefuls in three years' time. In an exclusive interview with shortly after the survey was released, the 57-year-old left the door open to run if the American people call for it, despite stressing that he has no personal desire to do so. He has frequently taken aim at the Democrats since Harris' resounding election defeat in November, accusing them of focusing too much on talking down Trump than making their own case.