What does Game of Thrones, Winnie the Pooh, and Harry Potter have in common?

"Most classic novels in the western canon are examinations of the human psyche, or the relationships between small groups of people and their societies. They are studies of the individual human mind. But what about the mind of the world itself? If awareness, consciousness, feelings – life – all extend far beyond the human domain, why do novels continue to behave as if humans were the only actors? Why do we turn over the same exhausted soil again and again? What would a novel look like if it were written by someone who sang to the forest, and believed it sang back?" - Paul Kingsnorth

This quote stood out to me because of the general assumption that it would change the reality of the stories that we know. Perhaps, it just made me think of the relationship that nature plays within a story, for example; we know that Winnie the Pooh lives in The Hundred Acre Woods, but the woods aren't seen as alive unless they are being portrayed as evil and warped images. Does that function the purpose that the author is trying to make? What about the mandrakes from Harry Potter? They are alive, we know their purpose (even if it is just a plot device,) or is it because the main function of the story is about the human characters and not the plants that refutes whether the story has nature as a living machine. To dive deeper, if we look at Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire by George RR Martin) the character Bran goes on a journey where he has to become part of living web of the world through old trees and learns by the Children of the Forest. He is literally connected into the world and lives within it as it lives within him. Does this meet the same standards that Paul is looking for? 

Do you believe that we have lost touch with nature and the environment within modern Western literature? 

-A boy that wants a turtle...