Thoreau V.S.

Crane Essay Niki Patel CAP English 9 Green Group 12/18/13

In Walden, by Henry David Thoreau and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets by Stephen Crane, the authors share similar views on philanthropy, however, they express different views over selfreliance and whether fate or human choice determines a persons future. Thoreau, a transcendentalist, idealizes the life of a non-materialistic man. Crane, a naturalist, writes of the harsh tenement life residents faced in the Lower East Side of New York. In Walden, ideas of philanthropy, self-reliance, and fate versus choice are expressed through Thoreaus point of view as a true philanthropist and his value of simplicity. Alternatively, in Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, the previously mentioned ideas are expressed through the point of view of a young girl living a life of poverty, innocence, isolation, and eventually prostitution in the midst of New York. Both writers have come to a consensus that being a philanthropist is highly misunderstood and that the term philanthropy is commonly misused among society. Thoreau analyzes that human tendency interprets philanthropy inaccurately. To be a true philanthropist is to give selflessly; not selfishly. The philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own cast-off grief as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy. (Thoreau p.63) Thoreau explains how people often give to the poor, not intending to help the less fortunate people around them, but rather to make the philanthropists feel better about themselves for doing something that is considered philanthropic. This ruins the effect that giving and helping the lessfortunate should have on people who have more than enough. There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted. (Thoreau p.61) By stating this, Thoreau clearly expresses his belief that there is no odor so bad, that there is nothing worse, than selfish philanthropy. Crane expresses his similar views of philanthropy in Maggie through the eyes of a less fortunate girl in need of a true philanthropist in her life. Maggie is an extremely unfortunate girl

who is growing up in the underprivileged sector of New York, spending her days wishing for a better life, in which she does not need to scrape by on whatever she is lucky enough to be given. Maggie is aware her benefactors do not care much for her actual benefit, due to the quality of the items being given to her. In all the unhandy places there were buckets, brooms, rags and bottlesFormidable women, with uncombed hair and disordered dress (Crane p.39) Maggie is grateful for all that is offered to her, but she knows that if the wealthy people around her are true philanthropists, and if they truly care for her well-being, they can easily provide her with what she actually needs. However these philanthropists only wish to give what they personally dont need, which will make them feel better about themselves, but is not beneficial to the underprivileged people they are supposedly helping. Maggie refuses to say anything about this, in fear that she will be given nothing at all. His pocket-book deprived them of the power of retort. (Crane p.59.) She would rather be given something, rather than nothing at all, even if what she is given will not help her chances of survival. This reinforces the idea that being a true philanthropist-giving for the benefits of others, is more important than the self-gratification received when helping others, and how true philanthropy is often misused and misunderstood by the common person. Although Thoreau and Crane share similar views on philanthropy, they both express different opinions and ideas about self-reliance in their literary pieces. To truly be self-reliant is to rely oneself, and to only obtain the few material possessions that are necessary for survival. Although extremely difficult, being self-reliant is not impossible. Thoreau believes that being self-reliant and living simply is possible, but Crane believes that while self-reliance is an extremely effective way of living, it is not possible for everyone. In Walden, the reader learns about how Thoreau lives in almost complete isolation for two years in the woods to experience

genuine self-reliance. Thoreaus purpose for going to Walden Pond is not to live cheaply, nor to live dearly there. (Thoreau p.19) To gain personal experience living in utter self-reliance is a goal of Thoreau to gain intellectual knowledge spiritually. While living at Walden Pond, Thoreau says, I earned my living by the labor of my hands only. (Thoreau p.7) Thoreau builds his own shelter, grows his own food, makes his own clothing and personally creates or gains resources to create his life necessities. This provides evidence that materialistic items are not necessary to live everyday life contently. The items that are needed for survival can easily be created without assistance from anyone else. Over the two years Thoreau spends at Walden Pond, many people question if this mode of life, which some would call impertinent, (Thoreau p.7) is appropriate or natural, because they are used to living a civilized lifestyle compared to being completely self-reliant. In the end, despite all doubts, Thoreau proves the possibility of self-reliant living. Although Thoreau values living simply and believes living self-reliantly is a possibility for people, Cranes opinion differs. In Maggie, Crane expresses how hard it is for people to be self-reliant while stuck in such abject poverty and low life standards. Crane exposes the horrid tenement life of children, and how this life deprives them of the knowledge of how to be selfreliant when these children are grown adults. Maggie has always leaned on her parents for support, and although they are alcoholics and abusive, they provide Maggie with food and shelter. As her mother disowns and kicks her out, Maggie becomes extremely dependent on a single companion, Pete. By the time Pete leaves her, Maggie has been taken complete advantage of and has experienced the feminine aversion of going to hell. (Crane p.49) Maggie is completely unaware of how to be self-reliant and cannot support herself. Maggie was pale. From her eyes had been plucked all look of self-reliance. She leaned with a dependent air toward

her companion. (Crane p. 73) Maggie had always been completely dependent on her companions to survive, so when she is left on her own she is left as a, scrawny woman with an eternal grievance. (Crane p.59) Trapped in complete destitution, Maggie has no idea how to support herself and be self-reliant, while stuck in such poverty and low life standards. Through Maggies predicament, Crane skillfully expresses the idea that living self-reliantly is simply not possible for everyone. Thoreau and Crane also have different views on fate versus choice. Thoreau believes that a person can determine his own future through their actions, and Crane believes that a persons future is determined by fate and is uncontrollable by humans and their actions. Thoreau expresses his belief that a person can determine his own future through his actions. Continuously referencing and reiterating the idea that people can only improve their lives to a degree equivalent to the amount of dedication and effort they put into trying to make life better. Its simply a waste of time to wait for fate to change ones life, as every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. (Thoreau p.24) A mans life, simply put, is predicted in the results of that mans actions. If people choose to lead lives of quiet desperation, (Thoreau p.11) and not speak up and try to create a better future for themselves, they are at fault for not taking the initiative to make improvement. Contrary to Thoreaus belief that a person can determine his own future through his actions, Crane believes that a persons future is determined by fate and is completely uncontrollable by humans. Crane shows that Maggies future is affected by the tenement district and life into which she is born and over which she has no control. Against all odds, Maggie blossomed in a mud puddle. She grew up to be the most rare and wonderful production of a tenement district, a pretty girl. (Crane p. 49) Even though Maggie cannot control all the

negative things to which she is exposed at such a young age, she grows up to be quite innocent to evil surrounding her, unfortunately which eventually leads to Maggies bad future. Maggie is sucked into the devastating life of prostitution, and because of her innocence, she is unaware to why it is frowned upon by society. Her brother has realized that his sister would have been more firmly good has she better known. (Crane p.77) Because fate has Maggie grow up oblivious to her surroundings, her life ends when Maggie is still quite a young women. Suicidal and sucked into prostitution, Maggies life is yet another example, this time, of how fate controls ones future. Despite that Thoreau and Crane share similar views on philanthropy, they express different stances over self-reliance and whether fate or human choice determines a persons future. Thoreau and Crane both believe that being a philanthropist is highly misunderstood and the term philanthropy is commonly misused among society. Thoreau also believes that being self-reliant is a possibility for people and that human choice determines ones future. Crane, however, believes that being self-reliant isnt possible for everyone, and that fate can often determine ones future. These are just a few examples of the similarities and differences of ideas in In Walden, by Henry David Thoreau and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets by Stephen Crane.

Works Cited

Maggie: A Girl of the Streets Crane, Stephen. Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins, 1999. Print. Vol. 1 of Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. 2 vols.

Walden and Civil Disobedience Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: Barnes and Nobel, 2003. Print. Vol 1. of Walden and Civil Disobedience.2 vols.