Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane share views on philanthropists

and disagree on the issues of philanthropy and fate versus choice in their books
Walden and Maggie: a Girl of the Streets. In Walden, Thoreau writes of his
experiences at Walden Pond and how it affected his views on many aspects of
life. Thoreau is quite strong willed and expresses his opinions in a straightforward
manor.

Maggie: A Girl of the Streets is the story of a girl growing up in an

impoverished family. She faces the everyday hardships of living in a grimy, crimeridden community. Crane shares his ideas and views through the characters in
the story and the struggles they go through.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane disagree with the popular notion
that philanthropists are people who care about the general well being of others
for selfless reasons. Thoreau disagrees with this because he thinks that no one
could have such a pure and selfless motive. He believes that philanthropists
practice philanthropy for themselves, either for recognition or as a way to feel
accomplished and caring. Thoreau states philanthropy is not love for one's
fellow-man in the broadest sense (59). When a philanthropist practices
philanthropy for recognition, he or she is doing it for his or her reputation and for
a sense of self-righteousness. A person who practices philanthropy for an inner
sense of peace also has selfish motives. This person may be helping others but
what he or she really expects to gain is a feeling of accomplishment or some
concrete evidence that he or she is a good person. As Thoreau puts it, the
philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own
castoff griefs as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy (63-64), meaning that

philanthropists use philanthropy to right past wrongs or feel good about

themselves, which is a self-serving motive.
Crane believes in much of the same ideas. He feels that philanthropists only
help others for their reputation and do not care about the actual well being of
people. In Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, Crane shows an example of this type of
philanthropy when he describes a mission church where a man composed his
sermon of yous (13). This quote is showing that so-called philanthropists, such
as preachers, will talk endlessly about helping others but in the end don't care
about those in need. Crane emphasizes this idea when a stout gentleman, with
pompous and philanthropic whiskers, went stolidly by, the broad of his back
sneering at the girl (73), ignoring Maggie when she is most in need of help. This
is similar to Thoreaus idea that philanthropists practice philanthropy for
recognition. Both Thoreau and Crane believe that traditional philanthropists have
selfish motives and are unhelpful but the two men have differing views on the
actual practice of philanthropy.
Thoreau does not believe in philanthropy. He believes that people should be
independent and help themselves. This relates to his support of self-reliance, his
belief that everyone should be independent. Thoreau demonstrates these traits
by going to live at Walden Pond. Thoreau is completely independent; he grows
all his own food and builds his own house. He does not accept help and does not
help others. He believes that philanthropy is unnecessary and by helping others
one is preventing those in need from helping themselves. As with philanthropists,
Thoreau also believes that the root of most philanthropy is selfish. He says, I

never heard of a philanthropic meeting in which it was sincerely proposed to do

me any good(59). Thoreau believes that philanthropy is not really helping others
if the philanthropy is for selfish reasons and he says, philanthropy is almost the
only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly
overrated; and it is our selfishness which overrates it (63). Thoreaus belief that
everyone should be self-sufficient contradicts the fundamental ideas of
philanthropy.
Crane disagrees with Thoreau because he believes that philanthropy is
beneficial. In Maggie: A Girl of the Streets he demonstrates this by showing true,
selfless philanthropy. This characteristic is mainly exemplified by an old woman
who lives in the tenement in which Maggie and her family live. This woman is not
a traditional philanthropist; she's gotten arrested for stealing and acts helpless to
make more money begging. But when it comes down to it she helps out Maggie
and her brother. She has no ulterior motives because no one is watching her and
in one case she goes against the public opinion to offer help. When Maggie is
abandoned by her family and shunned by her neighbors the old woman says to
her Come in an stay with me I ain got no moral standin (68). When Maggies
brother, Jimmie, has a bad situation at home the woman said, Go, now, like a
dear, an buy me a can, an if yer mudder raises ell all night yehs can sleep here
(11). Both these examples show philanthropy preformed by a non-traditional
philanthropist, which is the type of philanthropy that Crane believes to be
important. Crane also thinks philanthropy is important because he believes in
fate and that an effective way out of a terrible situation is with help.

Thoreau and Crane disagree on the issue of fate versus choice. Thoreau
believes that a persons life is in his or her hands. Thoreau exemplifies this by
dropping everything and living in the woods for two years. While he is aware that
this is harder for many than it is for him he believes that a person can work his or
her way out of any situation. With the right mindset and dedication anyone can
lead a happy life. He shows this attitude in Walden by saying that, what a man
thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate(10-11);
simply stated is that a persons thoughts and actions determine who he or she is.
This means that if a person believes in himself or herself and works hard, he or
she can lead a good life. Alternatively if a person makes bad choices he or she
will lead a bad life. Thoreau does not believe in fate and thinks that if someone
works hard enough he or she can overcome even the toughest situations.
Crane disagrees with Thoreaus philosophies. He believes that while people
have some control, the direction of a persons life is mainly up to fate. In Maggie:
A Girl of the Streets, Maggie is a good person in the wrong place. She grows up
in poverty and she and her family members stay poor until the end of the book.
Despite that she blossomed in a mud puddle and grew to be a most rare and
wonderful production of the tenement district, a pretty girl (16), Maggie could still
not overcome her challenges, showing that even the extraordinary can not work
their way to a better life. Maggie once went to see a show and she wondered if
the culture and refinement she has seen imitated, perhaps grotesquely, by the
heroine on the stage, could be acquired by a girl who lived in a tenement house
and worked in a shirt factory (28). This is established by the book to be

impossible; Maggie cannot escape the hold of her living situation. She is trusting
with others, which leads to bad decisions on her part. Thoreau would say that
this is her fault but Crane believes it is fate. Maggie cannot escape her destiny.
Even though she is different from many of her neighbors, no amount of good
decisions can bring her out of poverty. Thoreau disagrees with Crane, and
demonstrates his beliefs when he says I desire that there may be as many
different persons in the world as possible; but I would have each one be very
careful to find out and pursue his own way, and not his father's or his mother's or
his neighbor's instead (59), showing that no matter what the situation, a person
should be able to make choices about his or her life.
The differing opinions of Thoreau and Crane do not make one less
passionate than the other. Both authors strongly believe in what they stand for
and are relatively stubborn in their philosophies. The authors agree that
philanthropists have selfish motives and do not care for the well being of those
they are helping. They disagree on the act of philanthropy; Thoreau believes
people should be self-reliant and help themselves while Crane believes selfless
philanthropy can greatly benefit a person. The two authors also disagree on fate
versus choice. Thoreau believes everyone is in control of his or her own life,
while Crane believes many things are up to fate. These two books are written in
remarkably different formats, yet both convey strong judgments on philanthropy,
philanthropists, and fate versus choice.