Haili Bruckner

Honors English 9A
Red Group
12-12-16

Thoreau vs. Crane Paper

 Henry David Thoreau, in Walden, and Stephen Crane, in Maggie: A Girl of the Streets,

have contrasting views on the need for self-reliance and whether one can choose his or her own

path in life, but compare in their views on philanthropy. In Walden, a nonfiction story, Thoreau

writes of his personal experiences by Walden Pond, where he lives mostly in solitude and relies

on himself for food, shelter, and the other basic needs of life. Thoreau, a transcendentalist,

focuses on the beauties of nature and portrays the world in a utopian light. Thoreau explains

some of his major views, including his belief that useless possessions waste time and energy and

are not needed, and his belief that it is important to be independent and rely on ones self.

Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, is a fictional story that follows the life of Maggie, the main

character, who resorts to prostitution after she is turned away by her friends and family. Crane, a

realist writer, focuses on the harsh realities of lower-class life in New York during the late 19th

century. Maggie, a young and naive girl, falls for a boy named Pete, hoping that he will help her

reach her goals in life, but after he leaves her, Maggie has nowhere to go. Through Maggies

struggles, Crane explains his views such as his belief that it is necessary for one to have others

on whom to rely, and his belief that an individual has a set destiny in life that is determined by

his or her class standing. Thoreau and Crane, although both are authors from the 19th century,

come from different viewpoints and contrast in their views on self-reliance and destiny, but share

similar views on philanthropy and philanthropists.

Thoreau and Crane would contrast in their views on self-reliance. Thoreau believes that

in order to progress in life, it is important to be independent. He explains, I lived alone, in the

woods, a mile from any neighbor, in a house which I had built myself and earned my living by

the labor of my hands only (Thoreau 7). He argues that those who live with simplicity rely only

on themselves. Thoreau also states, How much more admirable is the Bhagvat-Geeta than all
the ruins of the east! Towers and temples are the luxury of princes. A simple and independent

mind does not toil at the bidding of any prince (48). He expands on the idea that one will have

a happier and simpler life if he or she does not rely on the labor and assistance of others.

Stephen Crane, contrasting with Thoreau, believes that in order to move up in society it is

important to rely on others. He states, from [Maggies] eyes had been plucked all look of self-

reliance. She leaned with a dependent air toward her companion (Crane 73). Crane makes the

point that Maggie needs the help of her friends and family, and when it is not provided she has

no options left. He states, The air of spaniel-like dependence had been magnified and showed

its direct effect in the peculiar off-handedness and ease of Petes ways toward her (Crane 78).

By comparing Maggie to a dog, Crane shows that she does not have the ability to be self-reliant

and needs to depend on others, but when she is denied help, she is forced to resort to prostitution.

Thoreau argues that self-reliance is necessary, while Crane contrasts, showing that it is

impossible for one to be fully self-reliant and that he or she needs to depend on others to have a

happy life.

Thoreau and Crane would also disagree on destiny. Thoreau concludes that one controls

his or her own future, and that ones own actions will determine his or her future. Thoreau states

that what a man thinks of himself, that is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate (10).

Thoreau elaborates that any individual has the ability to shape his or her own future. He

explains, I would have each [different person in the world] be careful to find out and pursue his

own way, and not his fathers or his mothers or his neighbors instead (59). Thoreau believes

that ones future is not determined by the futures of those sharing similar backgrounds or

circumstances, but rather by ones own determination. Crane shares the contrasting view that

fate is determined by class standing. Crane states, The girl, Maggie, blossomed in a mud
puddle. She grew to be a most rare and wonderful production of a tenement district, a pretty girl.

None of the dirt of Rum Alley seemed to be in her veins. The philosophers up-stairs, down-

stairs, and on the same floor, puzzled over it (49). He writes that even though Maggie grows to

be a beautiful young girl, a rare case in Rum Alley, her beginnings still dictate that she will never

achieve her life dreams and will remain hopeless. Crane also states, On the corners he was in

life and of life. The world was going on and he was there to perceive it (47). His writing

explains his belief that while one is living life, he or she is merely there to watch it pass by, and

that his or her actions cannot control or change the future. Crane believes that destiny is

predetermined, and that one cannot form his or her own path in life. Thoreau believes that one

can dictate his or her own fate, contrasting with Crane who believes that fate is determined at

birth.

While Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would contrast regarding their views on

self-reliance and destiny, they would agree in their views on philanthropy. Thoreau believes that

the act of philanthropy is good, but that philanthropists perform acts of kindness only to benefit

themselves. He states, there is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted. If I

knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me

good, I should run for my life (Thoreau 61). He explains that philanthropists, because of greed

and selfishness, search for those in need of help in order to receive something in return. Thoreau

says, It may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is

doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve

(62). Thoreau makes the point that the philanthropists who donate the largest amount of money

or provide the most help do so not for the sole purpose of assisting the needy, but out of the hope

for something in return. Crane similarly believes that acts of philanthropy are performed by
those who do not need or want the recognition, and that the so-called philanthropists only help

when they are being observed. He writes about an old woman who pleads for money on Fifth

Avenue. Crane states, She received daily a small sum in pennies. It was contributed, for the

most part, by persons who did not make their homes in th[e] vicinity [of Fifth Avenue] (43). He

explains that the wealthier individuals of the time, such as those residing on Fifth Avenue, are not

the ones to contribute to the poor, but rather that most money is given by those who have

experienced or who understand the difficulties of lower-class lives. Crane also writes, So, she

cried, ere yehs are back again, are yehs? An deyve kicked yehs out? Well, come in an stay

wid me teh-night. I ain got no moral standin (84). Through the dialogue of the old woman,

Crane elaborates that one who performs a true act of kindness is someone similar to the old

woman, who does not care about reputation or public image, but who provides assistance to girls

like Maggie when others refuse. He believes that those who call themselves philanthropists are

selfish, and only choose to help when it will pay off. Thoreau and Crane contrast on many

issues, but the authors both agree that acts of philanthropy are beneficial while so-called

philanthropists are often selfish.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane, although they are both influential authors of

the 19th century, share comparing and contrasting viewpoints, in part based on the dissimilar

settings of their writings. Thoreau, a transcendentalist, focuses on the ideals of society, which he

bases off his reclusive life at Walden Pond, while Stephen Crane, a realist, sheds light upon

societys harsh realities, focusing on the lives of the lower-class in New York City. The writings

of Thoreau and Crane share differences on the viewpoints of the need for self-reliance and

whether one can choose his or her own destiny in life, but share similar viewpoints on
philanthropy and philanthropists.

Works Cited

Crane, Stephen. Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. Boston, Bedford/St. Martin's, 1999.

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York, Barnes & Noble, 2003.