Walden vs.

Crane Essay Redo

Danvi Pham Green 12/25/13

Danvi Pham Walden and Crane Final Redo

In Walden and Civil Disobedience and Maggie, a Girl of the Streets, authors Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane show different views on self-reliance and choice in determining ones life vs. fate, but show similar views on philanthropy. Thoreau is a transcendentalist, and has a more optimistic and slightly ignorant view on self-reliance and life in general, as his ideas of a simple and self-reliant life can only be applied to those that are already able to support themselves. Crane is a naturalist, having a more understanding and realistic view towards peoples ability to be self-sufficient. Thoreau writes about living at Walden Pond and relying on himself and nature, while Crane writes about a poor girl living in the tenements who must rely on others her whole life. Thoreau believes that every man should rely on himself and that it is unnecessary to depend on others, since nature already provides much of what one needs. To demonstrate this, he relies only on himself at Walden Pond. He expresses his belief that dependence on others is not only unnecessary but a bad idea, giving an example of an Indian asking Do you wish to buy any baskets?... No, we do not want any, was the reply. What! ... Do you mean to starve us?( 19)The Indian is being dependent on others when he expects them to buy his baskets, so when he is unable to sell the baskets he perishes. Thoreau says men labor under a mistake they are employed laying up treasures which moth and rust will corruptit is a fools life. (22) His point is that men rely on their employers, work for them, and get into debt. They are chained by their dependence on others. Thoreau believes that reliance on others is a weakness

that causes one to be a slave. In order to attain complete freedom and independence one must break free from society, not work for others and depend on them for money, people must work for themselves. Crane is different in that he is able to understand some people cannot be independent and truly need help from others in order to survive. In Maggie a Girl of the Streets, he brings light to this matter by writing about a girl named Maggie who is a poor tenement resident. Maggie depends on the people who pay for her prostitution in order to live, as she has no other way to make money for even the most basic of needs, food and shelter. She is nave and has no knowledge or resources to do anything else Finally she asked in a low voice: But where kin I go? She wandered aimlessly for several blocks. (86) Maggie is abandoned by Pete whom she thought she was in love and kicked out of her home, so she loses everything and has nothing at all in which to provide for herself. In Maggies case she has to depend on others because she doesnt understand or have experience to be self-reliant. From her eyes had been plucked all look of self-reliance. She leaned with a dependent air towards her companion( 73) Crane is trying to tell people that they need to help those in need through his writing, as Maggie died because she received no help at all. The reason for the two authors differences on their views of self -reliance stems from their contrasting views on choice in determining ones life vs. fate. Thoreau strongly believes that ones life is completely up to them to decide, whether to remain liv ing enslaved in society, or to become independent, self-reliant and free. He even lists the amount of money he spends to live in order to show that it is always possible to achieve the necessary items to live with minimal effort. In fact all of the materials excepting the timber, stones and sand, which [he] claimed by squatters right (42), he earned with his own ability without depending on others.

Thoreau says that many people choose to depend on others and believes that every person should adopt his or her own way of living, saying that there may be as many different persons in the world as possible; but I would have each one be very careful and pursue his own way. Since he is able to be self-reliant with minimal effort, Thoreau is unable to see why p eoples fates could be determined by birth. He believes that people choose their paths in life and people who are in poverty choose to remain that way, depending on others. (59) Crane is able to see that some people are born to their fates. Maggie is born into a poor abusive family and has no opportunity at all from the very beginning. No one teaches her the harsh reality of life and how to be self-reliant. Even her violent, unsympathetic brother *Jimmie+, once, almost once came to the conclusion that his sister would have been more firmly good had she better known why.(77) Maggie has always depended on others and never had anything, so when she is shunned by all the people she depends on, she needs help from others. Some people are born into poverty and cannot lift themselves up from it, or even survive without the help of others. It is impossible to leave society and be independent like Thoreau with nothing at all from the start. Maggie never had anything from the very beginning so she wondered if the culture and refinement she had seen could be acquired by a girl who lived in a tenement house (62) In the end she was unable to acquire a happy life because she could not lift herself up without help and nobody helped her. She was born to the fate of a miserable life in poverty. Philanthropy is something that Thoreau and Crane partially agree on. Philanthropists are hypocrites, giving money and supposedly help to others, but really they are not giving what is truly needed. They only give a small portion of what they have and not what is of value,

engaging in philanthropy for their own benefit. Thoreau says that There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted (61) when he refers to philanthropy. He does not believe that philanthropy is beneficial. Thoreau says that it encourages dependence, and laziness. The money that philanthropists give should instead be used to help the homeless become self-reliant. He advises that you give the poor the aid they most need do not merely abandon [money+ to them.(62) Crane also shows the hypocrisy of philanthropists in his writing, as Maggie had heard of the Grace of God and she decided to approach this man but as the girl timidly accosted him, he gave a convulsive movement and saved his respectability by a vigorous side-step.(87) The man Maggie approaches is not just any man, he is a clergyman. She tries to find help in him only to be shunned despite the man being a part of the church and supposedly a supporter of charity and helper for those that need it. Although both authors express disdain towards philanthropy, unlike Thoreau, Crane believes that philanthropy is needed and beneficial, as it helps those in need. In the case of Maggie, she was a soul before him that needed saving (87) Throughout his story Maggie never receives any help, which is the reason she dies. So although Crane does not like philanthropists, he believes philanthropy to be necessary. Both Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane explore views on self-reliance, choice in life vs. fate and philanthropy. Thoreau believes in complete self-reliance, that ones life is ones choice and that philanthropists are hypocritical. Crane also agrees that philanthropists are hypocrites; however, he believes that philanthropy is beneficial and disagrees on self-reliance, saying that some people cannot be self-reliant, and that fate is determined by birth.

Works Cited
Maggie A Girl of the Streets. Bedford ed. Boston: Boston Public Libruary, 1999. Print. Walden and Civil Disobedience. 1849. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2005. Print.