Thoreau vs.

Crane Paper (REDO)

Molly Howard

English CAP 9: Blue Group

Due Date: 1/12/18

 Henry David Thoreau’s ​Walden​ and Stephen Crane’s ​Maggie: A Girl of the Streets

express the opposing viewpoints of the two authors on the realism of self-reliance and the

likelihood of being able to determine one’s fate, while also showcasing their agreement on the

subject of philanthropy. Thoreau’s ​Walden​ is a first-hand account of the two years he spends

living off the land at Walden pond​.​ Published in 1854, it details his lifestyle, the reasoning

behind his stay, and what he learns and reflects on while there. ​Walden​ covers Thoreau’s

opinions on self-reliance, fate, philanthropy, and the state of society and human nature as a

whole. The book was written during a literary time period known as Romanticism, where

everyday life is overly romanticized into an idealistic way of living. Published 39 years after

Walden​, Stephen Crane’s book titled ​Maggie: A Girl of the Streets​ illustrates the life of an Irish

immigrant living in squalor in the slums of New York. Crane writes, in harsh reality, the details

of her life from beginning to end, documenting her explosive relationship with her family to her

downfall after she became a prostitute. It is a classic example of realism and a thinly veiled

disguise for Crane’s opinions. The story, although written about a fictional family, is a direct

reflection of the lives of many immigrants in New York at the time. Both texts, written in

contrasting literary time periods, illustrate how writers during romanticism and writers during

realism dealt with the same themes.

Thoreau and Crane have conflicting viewpoints on self-reliance. In ​Walden​, Thoreau

spends a large part of the book applauding self-reliance, as he spends two years completely

depending upon himself during his stay at Walden Pond. He builds his house himself and he

grows his own food and collects his own water. Living in complete solitude
forces one to become completely self-reliant. Throughout his stay there, Thoreau learns that “to

maintain one’s self on this earth is not a hardship but a pastime” (59). He also uses the analogy

of two different men setting out to travel the world, one by himself and one with a friend.

Thoreau writes of the technicalities of the situation before ultimately concluding that “the man

who goes alone can start to-day; but he who travels with another must wait till the other is ready”

(60). This shows that Thoreau thinks self-reliance is not only achievable, but efficient and ideal.

On the other hand, Crane believes that self-reliance is not a realistic or reliable way to

live and for many it is impossible. Maggie’s life is barely functional before her boyfriend, Pete.

She idolizes his air of slight wealth and when he asks her on a date, she sees him as her savior.

She starts living with him and depends completely on him. The happiest time of Maggie’s life is

during her relationship with Pete. He takes her to clubs and she falls in love with him. Maggie

begins to have hope of a better life, and it is entirely dependent on him. During their short

relationship Crane describes her appearance as being “plucked [of] all look of self-reliance” (73).

When Pete breaks up with her she becomes destitute, and has nowhere and no one to turn to. Her

family constantly refers to her as “ruined”. Maggie tries to go back to Pete, but he refuses to

listen to her. After that, she attempts returning to her family, but they have lost all respect for her.

Her mother violently attacks her while her brother does nothing to help and she is left to wander

the streets alone. She then loses all hope and is seemingly left no choice but to become “the girl

of crimson legions”, a choice that will eventually lead to her death (89). This “all-or-nothing”

style of writing reveals that Crane thinks self-reliance for many is unachievable and one must

rely on others if they are to be successful.

 In terms of determining fate, Thoreau and Crane have drastically different opinions.

Thoreau, similarly to how he views self-reliance, believes that a person can be responsible for

how his/her life will turn out and can directly change that. He writes “What a man thinks of

himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate” (11). Thoreau thinks it is

possible for one to change his/her life path directly. In ​Walden​, he states that “each one be very

careful to find out and pursue his own way…” which shows that Thoreau thinks people are

capable of altering the way their life will turn out because they can choose their own path (59).

This is a freeing way of viewing life, mirroring Thoreau’s own romantic ideals and philosophies.

Where Thoreau praises being able to choose one’s life path, Crane disagrees with this

philosophy due to its idealistic nature. In ​Maggie​, everything about her life is almost entirely set

in stone. Maggie’s own mother solidifies this sentiment, saying that “she’ll never git annoder

chance dis side of hell” (76). This ideology also gives the air of hopelessness, making it appear

as if the person in question has no choice. The story’s brutality stems from this lack of control.

When Maggie grows up, her mother tells her “Yeh’ve edder got to go teh hell or go teh work”,

meaning that Maggie has only two choices in her life (49). She either has to “go teh hell” and

become a prostitute or get a factory job.

Despite their differences, Thoreau and Crane agree that philanthropists are hypocritical.

Both authors agree that philanthropy, although honorable in theory, has become corrupt by those

looking for a praise and self-satisfaction. Thoreau talks about his ideas on philanthropy in the last

few pages of ​Walden​, describing it as “a charity that hides a multitude of sins” (63). He justifies

this statement by saying “I never heard of a philanthropic meeting in which it was sincerely

proposed to do any good to me, or to the likes of me” (62). He views philanthropy as a false
pretense for a more arrogant, self-absorbed reasons. Crane expresses the same ideas in Maggie,

using a character described as having “a picture of benevolence and kind-heartedness” (Crane,

86). The reader meets this man during Maggie’s lowest point. She has just been kicked out by

everyone she relied on and has nowhere to go. She is poor, hungry, and abandoned. She is, in

other words, the perfect candidate for a philanthropic action. This man, seeming to be the

gleaming quintessence of charity, suddenly gives “a convulsive movement and saved his

respectability by a vigorous sidestep” when Maggie approaches him (Crane, 87). This represents

how Crane feels about the so-called philanthropists of his day, people who do charity for the

praise and the respect, not as means to actually help someone.

In conclusion, where Thoreau writes hopefully, Crane writes of the truth of the time, not

shying away from any unappealing detail. Their conflicts manifest in the forms of their ideas of

self-reliance and determining one’s fate and/or life path. Although separated by 39 years, much

of the social and political climate was similar, resulting in their agreement on the dissimulation

of philanthropy and philanthropists.

 Works Cited

Crane, Stephen. ​Maggie: A Girl of the Streets​ ​(A Story of New York)​. Edited by Kevin J

Hayes, Boston MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1893.

Thoreau, Henry David. ​Walden.​ Boston MA: Ticknor and Fields, 1854.