Thoreau-Crane Essay

Isabelle Megosh

English 9

Red Group

Monday, December 4. 2017

 Thoreau-Crane Essay

Henry David Thoreau, author of ​Walden​, and Stephen Crane, author of ​Maggie: A Girl of

the Streets​, share similar views on philanthropists and conventional morality, but differ regarding

choice in determining one's life path. Henry David Thoreau’s ​Walden​, published​ ​in 1854, is a

reflection and documentation of Thoreau’s trip into the wild to live “deliberately” for two years

(74). Thoreau writes about what he learns during his time in the wild regarding self-reliance and

how to live a minimalist lifestyle. Stephen Crane’s ​Maggie a Girl of the Streets​ tells the story of

a young girl living in a tenement in New York City in the late 1800s. Surrounded by poverty and

unfortunate fate, Maggie is abandoned by the man whom she loves and struggles to move

beyond her situation. The story reveals the fate of Maggie and those like her in the same

unfortunate setting. While each author tells two different stories, their beliefs on philanthropists,

conventional morality, and fate are comparable and contrastable.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane believe that philanthropists are hypocritical. In

Walden​, Thoreau claims that philanthropy “...is greatly overrated; and it is [one’s] selfishness

that overrates it” (63). Thoreau believes that philanthropists are hypocritical because they claim

their purpose is to help those in need; whereas, their true intent is to better themselves in the eyes

of other people. In Thoreau’s opinion, a philanthropist's goal is to be the “holiest son of God”

(64). If a philanthropist’s goal is to be the “holiest son,” it means he is only motivated to engage

in philanthropy because he wants to viewed as kind and above all the rest and not actually help

those in need. Philanthropists want their grievances to be set aside so people can focus on their

helpful acts. Crane also believes that philanthropists are selfish, and he demonstrates this view by
describing the actions of philanthropists in his book, ​Maggie: A Girl of the Streets​. While

Maggie is walking along the streets in distress and unsure of who to turn to, she pasts a priest

who takes a “...vigourous side step. He did not risk it to save a soul” (Crane 87). A priest, whose

duty is to provide for people in need, side steps Maggie to preserve his own reputation. His

selfishness stops him from providing aid for someone who needs it. The priest has something to

give and he chooses not to. As a priest, he appears to “[shine] good-will,” but his lack of concern

for anyone but himself and his reputation demonstrates Crane’s beliefs on the hypocrisy of

philanthropists (86). Crane contrasts the hypocritical priest with someone who has little to give

but gives it anyway. When Maggie has been shamed by her family and has nowhere left to turn,

an old woman lets her stay with her. The woman says, “Well, come in an’ stay wid me teh-night”

(84). While the old woman has little to give, she is the only philanthropist with pure intent. The

comparison between the priest and the old woman demonstrate Crane’s views on philanthropists

because the women is not viewed as a philanthropist, but she helps Maggie; whereas, the priest,

who is viewed as a philanthropist, does not help Maggie, demonstrating his selfishness and

hypocrisy. Crane and Thoreau share similar views on self-righteous and insincere

philanthropists.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane both believe in unconventional morality.

Thoreau writes, “As for doing good, that is one of the professions which are full. Moreover… it

does not agree with my constitution” (60). Thoreau believes that he does not need to concern

himself with the welfare of others and instead must do good for himself, which is unconventional

morality. By going out and living in the wild, Thoreau believes he is improving himself by

strengthening his self-reliance. By doing so, however, he is not helping anyone. He is choosing
to help himself by living “deliberately,” as opposed to helping others (74). He has concern for no

one but himself. In this way, Thoreau believes in unconventional morality. Similar to Thoreau,

Crane supports the idea of unconventional morality. His characters in ​Maggie: A Girl of the

Streets ​perform actions with kind hearted intent, but their method is unconventional. When

Maggie’s brother dies, the family buries the baby, who is “...clutching a flower that the girl,

Maggie, had stolen from an Italian” (Crane 46). The act of laying the flower in the coffin shows

that Maggie honors and loves her brother, who dies at a young age. This act has conventional

morals; however, Maggie’s method of attaining the flower demonstrates unconventional

morality. Maggie steals the flower that she lays with her brother, demonstrating a lack of

conventional morals. This is not the only time one of Crane’s characters acts with

unconventional morality. When Jimmie’s, Maggie’s other brother, parents are physically and

verbally fighting, “an old woman open[s] a door” and lets Jimmie come in (Crane 43). Later on

in the story, the same old woman lets Maggie stay with her and comforts Maggie’s mother when

Maggie dies. She does, however, go out on the streets and steal people’s money. In one instance,

she steals a woman’s purse and when arrested, she physically hurts the police. The old woman

remains a good person or protagonist in Crane’s eyes because although her morality is

unconventional, she provides help and comfort for others. Both Henry David Thoreau and

Stephen Crane share similar beliefs on unconventional morality.

Although Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane have similar views on philanthropists

and unconventional morality, they disagree on whether choice or fate determines one’s life.

Thoreau believes that choice determines one’s life path. When Thoreau is unsatisfied with his

lifestyle, he chooses to change it. He does not want to be like the “mass of men [leading] lives in
quiet desperation” (Thoreau 11). He wants to “[live] alone, in the woods, a mile from any

neighbor, in a house which [he] had built [himself]” (7). One aspect Thoreau wants to change

about his lifestyle is his idea of the “laboring man” (9). Thoreau believes that laborers work like

machines and that they should make the choice to break free from this routine. He believes

laborers are unable to focus on the finer aspects of life besides labor. Thoreau believes it is their

choice to determine their life path. In contrast, Crane would argue that many laborers do not have

a choice on whether to work because they may need to provide for their family. Crane believes

that fate determines one’s life path. In ​Maggie: A Girl of the Streets​, Crane describes the living

conditions of those in New York City’s tenements and how that affects their life. He believes

that if someone grows up in a certain situation, their fate is already determined. When Maggie’s

father describes his living conditions, he says, “Damndes’ place! Reg’lar hell! Why do I come

an’ drin’ whisk’ here thish way? ‘Cause home home reg’lar living hell!” (Crane 44). The man’s

living conditions and environment determine his fate and his attitude regarding life. He does not

care for his family, for he has come to hate everything around him. He instead turns to drinking

and hurting his children and wife, not by choice but by fate. This man’s fate transfers to his son,

Jimmie, whose “sneer [becomes] chronic” (Crane 46). Jimmie, growing up in the same

environment and being beaten by his father, “daily involve[s] himself in hideous tangles” (Crane

47). He starts as an innocent boy, but because of his situation, Jimmie does not have choice in his

future. His living conditions and only available role model, his father, predetermine his fate.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane’s views differ regarding choice versus fate.

Henry David Thoreau, author of ​Walden​, and Stephen Crane, author of​ Maggie: A Girl of

the Streets​ share views on philanthropists and unconventional morality. Both Thoreau and Crane
agree that philanthropists are selfish and hypocritical and believe in unconventional morality

which Thoreau demonstrates by stating his beliefs in ​Walden​, and Crane demonstrates through

his characters’ actions in ​Maggie: A Girl of the Streets​. Thoreau and Crane’s beliefs differ

regarding choice and fate. Thoreau believes one has a choice in their life path, which he

demonstrates through descriptions of his actions and thoughts; whereas, Crane believes fate

determines one’s life path, which he demonstrates by showing how people and setting affect a

person. While Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane wrote two separate stories, their ideals

and values on philanthropists, unconventional morality, and how one determines one’s life path

are comparable and contrastable.

 Works Cited

Crane, Stephen. ​Maggie: A Girl of the Streets​. Edited by Kevin J. Hayes, Bedford/St. Martin's,

1999.

Thoreau, Henry David. ​Walden and Civil Disobedience​. New York City, Barnes and Noble

Classics, 2003.