Thoreau vs.

Crane Essay By Lily Haeberle English 9 10-30-13 Green

In Walden and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane both express opposing views about the importance of self-reliance and controlling ones destiny; however, they do agree that philanthropists are hypocrites. Thoreaus Walden, written in 1854, lets his readers know how he was surviving at Walden Pond, during his two year, two months and two day stay. Thoreau shares his views on self-reliance, destiny and philanthropy. Cranes Maggie takes place in New York at the turn of the 19th century. The story follows the life of Maggie, a poor girl misguided by love, which leads to her death. His views often differ from Thoreaus although they do find certain topics on which to agree. Thoreau and Crane disagree on whether self-reliance is necessary and possible. One of the main ideas in Walden is self-reliance. Thoreau believes self-reliance is extremely important. Once someone can attain it, he or she becomes independent. Thoreau says that it is easier to gain self-reliance when one lives simply and wisely (53) and that to maintain ones self on this earth is not a hardship but a pastime (53). This implies that no one should be working hard to earn self-reliance, rather; it should come naturally. Unlike Thoreau, Crane does not believe that self-reliance is attainable. His story shows that one cannot get by without someone elses help. Once Maggies lover, Pete reunites with his old friend Nellie, he leaves Maggie, not thinking for a second that he had ruined [her] (82). Maggie is devastated and does not know what to do. She relies so heavily on Pete and having a great life with him. Out of desperation, Maggie returns home to her mother and brother. The minute they see Maggie, they laugh and criticize her. There is only one old lady who lives in their tenement who doesnt care about bad reputations and offers Maggie to come in an stay wid me teh-night (84). These examples show how self-reliance is not

easily attainable in these harsh conditions. Maggie needs Pete, her brother and mother to rely on but in the end, they are not there for her. She has to take drastic measures to survive and even with the help of the old lady, she fails. Thoreau believes in self-reliance while Crane views it to be unattainable. Another idea that Thoreau and Crane disagree on is if one can control his or her destiny. Thoreau believes that one can control his or her destiny because What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate (10). He is saying that one chooses who he or she will become. Thoreau believes that public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion (10). This means that ones opinion of oneself is more important than the communitys. Men determine their destiny by their actions, those who chose to dedicate their life to hard labor [have] no time to be anything but a machine (9). Crane disagrees by implying that one cannot control his or her destiny; the environment does. Maggies baby brother, Tommie, dies off quickly in the beginning of the story with a simple, The babe, Tommie, died (46). Having neglectful parents and unsafe living conditions most likely influences his death, much supporting the point that the environment in which one lives determines his or her destiny. Jimmie has to become a truck driver to make money for his family because once his father dies, his mother cannot support the family. Being a truck driver, he developed too great a tendency to climb down from his truck and fight with other drivers resulting in his arrest (49). As a young boy he quarrels frequently. Maggie, once rejected by Pete and her family, turns to prostitution in a desperate desire to survive. Maggies environment forces her into a life of [throwing] changing glances at men who passed her, giving smiling invitations to men, because there

is no other way (87). Thoreau believes it is possible to control ones own destiny but Crane shows that fate is the ruling hand. Thoreau and Crane agree on the subject of philanthropy. They both show that the idea of philanthropy is beneficial but only if the philanthropists accurately provide help. Thoreaus opinion is that philanthropy is only useful when it is truly benefitting the poor and not solely the philanthropist. He says, What are a hundred Howards to us, if their philanthropy do not help us in our best estate (55). Thoreau also says philanthropy, is greatly overrated; and it is our selfishness which overrates it (56). According to Thoreau, people engage in philanthropy only to make themselves feel better, though in truth, their actions provide no help to those in need. Thoreau writes that he would think of philanthropy positively if it merely [demanded] justice for all who by their lives and works are a blessing to mankind (57). Crane shows similar views towards philanthropy in his story. The character, Pete, acts as a philanthropist when he asks Maggie out. By inviting her out, he is taking Maggie away from the horrible life at home. In the end he leaves Maggie, causing her much heartache, and thus showing that he is not a true philanthropist. Another example of a character that should have been philanthropic but proves to be otherwise is the man in a silk hat and black coat near the end of the story. His eyes shone of good-will giving Maggie some hope he might help her (86). Instead, when she steps near him, he steps farther away. The man did not risk [helping Maggie] to save a soul. For how was he to know that there was a soul before him that needed saving? (87). The only character who is a true philanthropist in Cranes story is the old lady who lives in the tenement. She offers Maggie and Jimmie a place to stay the night when going home is not an option. She is the one person to whom they can run for safety. When she takes in Maggie after Jimmie and

her mother reject her, she welcomes her with I ain got no moral standin, meaning she doesnt care what kind of reputation Maggie has, she would take care of her for that night (84). Thoreau and Crane agree that philanthropy is beneficial but only if the philanthropist is truly helping the poor and not searching for personal gain. Walden and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets discuss the same ideas; on some points Thoreau and Crane disagree and on others they agree. Their ideas differ on the importance of self-reliance. Thoreau believes self-reliance is highly important while Crane views it as unattainable. Another point on which they disagree is whether someone can control his or her destiny. Thoreau says people can control their own destiny but Crane argues that their environment is the determining factor. The point on which they agree is the idea of philanthropy being beneficial as long as the philanthropist is truly helping the people without selfish reasons. Authors Thoreau and Crane both discuss their opinions on multiple subjects in their writings, Walden and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets.

Works Cited Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1854. Print.

Crane, Stephen. Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. N.p.: Stephen Crane, 1893. Print.