1

Thorea/Crane Essay


Stephen Cranes realism combats Henry David Thoreaus idealism on themes
such as self-reliance and the importance of wealth, whereas both writers have a
pessimistic view on philanthropy. Stephen Crane is a realistic writer and lacks the desire
for a better world and the call to action that Thoreau has. Crane simply tells things how
they are, not how they should be. He was born the youngest child of eight and was the
first of five attempts at an eighth child that survived his first year of life. Thoreau, on the
other hand, was born into a well-off family with hopes and opportunities for change.
Thoreau wrote only about what should be changed in society because he believed that
it could change. On the other hand, Crane knew that change would not be achieved.
Both Crane and Thoreau share their ideas the only way they knew how to: with their
writing. In 1854 Thoreau wrote Walden, an account of his two year cleansing in which
he lived alone in a cabin in the woods. Thoreau expresses that his self-reliance and
independence is the correct way to live. He writes on the importance of this way of life
and the unimportance of money and wealth. Crane was unlike Thoreau in that he made
his points very indirectly in his 1893 noveleta Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. This story, at
first glance, is simply a narrative of a young girl becoming a prostitute. Thoreau has
many outward points that contradict the hidden themes and motifs in Maggie. One idea
that both Crane and Thoreau have in common is their view on philanthropy. Both feel it
is overrated and not executed well. The authors provide the reader with contrasting
ideas on most subjects besides philanthropy.
Henry David Thoreau has firm beliefs that self-reliance is the key to a prosperous
2
life and that everyone should live in such a manner, while Cranes novel, Maggie,
suggests that self-reliance is a luxury many people cannot afford. Maggie tells of a
family that is constantly relying on each other for all their needs. The day Maggie goes
off on her own she dies. Maggie relies on her family and Pete throughout the whole
book but her death doesnt come until shes on her own. Once Maggie begins dating
Pete she becomes completely dependent on him. While dating her eyes had been
plucked [of] all look of self-reliance (Crane, 73). Crane conveys that when Maggie and
other girls enter a relationship they are stripped of their independence and self-reliance.
Crane even goes on to write that Maggie has a dependent air toward [Pete] (Crane,
73). Maggie clings to Pete and prospers while doing so. On the other hand, this way of
life is frowned upon by Thoreau. He states that one must live life to live a life of
simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust (Thoreau, 14). Maggie doesnt live up
to any of these ideals and neither do most girls of her time. Maggie complicates her life
by laying her trust and dependence on Pete, a boy who cheats on her and is not
trustworthy. As Jimmie grows older he becomes the only independent one in the family.
He is the closest to Thoreaus ideal way of living. Although Jimmie is independent he is
not completely self reliant. He does not have the capacity to leave the city and live as
Thoreau. He could not survive without the people who pay for rides in his carriage. Not
a single character in Maggie has the resources for a life beyond the tenement buildings.
Thoreau expects everyone to obey his call to action and leave the city but Thoreau does
not understand that many people have to live the way they do to survive.
Tied in with Thoreaus theory of virtuous self-reliance is the triviality of wealth
which conflicts with Cranes overwhelmingly disheartening tales of deprivation. In New
3
York everyone is classified by his or her wealth. Whether finding a suitor or making a
deal with someone, wealth is the only thing that could gain respect. When meeting Pete,
Maggie first takes note that Petes elegant occupation brought him, no doubt, into
contact with people who had money and manners (Crane, 53). She wants to become a
more respectable person the only way she can: by marrying up on the socio-economic
ladder. She wants Pete because, He must have great sums of money to spend
(Crane, 53). Crane illustrates that poverty deprives many of freedom or opportunity to
choose their direction in life. Thoreau, on the other hand states that, [The] seemingly
wealthy, but most terribly impoverished class of all, who have accumulated dross, but
know not how to use it, or get rid of it, and thus have forged their own golden or silver
fetters (Thoreau, 15). Thoreau is accusing those with money of making themselves
poor and denying themselves opportunity by imprisoning themselves. Thoreau thinks
that the poor man does not need money but needs to disregard money and live a
independent life. Cranes characters could not live on their own. They would not be able
to sustain themselves without money. Crane and Thoreau both understand that many
people are poor because the rich are living too luxuriously. The luxuriously rich are not
simply kept comfortably warm, but unnaturally hot (Thoreau, 14), says Thoreau when
explaining that the rich are too privileged. He says that the rich exceed their necessities
and leave the poor without anything on which to live. The rich are unnaturally hot
because they have more money than they need. Their excessive wealth is not important
to make them comfortably warm but it only serves to make them too comfortable.
Both Crane and Thoreau elaborate on the idea that there is no true philanthropy
and that wealthy people do not save the poor with their riches but simply invest their
4
wealth in all the wrong places. Thoreau believes that The philanthropist too often
surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own cast-off griefs as an atmosphere,
and calls it sympathy (Thoreau, 58). Thoreaus statement is a testimony to the real
reason that philanthropists engage in philanthropy: to abate their guilt of being rich.
They do not care if the poor survive; they only care if their self-esteem thrives. They do
not know the proper way to help the poor and do not care. Those plants of whose
greenness withered we make herb tea for the sick, serve but a humble use, and are
most employed by quacks. (Thoreau, 58). Quacks are frauds or people who falsely
claim to be knowledgeable in a subject. Many philanthropists are quacks and do not
know the proper way to help the poor. Even with philanthropy the lower class is very
distant from the upper class. Before Maggie's death she goes to the harbor where she
can hear the varied sounds of life, made joyous by distance and seemingly
unapproachableness (Crane, 89). Crane is symbolizing how the privileged distance
themselves from the poor instead of helping them, leaving the poor with no hope of
earning joy. Most of the upper class does not engage in philanthropy, and if they do,
they engage in false philanthropy. Thoreau himself does not engage in philanthropy
because by maintaining certain poor persons in all respects as comfortably as I
maintain myself they have one and all unhesitatingly preferred to remain poor
(Thoreau, 55). His meaning is that philanthropists allow the poor to remain poor instead
of finding opportunities to make money. Cranes story makes the point that although the
poor may remain poor the alternative is to take a path of life similar to Maggies. The
poor obtaining wealth is the best option, but it is not the only logical option.
Stephen Crane and Henry David Thoreau are complete opposites when
5
conveying a message. Crane simply sheds light on the current truth, while Thoreau
directly tells his readers what is wrong with the world and what should change. Cranes
method creates a more cryptic message that requires the reader to read deeply into his
text. Thoreau is straightforward, giving the reader a clear sense of his message and his
themes. Because of Thoreaus idealistic views, he can be irrational and cockamamie
with his expectations. Thoreau expects everyone to live on their own with divine self-
reliance and complete disregard for wealth, gewgaws, and other useless triflings. Crane
knew that this was foolish to expect. Crane is much more grounded and practical with
his crude message. This caused Cranes writing, although practical, to be less impactful
than Thoreaus writing. Cranes practical writing style goes hand in hand with his
practical views. He does not expect the unattainable delusions of complete
independence and disregard of wealth, he only expects what is rational. The overly
optimistic vision Thoreau has is greatly amplified enhanced by his stirring writing.
Thoreau had a sort of conviction against the system that enhanced his writing, but
Cranes messages were merely subtle complaints. Crane lacked the fire in his pen that
Thoreau had, the rage against the system that stirs people to take action.




Works Cited
Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: Barnes and Noble,
2003. Print.
6

Crane, Stephen. Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. Boston: n.p., 1999. Print.