Angelo Tydings Lynch

Red
Thoreau/Crane Paper
The styles and opinions of Henry David Thoreau in Walden and Stephen Crane in
Maggie: A Girl of the Streets differ on the topics of self-reliance and fate vs. choice,
while they agree about philanthropists. Thoreau, a transcendentalist is one of the most
notable writers of the Romantic movement. Walden is his account of two years living
alone in the wilderness at Walden Pond in Massachusetts. It contained Thoreaus ideas
about how people had become corrupted by their dependence on objects and other
people, and how far the human race has gotten away from what Thoreau thought life was
meant to be.
Crane comes from the period of Naturalism in the early 20 century. Naturalism
th

seemed to be literature snapping back to reality at the turn of the century. In comparison
to Romantic literature, Naturalism is the stark reality of a period in America where the
rich and poor were separated by a seemingly insurmountable wealth gap. Maggie: A Girl
of the Streets is naturalism at its most starkly realistic. The story is of a girl who grows up
in the slums of New York City in the later stages of the Gilded Age. Maggie grows up in
a hopelessly impoverished situation, having little control over her life, Maggie ends up as
a prostitute on the streets, and winds up throwing herself into the river, committing
suicide. Already, some of the contrasts between Thoreau and Crane can be seen, in how
the two writers conveyed their ideas.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would have greatly disagreed on the
topic of self-reliance. One of Thoreaus main philosophies is that humans are too
dependent on objects and other people. He believed that self-reliance was one of the keys

to living life the way it was meant to be lived. Thoreau frequently questioned why people
think they have to work for each other. For example, he questioned the idea of
Sharecroppers saying: Who made them serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty
acres, when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin
digging their graves as soon as they are born? They have got to live a man's life, pushing
all these things before them, and get on as well as they can (Thoreau, 38). Here he asks
who made these poor farmers virtually slaves to the people for whom they work for; why
do they have to use their farming to feed and benefit others, while they starve. The other
part of self reliance is not being controlled by objects that we are meant to control. For
example when Thoreau speaks of a farmer whos life is dictated by his possessions: One
farmer says to me, You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to
make bones with; and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system
with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which,
with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every
obstacle. Some things are really necessaries of life in some circles, the most helpless and
diseased, which in others are luxuries merely, and in others still are entirely unknown.
(Thoreau, 106) Here he again uses farmers for an example, explaining how we become so
caught up in using and having possessions that true necessities of life are lost. The main
idea from this is: no one is ever truly forced to do something, as there are always choices.
Whether people accept that or not.
Crane, however believed that people do legitimately need other people for some
things. When Maggies brother brings home his old friend Pete, Maggie instantly falls in
love with him, for Here was one who had contempt for brass clothed power; one whos

knuckles could defiantly ring against the granite of law. He was a Knight (Crane, 53).
Her desperate situation has born into her a need for some superior person to take care of
her, to protect her from the cruel world. Thus, He was a knight. Crane, unlike Thoreau,
believed that there were times when people did not have choices, and that their
personality and mental state required them to be reliant on others who were independent,
like Pete.
Thoreau and Cranes ideas about fate and choice would have contrasted strongly as
well. In typical romantic fashion, Thoreau glorifies individuality. This mindset of
everyone being able to make his or her own choices causes him to disbelieve the concept
of fate. To Thoreau, there is no inescapable destiny. There is always another path to
choose, even if it cant be plainly seen. He says: What a man thinks of himself, that is
what determines his fate (Thoreau, 87). One of the biggest societal problems, claims
Thoreau, is that people believe that they are condemned to a certain life; with things that
they have to do. No one has to do anything, Every path but your own is the path of fate.
Keep on your own track then (Thoreau, 88). The point is, Thoreau believed that
ultimately, how everyones life ends up is a direct result of his or her own decisions, or
lack thereof.
Crane, though never directly saying it was more of a mind that people are shaped
and inescapably impacted by the situation they are in. The simple line given by Maggies
brother as she reached working age: Yeh've edder got teh go teh hell or go teh work!
Whereupon she went to work, having the feminine aversion of going to hell (Crane, 49)
shows this. Maggies brother tells her this; it means your either going to have to go work
in a sweatshop, or become a prostitute. Unfortunately, that was the situation for many

girls of that time in the city, and Crane does not lay the blame on Maggies eventually
becoming a prostitute on her. The sad fate was merely a product of the situation she was
born and raised into, and it was inescapable.
Though Thoreau and Crane have disagreed on the topics of self-reliance and fate
v. choice, their ideas on philanthropists might compare more easily. Thoreau is the more
outspoken of the two on the subject. He dedicates an entire section of Walden to
explaining the faults of these people who claim to be helpers of the less fortunate. To
Thoreau, the giving done by philanthropists was not for the reasons it should be for;
evident in this quote: Philanthropy is. . . greatly overrated. A pain in the gut is not
sympathy for the underprivileged, but the result of eating a green apple; the philanthropist
gives to ease his own pain. (Thoreau, 49). Meaning that Philanthropists did not give to
the poor because they particularly cared about them, but because they felt bad about not
being kinder people and did it to get rid of this guilt. Another example of Thoreaus antiphilanthropic mindset would be when he says: If you give money, spend yourself with it,
and do not merely abandon it to them. We make curious mistakes sometimes. Often the
poor man is not so cold and hungry as he is dirty and ragged and gross (Thoreau, 51).
This quote shows Thoreaus disdain for poor people as another reason for his opposition
to philanthropy. He goes on to explain that poor people are unwise because they suffer
needlessly. To Thoreau, no one is forcing them to be part of the society that causes them
to suffer, and therefore it us their fault that they remain poor.
Crane spoke similarly about philanthropists. There is a scene where Maggie,
having sunk to the level of a prostitute, goes up to a monk to ask for help: But as the girl

timidly accosted him [the preacher], he gave a convulsive movement and saved his
respectability by a vigorous side-step. He did not risk it to save a soul. (Crane, 87). The
monk would not risk helping this filthy girl if it meant his respectability would be
harmed. Cranes message here is that philanthropists will only help so far as it benefits
them in some way. This attitude is again shown in his description of an old womans
begging habits: She [the gnarled old woman] received daily a small sum of pennies. It
was contributed, for the most part, by persons who did not make their homes in that
vicinity. (Crane, 43). The people who lived in the area where she begged did not want
this grimy old woman as a blight upon their neighborhoods respectability, and therefore
did not feel the desire to help her, no matter how grave a situation she may have been in.
Again, philanthropists will not give if it could make them look bad; so their kindness is
all just an act.
Thoreau and Crane may have disagreed on many other subjects, but they agreed
about philanthropists. Ultimately, the two are very different writers, and have two very
different outlooks on life. Thoreau is a very anti-societal person, in that he believed that
its unnecessary for anyone to work for or with anyone else. To Thoreau, all you need to
survive is yourself. Crane is a naturalist to the last degree. Maggie: A Girl of the Streets is
the harshly realistic depiction of life in the poor parts of cities. Through his writings he
explains the impact of ones situation on ones life. This opposite of Thoreaus choice
based ideas. Crane believed that not everything is caused by the decisions of the
individual, and that there are times when people need other people and possesions to get
by. Overall, Thoreau and Crane disagree on many of the major topics touched on in their
writings.

Work Cited
Crane, Stephen. Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 1983.
Print
Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. Barnes and Noble Classics,
1854. Print

Thoreau/Crane Compare Contrast Essay

Angelo Tydings Lynch
Red Group
11/19/14