Jack Merlo-Coyne English 12/21/13 Henry David Thoreau, author of Walden and Stephen Crane, author of Maggie: A Girl

of the Streets have different views on self-reliance, but similar ideas about philanthropy and materialism, which reflect the time periods in which they are written. Thoreau, an American author and poet, wrote in the 1850s during the period of Transcendentalism, a literary movement that placed an emphasis on self-reliance, the individual, and the shortcomings of institutions such as religion and government. Crane, in contrast, wrote during the 1890s, and was a Naturalist writer who emphasized portraying life as it actually is, both the mundane and the horrifying. Thoreau wrote about his two-years living a simple, rural, hermit-like life. Crane wrote of the dangers of urban tenement existence, and how someones life can be saved or ruined by those around her. These two stories are completely different, but they manage to address similar topics, and these differing viewpoints reflect the changes in American ideas about society over time. Although Thoreau stresses self-reliance as ideal and achievable, Crane shows that individuals need community support to survive. In Walden, Thoreau writes about his experience supporting himself on his own in the forest. Thoreau says When I wrote the following pages, or rather the bulk of them, I lived alone, in the words, a mile from any neighbor, in a house which I had built myself, on the shore of Walden Pond, in Concord, Massachusetts, and earned my living by the labor of my hands only (8). This shows that he values individual effort, and living without the support of the community. He disapproves of those who seek community support and help from others. He says that they are always promising to pay, promising to pay tomorrow, and dying to-day, insolvent, seeking to curry favor, to get custom, by how many modes, only not state prison offences; lying, flattering, voting diluting into an atmosphere of thin and vaporous generosity (10). This is an example of how Thoreau views the efforts of the poor to

Jack Merlo-Coyne English 12/21/13 receive charity in the worst light, which is different from the way Crane portrays charity in Maggie. Thoreaus views selfreliance as achievable and preferable to relying on others for help. In Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, Crane shows that self-reliance is not a reasonable goal in some situations, and that community support is necessary. Crane portrays Maggie, the main character, as a good worker who wants a better life for herself; however, contrary to Thoreaus idea that this will allow her to secure a living, she becomes a prostitute for lack of money and a home, and dies young. The most direct example of her downfall because of a lack of support from others is when Crane writes The girl asked in a low voice: But where kin I go? The question exasperated Pete (her boyfriend) beyond the powers of endurance. It was a direct attempt to give him some responsibility in a matter that did not concern him Oh, go teh hell, cried he (86). Because of a lack of support from Pete and her family, Maggies life takes a downward spiral. Another reason that Maggie ends her days as a prostitute is the lack of support from her parents. Both her parents were alcoholics, and she never learns values such as modesty that might have prevented her downfall. At one point, her brother Jimmie almost came to the conclusion that his sister would have been more firmly good had she better known why (77). In writing about the girls decline, Crane shows how a lack of support for a girl in the tenements makes it impossible for her to escape poverty. Thoreau uses examples to argue that self-reliance is realistic, and Crane show that it is unattainable, both views that are reflective of their literary movements. In contrast to their differing views on self-reliance Thoreau and Crane both portray similar thoughts on philanthropy, and state that philanthropists often give what they want to give, rather than what the recipient needs. In Walden, Thoreau directly addresses the topic of
2

Jack Merlo-Coyne English 12/21/13 philanthropists. Of them he writes, There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life (61). This indicates his belief that although many philanthropists mean well, they generally end up doing more harm than good. Thoreau says that true charity is not temporarily fixing a problem, but teaching someone how to fix it themselves and that There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root (62). Thoreau believes that many philanthropists give what they have no use of rather than what the receiver needs. He says that The philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own cast-off griefs as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy. We should impart our courage, not our despair (64). His view of philanthropists is that they are often not in it to help others. Cranes views on philanthropy are similar to Thoreaus. Both show that in its true form philanthropy is hard to come by. Crane gives an example of true philanthropy in the old woman who offers Maggie a place to stay. The old lady, who is also poor, says to Maggie Well, come an stay wid me the-night. I aint got no moral standin (84). The woman helps Maggie in a time of need, and shares her tenement without using her power over Maggie to manipulate her, an example of genuine philanthropy, even from one similarly destitute. Crane also shares his view of what he views as too-commonly false philanthropy, by describing a scene at a church. He says that While they got warm at the stove, he (a preacher) told his hearers just where he calculated they stood with the Lord. Many of the sinners were impatient over the pictured depths of their degradation. They were waiting for soup-tickets(46). The preacher in this case is using

Jack Merlo-Coyne English 12/21/13 philanthropy as leverage to make people listen to him, rather than genuinely trying to improve their lives. Thoreau writes that materialism is a vice, and Crane similarly shows that it is unnecessary. Thoreau bases his entire book on an escape from materialism. He writes about the dangers of placing value in ones possession, and says that this leads people to think about what they do not have, as supposed to what they do. He asks, How happens it that he who is said to enjoy these things (Venetian blinds, copper pump, spring lock) is so commonly a poor civilized man, while the savage, who has them not, is rich as a savage? (28). Thoreau argues that many possessions are more trouble maintaining than they are worth. Thoreau gives an example of this, albeit dramatically, when he says that, I had three pieces of limestone on my desk, but I was terrified to find that they required to be dusted daily, when the furniture of the mind was all undusted still, and I threw them out the window in disgust (32). Thoreau says that men have become tools of their tools, a sentiment that is also expressed by Crane. Maggie lightly touches on the subject of materialism when Maggie is trying to impress Pete. She spends a good deal of time working on her clothes and her tenement to make them more presentable to Pete, but it is of little avail. One instance that directly parallels Thoreaus idea that, men have become tools of their tools is when Maggie is trying to make a lambrequin, a decorative drape. The text says that She spent some of her weeks pay in the purchase of flowered cretonne for a lambrequin. She made it with infinite care and hung it to the slightly careening mantel, over the stove, in the kitchen. She studied it with painful anxiety from different points in the room(54). This passage shows how much time and thought Maggie invests into an ultimately useless furnishing. Crane also shows how useless materialism is when
4

Jack Merlo-Coyne English 12/21/13 he says that, He (Pete) spent a few moments in flourishing his clothes and then vanished, without having glanced at the lambrequin (54). Though Maggie places a great deal of value in her material possessions, they end up doing nothing for her but costing her money and time. Although Walden and Maggie express differing opinions on self-reliance, they share ideas about the lack of merit in philanthropy and materialism. Thoreau writes that self-reliance is something for which all people can strive. Crane gives an example in his book of how help from others is necessary. Both writers show skepticism towards conventional philanthropy, and give alternative examples of philanthropists who provide something other than material goods. Both also see materialism as unnecessary at best, and as harmful in the long run. These viewpoints show that even in different artistic movements, some viewpoints have the ability to be repeated by different writers.