Thoreau and Crane Essay (Rewrite)

By: Marley Majette

Blue Sect. Dr. Simel
November 17, 2014
(December 22, 2014)

Marley Majette

Blue Section / Simel

11/17/2014 (12/22/2014)

Henry David Thoreau, in Walden, and author Stephen Crane, in Maggie: A Girl of the
Streets, compare in their views of the hypocrisy of philanthropists, on the contrary, they contrast
in their views of self-reliance and the importance of philanthropy. In the chapter Economy of
the novel Walden, Thoreau writes about his beliefs and views of topics such as the necessities of
life, philosophy, and materialism through the events that occurred before and during his time at
Walden Pond. Thoreau uses metaphors and oxymoron to convey themes and beliefs about
challenges that occurred during his lifetime thus far. In the novella, Maggie: A Girl of the
Streets, by Stephen Crane, Crane writes about an immigrant Irish Catholic family, the Johnsons,
who live in the tenements of New York. The main character Maggie loses her virginity to Pete
and becomes a prostitute.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would agree that philanthropist are hypocrites.
In the novel Walden, Thoreau writes, His goodness must not be partial and transitory act, but a
constant superfluity, which costs him nothing and of which he is unconscious(122). In simpler
words Thoreau says a man who deems himself a philanthropist must not complete philanthropic
acts for only a short period of time or cherish them partially, but that man who deems himself a
philanthropist must commit to these acts and continue to do philanthropic things without
thinking about a cost or thinking about the act itself. Thoreaus opinion explains what a
philanthropist should do and what they shouldnt do. As Thoreau describes philanthropists as,
too often surround(ing) mankind with the remembrance of his own cast off grieves as an
atmosphere and calls it sympathy (122). Philanthropists might donate an abundant amount of
money to a particular charity. This charity gathers donations to find the cure for leukemia. The
philanthropists brother died of leukemia; this is the philanthropists reason for donating. He
donates because of his grief, and to make his grief known. These descriptions of philanthropists

Marley Majette

Blue Section / Simel

11/17/2014 (12/22/2014)

are true. They are hypocrites, letting the world know about something that happened in their
family and then labeling it sympathy towards a group of people or a philanthropic act is not true
philanthropy. Cranes example of a philanthropic man is a priest and Maggies lover. Crane
writes of a philanthropist that, His beaming chubby face was a picture of benevolence and kindheartedness. His eyes shone good will. Not as the timidly accosted him, he gave a convulsive
movement and saved his respectability by a vigorous side step. He did not risk it to save a soul.
For how was he to know that there was a soul before him that needed saving (80). A priest, a
man known for by his title alone for completing philanthropic acts, has declined to be benevolent
to Maggie. He knows nothing of her except what he sees based on her appearance. This priest
doesnt stay true to what he had devoted his life to; a job where he was to assist each soul in
revival and getting closer to God. The priest was her last hope, but to save his meager
respectability he side steps away from a soul that needs him. Despite that the preachers, eyes
shone good-will, and that he was a picture of benevolence and kind heartedness, that isnt
who this man is. Pete, Maggies dream man, is brave and nice in Maggies eyes. Crane writes,
He responded in tones of philanthropy (66). Cranes decision to use the word philanthropy is
genius because it is the opposite character trait that would represent Pete. Pete isnt paying
attention to the heartfelt events of Maggies past; he is thinking about the quickest way for him
to score what is underneath her evening dress. The same goes for philanthropists, they dont get
to know the people theyre helping. Philanthropists donate money and assist people in need when
they know they will receive recognition and praise. In the words of Thoreau, one should not
become a philanthropist for social fame, be a philanthropist because you actually want to help.
One shouldnt do philanthropic events every so often or send a check every three months, does it
spontaneously.

Marley Majette

Blue Section / Simel

11/17/2014 (12/22/2014)

Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would disagree on their views of the
importance of self-reliance, despite that the two authors agree on the hypocrisy of
philanthropists. In Walden Thoreau writes that Men have become the tools of their tools (66).
Thoreau is telling the reader about a point in his life when he bought limestone and later realized
he had to maintain it by way of polishing it every day. Thoreau throws away the limestone
because he recognizes that it needs to be maintained. Thoreau would rather sit and live where
everything around him is taken care of i.e. nature, rather than sit in overwhelming wealth, style,
and luxury. The preferred lifestyle of author Thoreau is a life with wholesome simplicity vs.
living crowded and in style; a life where a mans own powers and resources give him the life he
wants, not his materialistic possessions. Thoreau highlights a mans four basic necessities of life
based on the lives of townsmen. Thoreau writes, The necessaries of life for a man in this
climate may accurately enough be distributed under the several heads of food, shelter, clothing,
and fuel(22). Thoreau believes that fuel is necessary, however, clothing and shelter are half
necessary, so long as one relies on his or her own powers to sustain and obtain food, clothing,
and shelter as Thoreau did. Reliance solely on ones powers will result in happiness. Author
Stephen Crane of Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, feels quite the opposite. He felt that one needs
self-reliance. Without it one doesnt know the basic things in life, the rights and the wrongs,
things that Maggie hadnt learned from anyone. In Maggie: A Girl of the Streets women has two
options; Crane wrote, From her eyes had been plucked all look of self-reliance (66), and
Where upon to works having the feminine aversion of going to hell (41). Women during this
time period either worked in sweatshops, which would kill them in the long run or work as a
prostitute, which would kill the young girls in a shorter amount of time. Maggie falls for a boy
that isnt right for her. He doesnt care about her, but Maggie doesnt know any better. Maggie

Marley Majette

Blue Section / Simel

11/17/2014 (12/22/2014)

didnt even understand how society worked because she was tucked away in her own dream
world. Maggies ignorance, however, is not her fault. Thoreau and Crane know that self-reliance
is important, however Crane knows that one must learn self-reliance from somewhere or
someone, unfortunately, Maggie has no one to teach her how to cope with society.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would contrast in their views of the level of
necessity of philanthropy. Thoreau tells a story in his novel Walden, about a townsman who
praises a fellow townsman because the townsman helps the poor. Thoreau recognizes that
philanthropy is something that is appreciated by all people. He writes, Philanthropy is almost
the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay it is greatly overrated; and it is
our selfishness that overrates it (121). Mankind does appreciate and welcome philanthropy but
it is overly praised, unnecessary, and meaningless. Philanthropy doesnt improve oneself or the
world, according to Thoreau. The men who partake in philanthropy are selfish because their only
reason for doing philanthropic acts is to gain recognition and praise from others. Thoreau
questions why people praise hypocrites. Thoreau writes about a time that a lecture explored the
virtues and ideas of William Penn and Elizabeth Fry. Thoreau writes that, Everyone must feel
the falsehood and cant of this. The last were not Englands best men and women; only perhaps,
her best philanthropists(121). Penn and Fry may have done good things but proclaiming two
people the greatest of the great is quite a stretch. However they would be considered the greatest
of the great if they actually partook in philanthropic activities, Americas widely appreciated
virtue. Thoreau understood the selfishness of philanthropy and for that reason he would not
partake in it or encourage it. Crane, however, feels that philanthropy is needed in society. If
someone like the priest would have helped Maggie, or if Pete would have actually cared,
possibly Maggies life wouldnt have taken a turn for the worse. Someone such as the old

Marley Majette

Blue Section / Simel

11/17/2014 (12/22/2014)

woman in Jimmies life would have been some type of motivation in Maggies life. Crane writes,
An old woman opened a door (34). That line, an open door, followed by phrases such as
bright light would have given someone in Maggies situation an extra push and drive in life to
make their life better. True philanthropy is needed because it gives anyone hope. If only the
priest wouldnt have turned a blind eye to Maggies struggle in life. If only he didnt give, a
convulsive movement and save his respectability by a vigorous side step (80). The priest felt as
though there was no soul for him to save, contrary to what he believed and what the town
believed there was still a soul in Maggie, but all she needed was a true sign of philanthropy.
Thoreau and Crane showcase their views on the hypocrisy of philanthropist, self-reliance,
and the importance of philanthropy in Walden and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. Thoreau and
Crane agree on the hypocrisy of philanthropist. The authors recognize that philanthropist do
complete philanthropic actions for recognition. Thoreau is a strong supporter of self-reliance;
this is one of Thoreaus biggest ideas. On the contrary, Stephen Crane recognizes that selfreliance is important for some people, where as Thoreau applauds it. Maggie, the main character
in Steven Cranes novel, is a great example of girl who needs to rely on others. Philanthropy is a
subject on which they stare views. Both writers support the idea of philanthropy, but do not like
philanthropists; they view them as hypocrites. Walden and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets offers
the reader a chance to see the different beliefs of Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane.

Marley Majette

Blue Section / Simel

11/17/2014 (12/22/2014)

Works Cited
Crane, Stephen. Maggie A Girl of the Streets. Ed. Kevin J. Hayes. N.p.: Bedford Cultural
Editions, 1999. Print.
Thoreau, Henry David. "Walden, Economy. Walden and Other Writings by Henry
David Thoreau. Ed. Joseph Wood Krutch. 1854. N.p.: Bantam Books, 1962. 107-65. Print.