Thoreau V. Crane Essay

Cole Greenberg

Pd 7

11/14/14

Blue group

Walden, written by Henry David Thoreau in 1854, captures the humble life of an honest

man creating a peaceful life for himself built with a strong foundation of his philosophies.

Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, written by Stephen Crane, follows the disturbing events of the life

of Maggie, a kind girl from The Bowery who is brought up through a hell- ridden life filled with

poverty and abuse. Although Thoreau tends to write about the boundaries and goals that can be

crossed and accomplished through independence and simplicity, Crane displays a naturalist view

point that controls the flow of the story as the book goes on. Maggie’s struggle seems to be

unresolvable as she tries and fails in her attempts to escape her awful life and overcome her

problems. Escape floats farther and farther away as her hopes slowly disintegrate before her very

eyes, lingering for a moment before finally disappearing. Walden, written by Henry David

Thoreau, and Maggie: A Girl of the Streets written by Stephen Crane, compare similar thoughts

in the author’s opinions of philanthropists, while their thoughts contrast on the topic of self-

reliance and philanthropy.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would agree that philanthropists are

hypocritical. To them, the nature of philanthropists is to exaggerate their “great deeds,” and stand

around and wait for the forced and worthless applause. In the words of Thoreau, “a man is not a

good man to me because he will feed me if I should be starving, or warm me if I should be

freezing” (61). To Thoreau, these actions by self-labeled philanthropists are meaningless and

don’t necessarily initiate good feelings, and instead, evoke peculiar amounts of suspicion.

Thoreau believes that “the philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of

his own cast-off grieves as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy” (63). A philanthropist often

uses cheap excuses for good will to uphold his fake social status as an angel of the less fortunate.

Because to Thoreau it is unnatural to support a fellow man with material objects without a

thought, and the weird reappearing occurrence of this leads to suspicion of other’s ulterior

motives. Crane would agree with Thoreau that philanthropists are hypocritical. Maggie goes

through the hardships of life only to be turned away by self-proclaimed philanthropists. Maggie

meets an unnamed man who displays himself as a philanthropist. Maggie watches him as he “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” (Maggie: A Girl of the Streets 87). Although the man claims to be a philanthropist

accustomed to helping people, he refuses to help Maggie and avoids the notion of being

associated with the likes of her. He believes that he would be looked down upon by others if

were to lend a helping hand to a prostitute. Another instance of the hypocrisy of philanthropists

in Maggie: A Girl of the Streets is when Maggie’s brother Jimmie views an ill-intentioned

preacher. Jimmie watches as he “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 their soup tickets” (Maggie: A Girl of the Streets 46). Even though the preacher

claims to be helping the people by yelling “You are damned,” all he ends up doing is forcing the

hungry to wait for their soup. They all sit there in their seats, forced to listen to the sermon only

waiting for the preacher’s reign of “philanthropic” words to come to a stop. These are the poorly

disguised hypocritical deeds of self- labeled philanthropists whom Thoreau and Crane believe to

be hypocritical and insincere.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would have contrasting views on the

importance of self-reliance. Thoreau holds a positive attitude toward self-reliance in his writings

of Walden. To Thoreau self-reliance one of the most important and valued traits that one can

hold throughout life. In Walden he creates his own cabin only by surviving on the pure

endurance of his own working spirit and effort. “For more than five years I maintained myself

thus solely on the labor of my hands, and I found that by working about six weeks in a year, I

could meet all the expenses of living” (Walden 58). It becomes obvious after a while in Walden

that strong self-reliance leads to the unrelenting efficiency of one’s abilities, and although

Thoreau is a skilled worker, it is doubtful that his tasks were easily completed. He is most likely

forced to rely on his own self-reliance due to the secluded life he leads in Walden Pond. Thoreau

claims to “ have tried trade, but found that it would take ten years to get under way in that, and

by then I should probably be on my way to the devil” (Walden 58). To Thoreau interaction with

others is worthless. By living in the woods by himself, he avoided others and is able just to

survive on his own hard working skills. On the other hand, Crane believes that self-reliance

comes second to the precious help of others that Maggie needs so dearly. In one scene the man

who tricks Maggie into sleeping with her yells “‘oh, go the hell,” cried he. He slammed the door

furiously and returns with an air of relief, to his respectability.” (Maggie: A Girl of the Streets

86,) right after Maggie comes to him for help. Maggie’s lack of independence is not her fault but

the fault of those who do not lend a helping hand to Maggie in a time of desperation. When

Maggie returns to her house hoping that her family will forgive her and take her back in, her

mother humiliates her in front of the entire tenant building and refuses to let her back home.

Maggie watches in terror as her mother “lurches forward and put her red and seamed hands upon

her daughters face. She bends down and peers keenly up into the eyes of the girl.”(Maggie: A

Girl of the Streets 83). Again, it’s not Maggie’s fault that she has a hard time finding her own

path toward independence. It’s the fault of those who turn her away, such as Pete and her mother.

Even though Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would have similar thoughts about

philanthropists, they would hold contrasting views on the topic of philanthropy. Thoreau holds as

much contempt for philanthropy as he does for philanthropists. In Walden Thoreau states that

“Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is

greatly overrated; and it is our own selfishness which overrates it” (63). He believes that

philanthropy is still ruled by the selfishness of all men that label themselves philanthropists when

they only contribute very small deeds all for the big praise. A deed is not a philanthropic deed if

it is driven by ones selfishness. To Thoreau philanthropy is not a necessity in the world and is

not as helpful and pure as philanthropists claim it to be. In the words of Thoreau, “Philanthropy

is not love for one’s fellow man in the broadest sense” (61-62). Those who follow the

“philanthropic path,” claim to be extremely helpful while in reality they are not as helpful as they

believe. Unlike Thoreau, Crane believes that there is a great need for philanthropy and is driven

by the lives of the less fortunate such as Maggie. In Crane’s opinion, an absence of philanthropy

creates hellish lives led by those drowning in poverty such as Maggie. There is an old lady who

lives in Maggie tenement building who one is of, if not the only, true philanthropic character of

Crane’s book. When Jimmie and Maggie were children the old lady would let them sleep in her

house when their short- tempered parents were quarreling. The old lady exclaimed “‘Eh, Jimmie,

it’s a cursed shame,’ she said. ‘Go now, like a dear an’ buy me a can an’ if yer mudder raises ‘ell

all night yehs can sleep here’” (Maggie: A Girl of the Streets 43). This old lady has no social

status to uphold and has no peers to judge her actions, so she gladly lets the poor street urchins

stay in her home. If the world in which Maggie lives had more people such as the old lady, who

are true followers of philanthropy, then Maggie most likely would have created a cheerful and

happier lifestyle for herself. When Pete, Maggie’s old boyfriend, shut her out without giving

even a thought about how he could have helped her, “The girl seemed to have a struggle with

herself. She was apparently bewildered and could not find speech. Finally she asked in a low

voice ‘but where kin I go.’” (Maggie: A Girl of the Streets 86). This is one of the reasons she

ends her life, since she has no place to go and is driven there by the cruelty of others. If someone

were to have shown a little kindness to Maggie and taken her in, Maggie might not have ended

her precious life.

Despite that Crane and Thoreau follow the contrasting path of Transcendentalist and

Naturalist, they share some of the same ideas. Their opinions of philanthropists are almost

identical and use the same evidence of hypocritical philanthropists. Thoreau and Crane also have

contrasting views in their writing of self- reliance and philanthropy.