Thoreau vs.

Crane

Henry David Thoreau, in Walden, and Stephen Crane, in Maggie; A Girl

of the streets, share similar views on philanthropy and materialism, but do
not agree on self-reliance. Walden is about Henry David Thoreaus
experiences living in isolation at Walden Pond. In this book, Thoreau
discusses the social and economic significances of his experience. Maggie; A
Girl of the Streets is about a young girl forced into prostitution while living in
the slums of New York in the 1900s. Crane discusses the impact that
Maggies upbringing has on her adult life. Both authors have a similar idea
about philanthropists in that they are rapacious and duplicitous. Both authors
have a similar idea about materialism in that it is a tax to ones life. The
opposing ideas about self-reliance are the importance and lack-of selfreliance. Both authors are different and write about different things, but their
works seem to flow together effortlessly as though it is one thought. Thoreau
and Crane manage to bring up the same points in two opposite waysThoreau speaks from personal experience, and Crane speaks through a work
of fiction.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane agree on their views of
philanthropy. The common conception between both men is that
philanthropy is good, in theory, but that philanthropists are greedy, selfish,
and all-around hypocritical. Thoreau has very strong views on

philanthropists specifically. In his eyes, philanthropists only proposed to do

any good and do not do community work out of love for ones fellow-man,
but out of the need for personal redemption (Thoreau, 61-62). Proposed to
do any good signifies that philanthropists often do not often carry out their
projects entirely. Love for ones fellow-man is the reason why
philanthropists should be helping others, but more often than not, they have
ulterior motives. Cranes views on philanthropists are similar to those of
Thoreau, but not identical. Crane believes that philanthropists only do good
things for others if they get something in return. The old neighbor tells
Jimmie to go buy [her] a can and only then can he sleep [there] (Crane,
43). The lady is truthfully concerned about Jimmie and his living conditions.
Both authors categorize philanthropists as people who want to good for the
sake of making themselves look good.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane agree on materialism.
Thoreau discusses how much he enjoys living a more simple and meager
life, a life free of material luxuries and comforts (Thoreau, 16). Thoreau
explains how much easier life is when one does not have to worry or stress
about the latest fashions, or who has the most expensive handbag. He states
that the only true essentials in life are food, shelter, fuel and clothing. He
shares with the readers, the feeling of freedom that he experiences when the
weight of material things is lifted off of his shoulders. In order to achieve this,
one must limit ones desires. Thoreau values simplicity in his life and thinks
that others would benefit from leading a simpler life as well. He believes that

everyone would be better off without the burden of material belongings.

Crane has complementary views as to Thoreaus, but writes about them in a
secretive way. Materialism is shown in the way that Pete objectifies Maggie,
treating her as if she is a possession to champion. Pete sees Maggie and is
stuck on [her] shape and how it is outa sight (Crane, 52). Pete eyes
Maggie as if she is a piece of meat. This is a metaphor to show that
materialism is an issue that can take over ones thoughts, actions and words.
Crane believes that materialism is a topic that extends to all corners of
everyday life. He is also concerned with how materialism is destined to spiral
out of control in the future. Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane agree
that without help from others, everyone will eventually submit to
materialism.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane contrast in their views of selfreliance. Thoreau deems self-reliance a necessity in ones life. He spends a
portion of his life alone in the woods working by the labor of [his] hands
only (Thoreau, 7). After this experience, he advocates that self-reliance be a
common theme in ones life. This demand is reasoned with the fact that in
the long run, independence will be more valuable than dependence. One can
accomplish more being self-reliant than being dependent on people to help
when help is needed. Thoreau also advocates the need to be economically
self-reliant. While he was out alone in the woods, he kept tabs on everything
he produced. He single-handedly sustained himself, thus truly becoming selfreliant. Thoreaus views replicate those of a true transcendentalist with a hint

of romanticism. Crane uses the characters to portray that self-reliance does

not exist. Maggie, with the help of her surroundings, blossomed in a mud
puddle (Crane, 49), and her mother helps her brother Jimmie scrub his
(Crane, 41) face after a fight. Cranes view is that it is okay to sometimes
depend on others to help. Crane also demonstrates his opinions on selfreliance through Maggies dependence on Pete. Maggie throws herself into a
relationship that is mainly physical and one-sided. She lets Pete dictate her
thoughts and actions. In the act of trying to be self-reliant, Maggie ends up
dead. Maggie is abandoned by those on whom she has been reliant, and in
turn, is lost when she can no longer turn to those people for support.
Unfortunately, this lost, empty feeling is what lead her to her death. The
moral of this event is that even the strongest, toughest and meanest people
need at least some support. Cranes views replicate those of a true realist.
Thoreau believes that self-reliance is key, while Crane believes that selfreliance can only lead to trouble down the line.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane share views on philanthropy
and materialism, but contrast on their views of self-reliance. Thoreau and
Crane agree that philanthropy is a good thing, but that philanthropists are
greedy and selfish. Thoreau and Crane agree that materialism is corrupting.
Thoreau believes that self-reliance should be present in ones life no matter
what. On the other hand, Crane believes that self-reliance isnt important and
that it is okay to depend on others sometimes. Both authors make clear,
concise points about their ideas and beliefs on these particular topics. They

express similar thoughts, but disagree on a number of levels as well. They

look at the same issues from two different viewpoints. Crane gives his
thoughts from a realists standpoint. Thoreau gives more of a
transcendentalist approach to things. These themes are portrayed through
the thoughts, words and actions of either characters in the novel or of a
recollection of a past self. Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane have
similar and opposing views on numerous subjects, but display their thoughts
in unique, yet coinciding measures.

Works Cited Page

Crane, Stephen, and Thomas A. Gullason. Maggie, a Girl of the Streets: (a Story of New York).
New York: Norton, 1979. Print.

Thoreau, Henry David, Owen Paul Thomas, and Henry David Thoreau. Walden And Civil
Disobedience: Authoritative Texts, Background, Reviews, and Essays in Criticism. New York:
W.W. Norton, 1966. Print.