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. Maggies 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 authors opinions of philanthropists, while their thoughts contrast on the topic of selfreliance 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
dont 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 others 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 Maggies 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 preachers 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 selfreliance leads to the unrelenting efficiency of ones 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. Maggies 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, its not Maggies fault that she has a hard time finding her own path toward
independence. Its 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 ones 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 Cranes 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
Cranes 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,
its 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, Maggies 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.