Thoreau v.

Crane Essay

Abonie Blount

CAP English 9

Blue Group

1/12/17

Henry David Thoreau, in Walden and Civil Disobedience, and Stephen Crane, in Maggie:

A Girl of the Streets, compare in their views on philanthropists, but contrast in their views on
fate versus choice in determining one’s life path, and materialism. In the Transcendentalist era,

Thoreau writes that every man should rely on himself alone. He romanticizes a life with little

possessions, little money, and the bare minimum to survive. Thoreau claims that this is the only

way to live; an alternative life, would not be a life of truth. Crane writes from a realist

perspective, depicting New York tenement life during the Gilded Age. He writes about a girl

named Maggie who has an unfortunate upbringing and an even more unfortunate life. At the end

of the story, when she can no longer support herself, she is forced into prostitution and later ends

her life.

Thoreau and Crane would agree that most philanthropists are self-motivated and

hypocritical. In Walden, Thoreau examines that the decency of philanthropy has gone amok

because philanthropists only do good deeds for their own benefit. He states, “Philanthropy is

almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly overrated;

and it is our selfishness which overrates it” (63). Thoreau believes the definition of philanthropy

has been spoiled because of the people who call themselves philanthropists. These

philanthropists only do good to feel good about themselves for their acts of kindness are not

genuine. Others who are in need or are not fortunate and need to be helped by people who want

to help, not someone who is giving selfishly to feel superior. This makes philanthropy have a bad

name, and it doesn’t help anyone. According to Thoreau, “I never heard of a philanthropic

meeting in which it was sincerely proposed to do any good to me, or the like of me” (62). It is

rare to find true philanthropists because of their venal desire to enact good. Thoreau stands for

philanthropy because it’s gracious and benevolent, but not the people who contribute to it

because their intentions are self-serving.

 In agreement with Thoreau, Crane shows that even when Maggie has nothing, and needs

as much help as she could get, no one acts to aid her, even the people who have the power to

guide her in the right direction. When Pete kicks Maggie out, she walks around looking for

support. She comes across a preacher and assumes that he can lend her a hand, “But as the girl

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” (87). A preacher or any member of a church is

supposed to help others when it is needed. For the pastor to side-step someone who is obviously

in a dire situation shows that philanthropists only give for their own benefits. The pastor sees no

reason to help Maggie; he is too high on his own totem pole to help a young girl so low. Once

Pete and her family both reject Maggie, she goes to a neighbor for a place to stay. The neighbor

is an old lady who helps Jimmie, when his parents were fighting. This old lady is an exception to

philanthropists. She gives without expecting something in return. Maggie comes up to her door

and says, “‘Well, come in an' stay wid me teh-night. I ain' got no moral standin’” (84).

Philanthropists only give if they profit from it. The old lady knows that Maggie is of extreme

help, so she helps. This is the small percentage of true philanthropists.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would disagree on whether choice or fate

determines one’s life path. In Walden, Thoreau expresses that a man decides his life by his own

actions. This differs from Crane, who believes a person's fate is uncontrollable. His characters in

Maggie are destined to live in the cycle of poverty. Thoreau states, “What a man thinks of

himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate” (10-11). One regulates his or her

own future with the decisions he or she makes. In Chapter 1 of Walden, Thoreau states, “... I

would have one be very careful to find out and pursue his own way, and not his father’s or his

mother’s or his neighbor’s instead” (59). Too often, one can find his or herself following in the
footsteps of one’s mom or dad, or only doing something for a parent’s approval. Thoreau says no

one has to become his or her parents. A life belongs to the person it is given to, not anyone else's.

Thoreau wants people to break away from what others want, and do what one’s heart desires.

Crane, on the other hand, argues that one is stuck in the state he or she is raised. In

Maggie, Crane writes all the men acquire sneers as they age. When Pete shows up at the gang

fight, he is described as “... a lad of sixteen years, although the chronic sneer of an ideal

manhood already sat upon his lips” (Crane, 37). As time goes on and after Tommie dies, Crane

writes that Jimmie grows up quickly and “... his sneer became chronic” (46). This sneer signifies

a boy becoming a man during this time period. As Pete and Jimmie witness the harsh reality of

life at a young age, it shows on their face. From generation to generation, the sneer symbolizes

the endless cycle of poverty in which these men are stuck. Jimmie grows up with hateful parents,

and then later supporting his family on his own causes him to have a very negative outlook on

life. Jimmie “... never conceived a respect for the world, because he had begun with no idols that

it had smashed” (46). He doesn’t have someone he can look to and say he wants to be like that

specific person. With no template, Jimmie learns to be okay with his life, for he has no other

choice. He can not improve his life because there is no one to tell him how to, everyone he

knows is stuck in the same slum with him.

Thoreau and Crane would disagree on the value of possessions. At Walden Pond,

Thoreau lives a simple life. He has very few possessions and believes that one should live with

the only things he or she needs to survive. If one were to live with more than he or she needs,

one can become attached to these items, taking away from the authenticity of life. Thoreau says,

“But lo! men have become tools of their tools” (33). People are supposed to depend on their

tools, and not the other way around. Thoreau thinks that when a person acquires too much stuff,
he or she can become dependent on it, allowing their belongings to become something they are

not. Thoreau speaks of possessions taking away from real life and happiness. He notes that

people admire banal items when they go over to other’s houses and thinks, “I wonder that the

floor does not give way under the visitor while he is admiring the gewgaws upon the mantle-

piece, and let him through into the cellar, to some solid and honest though earthy foundation”

(33). Thoreau claims that gewgaws are so dense that when looking upon them one must return to

the earth, to recognize what’s around. Belongings take away from real experiences and only hold

people back. To Thoreau, the only way to experience life to the fullest is to rid oneself of all

possessions and live a life of simplicity.

Crane would disagree with Thoreau’s thinking. Crane believes that for those who don’t

have as much, material acquisitions are important because possessions may be all one has.

Maggie attempts to impress Pete when he comes over “She spent some of her week’s pay in the

purchase of flowered cretonne for a lambrequin. … She wanted it to look well on Sunday night

when perhaps, Jimmie’s friend would come” (54). Pete does not notice her efforts, and Maggie

becomes embarrassed for“She was now convinced that Pete was superior to admiration for

lambrequins” (54). Maggie spends the majority of her money and takes time out so the drapery

can look nice. When Pete simply doesn’t notice, Maggie is ashamed of the lambrequin as well as

herself. Pete’s acknowledgment means a great deal to Maggie because she doesn’t have much.

As Pete begins to ask Maggie out more frequently, Maggie’s affection for him grows. She thinks

of him and all of the women with whom he has probably been involved with; “She began to have

an intense dislike for all of her dresses.” It’s important to Maggie to look good for Pete. She feels

as if she is competing for him against different women, and must keep his interest. Pete is more

fortunate than Maggie when it comes to financial status, and he has nicer belongings. Maggie
feels as if she has to match that, or Pete will not think of her the way she thinks of him. The

things she owns are important to her because they show how much or how little she has.

Even though the two come from different backgrounds, Henry David Thoreau and

Stephen Crane would agree that there are a few number of philanthropists who give selflessly.

This difference, however, causes them to disagree on fate versus choice determining one’s life

path, and material acquisitions. Thoreau thinks that one can choose the life he or she lives, and

that people, do not need many possessions. Crane writes the characters in his story to be stuck in

the dire situations in which they grow up, and shows that people who are less fortunate need their

respective possessions because when one doesn’t have a great deal, belongings mean more.

Works Cited

Crane, Stephen. Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. Edited by Kevin J. Hayes, Bedford St.

Martin’s, 1999.

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York, Barnes and Noble

Classics, 2005.