Thoreau vs.

Crane Compare and Contrast Essay

Eric Feigen
CAP English 9
11/22/15
Blue

Henry David Thoreau, in Walden, and Stephen Crane, in Maggie: A Girl of the Streets,
have contrasting view points on the necessity of self-reliance and whether an individuals life is
dictated by fate or choice, but have a parallel point of view on philanthropists. Thoreau and
Crane express their ideas on these topics in different ways. Thoreaus writing and thoughts are
surrounded around the philosophy of Transcendentalism. Walden is an account of Thoreaus
voluntary isolation at Walden Pond. The book expresses Thoreaus analysis of his experience and
his philosophy on a variety of subjects. In Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, Crane delivers his story
in the harsh perspective of Realism. The story revolves around Maggie, a young tenement girl
who is forced into prostitution because the setting in which that she lives is hostile and
unforgiving. With descriptive gritty realism, Crane uses the story of Maggie to reflect his view
on many controversial subjects.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Cranes viewpoints contrast on the idea that selfreliance is a necessity. Thoreau holds the belief that self-reliance is vital and writes about how
life would be if all were self-reliant. In Walden, Thoreau writes, Who knows but if men
constructed their dwellings with their own hands, and provided food for themselves and families
simply and honestly enough, the poetic faculty would be universally developed, as birds
universally sing when they are so engaged (Thoreau 39)? In this quote, Thoreau indicates that if
everyone was self-reliant, there would be more peace and joy in the world. He does this by
comparing the universal happiness of birds and explaining how humans would develop universal
poetic faculty if everyone was self-reliant. He reinforces the importance of self-reliance when he
writes, I am surprised to learn that they cannot at once name a dozen in the town who own their
farms free and clear (Thoreau 29). Thoreau gives this evidence to show that the majority of
people are not self-reliant and that this majority face many hardships and obstacles, compared to

the few people who are self-reliant and dont have as many problems as a result. Stephan Crane
believes that humans should help one another and rejects the idea that self-reliance is a
possibility. Maggie as well as other characters in Cranes book, doesnt have the ability to be
self-reliant because she is are born into horrible conditions with too many hardships and
disadvantages. Crane shows that simple acts of kindness and dependence on others can improve
and make a giant difference in some peoples lives. In Maggie, an old homeless lady allows
Jimmy, Maggies younger brother to sleep with her because he is too afraid to face his drunken
parents at home. She says, An' if yer mudder raises 'ell all night yehs can sleep here" (Crane
43). This small gesture of kindness and help makes a great difference in Jimmys day and shows
that some people cant be self-reliant because their environment controls their lives. Crane
designs a world in which self-reliance is near impossible, He writes, Maggie was pale. From her
eyes had been plucked all look of self-reliance. She leaned with a dependent air toward her
companion. She was timid, as if fearing his anger or displeasure. She seemed to beseech
tenderness of him (Crane 72). By making it clear that Maggie cannot be self-reliant, Crane
conveys the idea that in order for her to survive she needs to depend on others. Crane exemplifies
this throughout the book and at the end of the story, shows that without help, Maggie literally
cannot survive.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephan Crane have contrary beliefs on the theme of fate
versus choice. Thoreau concludes that it is up to the individual to determine his or her own
personal future. He doesnt believe that everyone has a pre-destined fate from which there is no
escape. Thoreau comes to the consensus that people can always change and modify their beliefs,
as well as their future. He writes, Yet they honestly think there is no choice left. But alert and
healthy natures remember that the sun rose clear. It is never too late to give up our prejudices. No

way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof (Thoreau Page 10). He
also feels that self-confidence and the envisioning of an individuals future can help lead to that
individual dictate their own future. Thoreau writes, Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared
with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather
indicates, his fate. (Thoreau 10, 11) Thoreau conveys that it is not the publics opinion that
matters but rather opinion of each individual. This helps a man determine his fate and future.
Contrary to what Thoreau believes, Crane assumes that the future is decided by fate rather than
choice. He expresses many times throughout the book that the environment and resources
available to a child at birth dictates his/her destiny. An example of this viewpoint is when Crane,
out of nowhere kills of the little baby Tommie. He writes, The babe, Tommie, died. He went
away in a white, insignificant coffin, his small waxen hand clutching a flower that the girl,
Maggie had stolen from an Italian (Crane 46). Crane is implying that it is Tommies fate to die
because his environmental conditions are so horrible that his future is a pre-determined matter in
which he has no control. Throughout the book Crane gives details of the childrens lives and how
the setting only permits horrors and bad memories. The characters are rarely happy and have few
enjoyable moments. At the end of the book, Maggie dies. Crane writes, Mags dead. What?
said the woman, her mouth filled with bread. Mags dead (Crane Page 93). Her death
reinforces the idea of fate because her original environment was so inhospitable and unforgiving
that her destiny is to suffer.
Henry David Thoreau and Stephan Crane would have corresponding beliefs on a
philanthropists incentive. Thoreau and Crane believe that there is no such thing as a true
philanthropist and that a philanthropists always has an ulterior motive for doing a good deed.
Thoreau explains this when he writes, Philanthropy is not love for one's fellow-man in the

broadest sense. Howard was no doubt an exceedingly kind and worthy man in his way, and has
his reward; but, comparatively speaking, what are a hundred Howards to us, if their philanthropy
do not help us in our best estate, when we are most worthy to be helped? I never heard of a
philanthropic meeting in which it was sincerely proposed to do any good to me, or the like of
me (Thoreau 61 and 62). People who participated in philanthropy do not do it out of the
kindness their hearts but rather for their own personal gain. Thoreau reiterates, 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 (Thoreau 63). In this particular paragraph, Thoreau
describes how it is purely selfishness that drives a philanthropists. Cranes thoughts and beliefs
about philanthropists correlate with Thoreaus. Crane gives many examples of how
philanthropists are not what they appear to be. Crane writes, "You are damned," said the
preacher. And the reader of sounds might have seen the reply go forth from the ragged people:
"Where's our soup" (Crane 46)? This excerpt exhibits Cranes point of view because the so called
philanthropists are obviously not being kind and giving to the people they are supposedly
helping. Crane believes that the rich and well off are not philanthropist. He writes, Each day
she took a position upon the stones of Fifth Avenue, where she crooked her legs under her and
crouched immovable and hideous, like an idol. She received daily a small sum in pennies. It was
contributed, for the most part, by persons who did not make their homes in that vicinity.(Crane
Page 43) He demonstrates this by even going as far as saying that the fellow poor and middle
class give more to the homeless than the rich do.
Henry David Thoreau, in Walden, and Stephen Crane, in Maggie: A Girl of the Streets,
have contrasting view points on the necessity of self-reliance and whether an individuals life is

dictated by fate or choice. Thoreau and Crane do have a similar view point on the philanthropists
and their true incentive.

Works Cited

Crane, Stephen. Maggie, a Girl of the Streets. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin, 1883. Print.
Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: Barnes & Noble Classics,
1849. Print.