Jake Foley-Keene11/18/14Green

Henry David Thoreau, in Walden and Civil Disobedience, and Stephen Crane, in Maggie: A Girl of the Streets, compare in their views on philanthropists and fate versus choice in determining one's life path but contrast in their views on self-reliance. Walden is a personal narrative of Thoreaus time in the woods of Massachusetts, living solely on what he grew or worked for. Maggie describes the life of a poor girl growing up in the tenements of New York at the turn of the century and how she was manipulated by the people around her, culminating in her suicide.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephan Crane would agree on their views of philanthropists. Thoreau says, This is a charity that hides a multitude of sins. The philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own castoff griefs as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy, (63) meaning that philanthropists only are philanthropy because they want to call attention and get sympathy to their own problems, and not because they are trying to help someone else. He also says that he Never heard of a philanthropic meeting in which it was sincerely proposed to do any good to me, or the like of me, (62) meaning that philanthropists are selfish, only doing favors for people that will make them look good, whereas they should be doing it because of a need. Crane agrees in his writings. He says about a priest Maggie met in the street, His beaming, chubby face was a picture of benevolence and kind-heartedness. His eyes shone good-will. 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, (69). This means that even though she walks by to a priest, he would not help her because of her inability to help him in any way. Priests are supposed to pass on the word of God and help all of the needy, but all the priest can think of is himself. It ruin his image to be seen with her, reiterating that philanthropists only do favors when it is advantageous to themselves in some way. Crane adds to his point later when he talks about Petes dumping of Maggie. He says, Finally she asked in a low voice: But where kin I go? The question exasperated Pete beyond the powers of endurance. It was a direct attempt to give him some responsibility in a matter that did not concern him. In his indignation he volunteered information. Oh, go teh hell, cried he. He slammed the door furiously and returned, with an air of relief, to his respectability (68). Once again, someone in the past who helped Maggie turned away and refused to help her when it would make himself look bad. Pete has helped Maggie for so long, taking her places and looking after her, but gets tired of her constant irritating admiration and decides to help himself. Overall, Crane and Thoreau share the same view on philanthropists; they are not truly honest because they only help people that make themselves look better.

Henry David Thoreau and Stephan Crane would also agree on their views of choice versus fate in determining ones path of life. Thoreau completely agrees with life being based on choice. He says, I must shift for myself, I turned my face more exclusively than ever to the woods, where I was better known. I determined to go into business at once, and not wait to acquire the usual capital, using such slender means as I had already got. My purpose in going to Walden Pond was not to live cheaply nor to live dearly there, but to transact some private business with the fewest (19). This means that he chose to go into the woods to change his life path, to escape business and common society. He also says that No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true to-day may turn out to be falsehood to-morrow, mere smoke of opinion, which some had trusted for a cloud that would sprinkle fertilizing rain on their fields. What old people say you cannot do, you try and find that you can (11). This shows that humanity can change its fate, disregarding what was done in the past and choosing to go in a new direction, regardless of tradition. Old people went through their lives one way, but new generations should not blindly follow. The new generations need to experiment and find new things. Crane subtlety agrees, saying, But, arguing with himself, stumbling about in ways that he knew not, he, once, almost came to a conclusion that his sister would have been more firmly good had she better known why, (56). This is saying that, internally Jimmie understood that if he had advised Maggie to make proper choices, she wouldnt have committed suicide. Crane subtly puts his own views into the thoughts of Jimmie here. Crane also says, . She wondered if the culture and refinement she had seen imitated, perhaps grotesquely, by the heroine on the stage, could be acquired by a girl who lived in a tenement house and worked in a shirt factory (35). This statement helps Crane question the impact of fate. This statement individually evaluated might make the reader feel more like Maggie and Jimmy cant escape their fate; however, combined with the meaning of the rest of the book, it portrays a different meaning. It seems that both of them are unable to escape their fate, but this is simply because they tried too late. One can change their fate, but once one commits to a life path, it is very difficult to change it; therefore, he believes that one is able to choose their fate, but then they are committed to that decision for their entire life. This, combined with his other opinions from Maggie show that he, along with Thoreau, believe in choice determining ones life path rather than fate.

While Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would compare on their views of philanthropy and fate versus choice in determination of fate, they would contrast on their views of self-reliance. Thoreau is completely favor self-reliance. He says that You boast of spending a tenth part of your income in charity; maybe you should spend the nine tenths so, and done with it. Society recovers only a tenth part of the property then. Is this owing to the generosity of him in whose possession it is found, or to the remissness of the officers of justice? (63). This shows that it is better for someone to get the job on their own rather than to have it handed to them. This can be rationalized by the old proverb, Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Not only will it give the person applicable life skills, but it will give the person confidence. Thoreau also says that I determined to go into business at once, and not wait to acquire the usual capital, using such slender means as I had already got. My purpose in going to Walden Pond was not to live cheaply nor to live dearly there, but to transact some private business with the fewest obstacles; to be hindered from accomplishing which for want of a little common sense, a little enterprise and business talent, appeared not so sad as foolish (19). This blatantly shows his opinion of self-reliance. He goes to the forest to get away from common society; then, he can be alone and conduct his private business, growing his own crops and such. He believes that the rest of society is a hindrance to him, and that he will succeed in life without the intervention of others. Crane, however, feels that people need help to be able to prosper, and shows this by telling the story of a girl who does not get any help and committs suicide. He says, Maggie went away. She wandered aimlessly for several blocks. She stopped once and asked aloud a question of herself; Who? (68). This emphasize the result of the lack of help she received. She is asking, Who will help me? because she is in dire circumstances, and desperately needs help; however, because she does not receive said help, she ends up committing suicide. Finally, Crane says, But, arguing with himself, stumbling about in ways that he knew not, he, once, almost came to a conclusion that his sister would have been more firmly good had she better known why, (56). Crane puts in his opinions here by having Jimmie realize Maggies necessity for help. He realizes that if she hadnt been left so independent, and someone had advised her, she would have ended up most likely in a much better situation than committing suicide after becoming a prostitute. Through this it is clear that Henry David Thoreaus Walden and Civil Disobedience and Stephen Cranes Maggie: Girl of the Streets have many concurring themes, both agreeing and disagreeing; in specific, they share views on philanthropists and fate versus choice in determining ones life path, but contrast in their views of self-reliance.

Works Cited

Crane, Stephen. Maggie: A Girl of the Streets. Public Domain. Kindle file.Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: Barnes and Noble, 2003. Print.5