[Alexandra Bloss]

Comment on paragraph 33 of Resistance to Civil Government 

 

[Alexandra Bloss]

Thoreau seems to understand hospitality as the act of keeping people at a distance. However, in looking at his own practices, he doesn’t, and really can’t, hide anything, about himself or how he lives, from his guests. This suggests that he is more trusting of his peers than some of his peers may be of each other, which seems to refute Schulz’s claim.

[Alexandra Bloss]

Schulz had some less than friendly things to say about Thoreau. Walls and Purdy had some significantly nicer things to say. These viewpoints are quite polarizing and as more or less first time readers, we need to keep both in mind. As with any piece of written work, it is important to view it through a lens of healthy skepticism. If computers could analyze the meaning of sentences as a human can, it would be realistic to question each sentence, asking if it supports the claims of Schulz in which Thoreau is narcissistic, hypocritical and immature. However, as computers do not have that capacity, it is better to look for common threads amongst the various sections of the literature. Schulz brought up some of Thoreau’s contradictions within his writing, which could be considered a thread. It is possible that the contradictions are intentional and are not meant to take away from the literature or the character that is Thoreau. As a close reading, it would perhaps be beneficial to unravel the context in which these contradictions were made. (Merely a suggestion) However, a thread cannot be counted as a negative until it is further investigated by the individual.

Ample evidence has been provided to demonstrate the ways in which misinterpretation can allow the reader to believe that Thoreau is hypocritical. If his intention was to go to the woods and live life deliberately, then why did he frequent town? Perhaps the answer lies in the rest of the picture. The beauty of reading together is the variety of vantage points. It is important that we look into all of the facts before we try to make arguments like Schulz’s. Additionally, going to Julia’s point, it is vital that we treat Thoreau like those around us, forgiving them for their mistakes and learning more about them in the process.

In reading literature that is significantly older than we are, it is not a bad idea to consider some connections to our time, perhaps even how Thoreau would react to modern times. We look back to move forward (although that is ill-advised while running a race, or so I’m told). We need to consider the historical significance of Thoreau and what he can teach us as students, citizens, and inhabitants of Earth.

[Author]

Posts