[Brian Lange]

[While almost all men feel an attraction drawing them to society, few are attracted strongly to Nature. In their reaction to Nature men appear to me for the most part, notwithstanding their arts, lower than the animals.] Walking, 76-87

Thoreau clearly disliked how humans tended to treat nature (with disdain, taking it for granted, etc.) and sees such a sentiment towards nature as so short-sighted that it would make men subordinate to beasts. While I understand his frustration, I feel that Thoreau’s feelings cross the line from advocacy to zealotry, insinuating a deep unfamiliarity with how humans act and think, and presenting his misanthropy.

 

[Brian Lange]

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>After simply observing the title of her piece, it becomes quite clear to the reader that Kathryn Schulz had not intended to extol Henry David Thoreau in “Pond Scum.” Rather, Schulz finds glaring holes in the esteemed canvas of Thoreau’s legacy, pulling her audience’s attention towards explicit examples of the man’s hypocrises and bizarre nature. Further, while Schulz is successful in convincing her readers that no one would ever want to be Thoreau’s friend (Emerson was much too kind) she also exposes his work with several ruinous claims. Along with assertions of his highly inconsistent and sometimes dishonest dogma, Schulz contended that it was underlying insecurities within Thoreau that led to his erratic, offbeat lifestyle, and potrayed him as a generally repugnant soul.</span>

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>In regards to her first claim, Schulz built an argument that attacks the heart of Thoreau’s writing, </span><i><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Walden</span></i><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>. Speaking of the book, she wrote that Thoreau “dedicated himself to establishing the bare necessities of life without ever realizing that the necessary is a low, dull bar; whose account of how to live reads less like an existential reckoning than like a poor man’s budget” (Schulz). Such a statement, if accepted at face value, practically invalidates all of the legitimacy of Thoreau’s offshoot of Transcendentalism, and establishes him as an impostor. The foundation from which Thoreau built his purpose for his work on Walden Pond was inherently flawed; it is the decision of the reader to accept the weakness of his creed or reject his legitimacy altogether.</span>

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>But Schulz realized that it would be difficult for readers to give up on Thoreau, acknowledging that he is an integral figure in many high schools across America and around the world, and so included so thought of a reason to forgive Thoreau for his flaws: “Poor Thoreau. He, too, was the victim of a kind of shipwreck—for reasons of his own psychology, a castaway from the rest of humanity. Ultimately, it is impossible not to feel sorry for the author of “Walden” (Schulz). This is a kinder outlook on Thoreau, as compared to the tone of the rest of the article, but is neverthless shocking. Schulz points to issues within Thoreau’s psyche that molded him into the abrasive, somewhat hateful man that he became, presenting how his mental woes manifested themselves into unusual behavior. </span>

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Schulz third, powerful claim is that Thoreau was not well likable, and is, on the whole, almost detestable. As Schulz wrote, “Thoreau did not live as he described, and no ethical principle is emptier than one that does not apply to its author” (Schulz). He created a kind of quasi-reality in which he was the apex being, and didn’t have much respect for others (or seemingly himself, as he betrayed his own dogma by frequenting Concord during his time in the cabin).</span>

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>And yet, one can not read Thoreau without appreciating his romantic flavor, or the confident mood in which he conducts himself that could teach the reader to become more assertive. This is the position of Jedidiah Purdy, who wrote an article in near-direct response to Schulz’s piece, and draws upon the scholarly work of Thoreau expert Laura Dassow Walls to support the claim. There is much to know about Thoreau that few actually do, including that “</span><span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Thoreau was an abolitionist who brought Frederick Douglass to speak at the Concord Lyceum—a kind of community university—and participated in the Underground Railroad, to the point of risking charges of treason by helping enslaved people flee to Canada. While living at Walden, Thoreau hosted the annual festival of the Concord Female Anti-­Slavery Society, where the speakers included Lewis Hayden, who had escaped slavery in Kentucky” (Purdy). These revelations on Thoreau, which cast a new light on him that differs drastically from the hard-line view of Schulz, make him seem human. Maybe, after all, Thoreau does have some redeeming qualities (unlike Schulz would lead one to believe).</span>

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>I think that in reading all literary work, one must read the author’s biography before they continue, or at least learn where the writer lived. The context is essential to the comprehension of the piece, and without such knowledge the reader could not pick up on certain elements that they might’ve otherwise noticed. I believe that as I learn more about Thoreau, and get a better feel of how he writes and crafts language, I will be able to better judge Schulz’s claims.</span>

[Author]

Posts