[Leah Christman]

The discussion in paragraph 3 of other men as parts of nature which he studies speaks to me simultaneously as praise for these people, yet smacks of slight superior at their lack of education, or apparent inability to speak for themselves. This is prime self-contradiction fodder, as far as short examples go!

[Leah Christman]

In “Higher Laws,” paragraph 11, Thoreau explains that “We are conscious of an animal in us, which awakens in proportion as our higher nature slumbers.” He likens these animal tendencies to being “pure,” a sentiment which he has followed quite consistently throughout the work, as he named the most basic things that a man would need to survive eg: food, shelter, some clothing, ect. Though he does go to the comforts of home frequently, he is self-aware (as was pointed out in the hypocrite forum), and I find he does not veer far from his idea that living “simply” is how we really should live to get the most out of life. He seems set on the fact that we are all animal, but are trying to hide it under superfluous worldly attachments.

[Leah Christman]

Of the many things Schulz has to say regarding Thoreau’s noxious character, three stand out to me as the most jarring. Firstly, that his idea of what being “alive” and “living” really mean are vague at best, subject to change at the drop of a hat, and that most of those things are hindered by the inclusion of others. Second, that he is egotistical and privileged enough to be blind to the hypocrisy of his trip to the woods. She notes that he not only is he oblivious of his ability to choose to live from the land and “romanticize” poverty, but that he does not even prove able to do so successfully, coming home to his life and his “mother’s cookies” on a regular basis. Finally, he is likened to Ayn Rand over his predecessor Emerson, in that he is suspicious of all government and organized groups: even those groups that organize for the sake of freeing others, like abolitionists speaking for black slaves before the Civil War.

Purdy uses the his own words, as well as those of Wall, to negate these combative words against this existentialist who many either love, or clearly love to hate. He mentions that, contrary to Schultz’ perception that Thoreau hated social justice, the famous Transcendentalist in fact held many meetings for such groups in his cabin in Walden, such as the Concord Female Antislavery Society. He also is said to have advocated for the rights of Native Americans, despite his seemingly contradictory intrigue in the mysticism of the “West,” which was a myth taken out upon those very people. This parallels his investment in nature, yet participation in the surveying work that destroyed it. Parrying her jabs at his ego and blinders of privilege that only a rich kid could have, Purdy ties in that his family was not aristocratic, and that though “they came from some means,” the Thoreau family, Henry included, had to work for what they have. And as far as the question of hypocrisy, Walls does bring up the seemingly misleading subtitle of “A Life in the Woods,” particularly for the book of a man who all the while was a quick walk away from home. However, she draws upon the idea that Thoreau viewed his quasi-seclusion as a clean slate, from which he could, unfettered, study his own life and other living things. It was a beginning, or a step, in the process of his self-reckoning. This is ultimately important, to Wall at least, for showing the undeniably modern journey of a man detached from his roots by life’s complications, and trying his best to find them amidst the smoke and mirrors of social life.

In reading Walden and other works of Thoreau, I think that these two articles establish two ends of a spectrum upon which we can place our own views and analysis of this man. As one who does not have a wealth of background knowledge, it intrigues me that in a class that is itself seemingly built upon an oxymoron – “Digital Thoreau” – is also built upon a man who lived a life full idiosyncrasies and contradictions. I know that he hoped to live a life worthy of poetry, but if that is the case, he has managed to fashion one of the most complex pieces of prose I have ever seen: one that can be viewed as sending opposite messages depending on the reader in question. That being said, I think we need to be aware of this wide array of possible interpretations. Similarly, we must keep in mind what it is that we are each bringing to the table as perceptive readers, to increase the number of plots placed on Henry’s spectrum of opinionated interpreters, set by the likes of Wall, Schultz, and even Thoreau himself.

 

 

[Author]

Posts