Walden

[They gave me a pair of her “wings,” which I keep still. There is no appearance of a membrane about them. Some thought it was part flying-squirrel or some other wild animal, which is not impossible, for, according to naturalists, prolific hybrids have been produced by the union of the marten and domestic cat. This would have been the right kind of cat for me to keep, if I had kept any; for why should not a poet’s cat be winged as well as his horse?]

I found this quote to be interesting since the narrator talks about receiving somebody else’s “wings”, but they are saying it is not possible to fly with these wings. I am curious as to why the narrator accepted the wings. “They gave me a pair of her “wings”, but there is no membrane left of them. I wonder what the narrator still has these “wings”, if people mistake them for a flying-squirrel or another wild animal. I found Thoreau’s composition for this section of this text to be quite interesting, since it is slightly different from what I am used to reading. There have only been so many texts that are in comparison to another animal, or to having animal-like features, and I am curious if this text sparked a new interest in Thoreaus writing?

I’m really intrigued by your use of the term “permeable”; it seems like that could be an interesting word (and its related “permeability” and “porousness”) for thinking about part of Thoreau’s project at Walden and about the book itself. Does the text seem to get more “permeable” as it goes? That is, are there more moments of this kind of permeability later in the book? And what might Thoreau be discovering through this larger practice of permeability? (And does Thoreau himself perhaps become more permeable to the more-than-human world?)

[ When I had got without I asked for a drink, hoping to get a sight of the well bottom, to complete my survey of the premises; but there, alas! are shallows and quicksands, and rope broken withal, and bucket irrecoverable. ]

They way he writes this paragraph is very interesting. He uses a lot of semi-colons and commas instead of a breaking it up into sentences. It’s not unusual for the times, however, as many writers from Thoreau’s era were writing entire paragraphs with this method; one paragraph could be one sentence. I wonder how many versions have changes to this paragraph.

[It is a vulgar error to suppose that you have tasted huckleberries who never plucked them]

I noticed  in the fluid text version that this section of the text–directly after it–used to continue, ” from the bushes where they grew What are huckleberries on the market? He that would know their flavor must taste them on the hill. Ask the huckleberry bird”

I am curious why this text had been stricken. What did Thoreau  think this distracted from?It seems on theme, nothing is really odd about it. The last line especially, “Ask the huckleberry bird” feeels like a lot of the text he did keep.

Thoreau likely improved his descriptions and observations during the composing process to increase the scene’s emotional impact and clarity. To create a feeling of continuity and history, he may have included information on the old man’s adventures and the log boat. A mysterious, almost mythological atmosphere may have been created by developing the visual of the iron chest and the massive trunks at the pond’s bottom.

[ “I hesitate to say these things, but it is not because of the subject,—I care not how obscene my words are,—but because I cannot speak of them without betraying my impurity. We discourse freely without shame of one form of sensuality, and are silent about another.”]

I wonder if, during the writing of this passage, he ever considered not adding this part because he said he was hesitant to write it. In his drafts, did he write about this topic differently?  Sometimes it is hard to know whether it is appropriate to discuss a certain topic and when you should not.

[There is unquestionably this instinct in me which belongs to the lower orders of creation; yet with every year I am less a fisherman, though without more humanity or even wisdom; at present I am no fisherman at all. But I see that if I were to live in a wilderness I should again be tempted to become a fisher and hunter in earnest. ]

I found this quote to be interesting as I am wondering about what makes the narrator think of faint intimation. “yet with every year I am less a fisherman” was the one part of this quote that I wanted to learn more about, as I was confused what the narrator meant by this. He then follows with “I am no fisherman at all”, I would like to learn more about why the thinks this way, was there a certain action or situation that occurred to make him think this way?

Thoreau’s passage reflects his transcendentalist belief that simplicity leads to a more meaningful and virtuous life. He argues that temperance in eating—just as in all aspects of living—frees us from shame and distraction, allowing us to focus on higher pursuits. The idea that adding an extra condiment can “poison” suggests that even small indulgences can corrupt one’s character or cloud one’s purpose. His observation that most people would feel ashamed to prepare for themselves the elaborate meals they consume daily critiques society’s reliance on convenience and luxury, exposing a disconnect between consumption and effort. Ultimately, Thoreau champions self-sufficiency and moderation as paths to personal and spiritual fulfillment. I am interested in how this passage has changed throughout the course of Walden’s writing

I wonder how this paragraph has changed over the course of Thoreau’s drafting. The imagery is strong and the reader is set into the scene that was crafted, but I wonder how many drafts this paragraph took. Putting thoughts and ideas into writing can be tough, especially when attempting to convey a specific mood or feeling. This passage was gorgeous and I felt like I was in the scene he crafted for his readers.

I wonder why Thoreau wanted to include the poem “O Baker Farm” and if it was always going to be included as the placement of within the chapter is quite confusing to me. The sentence beforehand doesn’t seem to tie into what the poem is trying to convey. There’s two contrasting ideas of how land may affect how you live. If you so focused on buying and selling land, you become a serf, as you are being abused by the system and the system may never change. However, to me it’s unclear as to why the poem is included as it doesn’t seem to align with what Thoreau had said beforehand and it makes me wonder why he added it.