--In "Economy," Thoreau spends a good deal of time suggesting to whom this text is directed: who is the constituency/audience? Is it singular or multiple? Is it coherent or contradictory?
--Thoreau is a classic romantic author, so many find it strange that the first chapter of his central work is is named after that most material of concerns, "Economy." What does Thoreau have to say about economy? What is the relation of economy to spirit or the ideal here?
--Thoreau writes at length about constructing his cabin, considering how to design it and what are the significances of designing a home. Compare his attitude to Downing's.
--Compare Thoreau's tone, voice and/or persona to that of Willis and/or Melville's narrator in "The Piazza."
Thoreau’s ties to romanticism and the title of the first section of Walden, “Economy” seem, at first glance, to be contradictory. Upon reading this section, however, it is clear that there is a close relationship between monetary wealth and spiritual wealth. The relationship is antagonistic, however. For Thoreau, wealth seems to creates a weakness—a sort of aversion to truly living. In fact, he refers to the poorer of people as the richer. He cites great thinkers of ancient Hindu, Chinese, and Greek cultures as being poorer than the poorest men, and, even more, they are voluntarily poor. Thoreau mentions that he is starting this endeavor without the usual capital, and anxiety about money is actually what propels Thoreau to “transact private business” at Walden Pond with the “fewest of obstacles”. Since money is necessary to live in a social world, Thoreau must first examine how money affects life. In his examination, he comes to the same conclusion many, like Buddha or Jesus Christ, have found; excess is almost never a virtue. Living independently, the desire to grow as a person, endurance—these are just some of the virtues Thoreau finds in “Economy”. For Thoreau, the economy and the way of life that revolves around it, produces for everyone living poverty tasks greater than that of Heracles because they are endless, save for death. Those living in excess, he describes as being over-cooked by wealth. The first section is posing the problem which Thoreau will answer in moving to Walden Pond. The problem, for Thoreau, is the economy.
ReplyDeleteEthan Matchett
#2 Thoreau has a lot to say about his own spending--he tracks every penny and even half-penny he makes or uses, partially in order justify expenses to himself, and partially to show off the practicality of his lifestyle to others. No one, he seems to be saying, would have a problem getting along in the world if each strove to be self-sufficient. Economy on a personal level means making honest, sensible choices, living on less and being healthy and happy despite the seeming poverty. Thoreau barely contributes to economy in the societal sense, though he does advocate purchasing a few minimal supplies locally. He buys his chairs in town, finding this preferable to sitting on a pumpkin.
ReplyDeleteThoreau presents a challenge to the global economy that we value even more today than back then. At the same time he influences the need for personal economy. Ideally, the person who practices economy by living simply and avoiding unnecessary expense will become self-sufficient.
Despite the fact that his potential audience is one of the first issues Thoreau addresses in Walden, the details of his narrative make it difficult for me to point to any one section of the American populace as his focus.
ReplyDeleteThoreau initially begins by saying that it is the queries of his townsmen which prompted the writing of the work, suggesting that Walden may be seen as a specific response to these Concordian questions; a way of answering the concerns of those in the immediate area as to how and why he lived in such a strange fashion for this period. The fact that Thoreau writes of his experiences in the first person reinforces this impression, as it at times gives Walden a conversational tone, as if he were speaking directly to his questioners. However, it seems doubtful that any author would write such a detailed work specifically for one local audience. Even though Thoreau does seem to focus particularly on the flaws of the Concord farmers, it therefore comes as no surprise when he later seems to expand his potential audience.
Following the locals, Thoreau says that his work is “particularly addressed to poor students” (2). Given that there cannot be too many poor students in the immediate area, Thoreau has clearly widened the potential readership. The limits of this readership seem to be given a few lines later, when Thoreau makes the assumption that those who read Walden “are said to live in New England” (6). He also notes that other readers who are not students or local of Concord may “accept such portions [of his work] as apply to them” (6), suggesting that Walden may be of use even to the general New England public. Even if they will not be able to directly apply his advice about farming given to his neighbors, or the advice on philosophy aimed at young scholars, they may still gain from his work.
But all too soon Thoreau’s potential readership seems to widen again to encompass the whole of the North when he notes that “it is hard to have a southern overseer; it is worse to have a northern one” (8). This reference to North and South not only increases his supposed market, but also, through its political nature, seems to put Walden on a national scale. The work becomes not a New Englander’s tale, but an American one. When Thoreau mentions the frivolity of American consumerism, his words no longer seem to apply only to Concord. They also seem to apply to all who are shackled to the newest clothes or the need to travel by railroad. By the time Thoreau notes that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” (8) and speaks to “the mass of men who are discontented” (14), it truly feels as though he is advising the entirety of America.
And yet it is worth noting that Thoreau seems to stop here. Walden, with its discussion of American railroad fever, American fashion, and Americans in comparison to Native Americans seems to be very much a discussion of American life. Even when Thoreau does reference the larger world, it is often only in an American context, such as his comparison of the Irish poor to the American poor. It seems therefore almost as though this is the limit of Thoreau’s application of the local, Concord area to the larger world. While the cures he suggests for Concordian flaws might be applied to all of the United States, they seem to be a product of the American lifestyle alone.
In the first several pages of Walden, it doesn't seem like Thoreau wants anyone to read his writing. He is constantly insinuating that basically everyone is wrong about their way of life. On page 8, he suggests that the poor people reading his book are sneaky, and guilty of stealing. On page 9, he complains about old people, claiming they know nothing. They have no practical advice to give the young, and Thoreau himself has "yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors." Old people just discourage innovation.
ReplyDeleteAfter criticizing a large group of typically respected people, Thoreau moves on to one farmer's life philosophy (p. 9-10). The farmer works hard to provide enough materials to live, but Thoreau points out that his oxen is strong without those luxuries, suggesting that everything the farmer works for is worthless.
Before settling in and describing exactly how to build a cabin, Thoreau exasperatedly complains that people have been giving too many instructions since mankind began. John Evelyn and Hippocrates are the two examples he cites, pointing out that every detail of life has been tediously examined.
Thoreau's bitterness and eagerness to escape society are explained on page 16. He mentions his failed book deal and his town's inability to recognize his leadership potential and decides to go into the woods, where he is "better known." Perhaps his complaints about society are not as objective as he wants us to believe.
The tone of the first few pages is not consistently the philosophical, problem-solving tone I expected. It feels more like he wants to complain about as many people as possible before he has no one to complain about.
Thoreau appears to undertake his trip to Walden Pond to prove something to someone, but that is not necessarily a coherent group of people. It could be suggested that Thoreau is attacking a certain section of Americans, more than likely the comfortable classes, but through the first half of his “Economy” section he never comes out and says this. So, this cannot be a direct commentary on all Americans. This comes mainly when he says, “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them.” These people have overlooked the simpler delicacies of life; how to make clothes, procure food, build a functional shelter. “Most men” could refer to many men anywhere, although it does seem that Thoreau is angry at certain aspects of American life.
ReplyDeleteHe does this by comparing ‘modern civilized society’ to the society of the American Indian. On the topic of houses, he says, “In the savage state every family owns a shelter as good as the best, and sufficient for its coarser and simpler wants... the savages (have) their wigwams, in modern civilized society not more than one half the families own a shelter.” Thoreau’s use of the term ‘modern civilized society’ in this sense implies that he is talking about Americans in some sense. But, it is unclear if Thoreau writes to benefit the certain ills of American society or as an instructor to other Romantic-style people of the time.
Overall, Thoreau seems to be more upset with the way society evolves, more so than any group in particular. American society has grown to the point where much of it has become lazy or not able to understand how to fend for themselves (i.e. his rant about the older generations handing down advice, or lack thereof). But, in Thoreau’s mind, the savages, farmers, and laborers who toil endlessly are those that have the ability to “pluck” the “finer fruits” of life. They work for what they have, using nature in harmony with their existence to provide all they need. To say that Thoreau is speaking to any of these people is uncertain, as it appears that he is speaking because of them. He attempts to prove his philosophy as what we label a ‘Romantic’ by using the successes of these groups as a template. So, his audience is incoherent in that there is no direct audience, but it is multiple in that it includes all of those groups whom Thoreau tears down directly (those who do not build houses for practical purposes, grow their own food or understand how to, etc.). This is not a travel narrative, necessarily, like Ktaadn, but it is a travel narrative in the sense that Thoreau wants others to experience what he experiences and see the joys of living off of the land like he experiences the joys of living off of the land. It seems that Thoreau does this because American society is moving farther and farther away from this everyday.
Initially, Thoreau’s audience appears to be more of a domain of exclusion, rather than a group explicitly addressed. The exception to this, “these pages are more particularly addressed to poor students” (5) seems more like a way to bait a much broader audience than an appeal to this narrow group. By presenting social commentary on so many different sections of society, it may be easier to say who Thoreau’s audience is not. This is not to say that those who seem outside of his intended audiences, due to their presentation, are forever limited to that position.
ReplyDeleteWomen are displayed in only a supportive role in the pages of “Walden”, namely wives. The two women presented, Mrs. Collins and the lady of the Hollowell place, are both inextricably tied to their homes and play very minor roles. The Hollowell lady seems to only be acting out in Thoreau’s mind. Consequently, women are one of the three groups, along with slaves and enlightened poets, which Thoreau did not seem to have in mind as needing “Walden”. Evidence of this is how rarely he mentions these groups. This is a curious omission (save the poets) given the amount detail and specificity of the lives of other groups in the world of “Walden”. Enlightened poets may not be the correct term to describe the third group. I juxtapose these two ideas based on Thoreau’s recurring references to eastern philosophy and reverence of beauty and those who appreciate it. Since this very small section of society is already in possession of much of the wisdom Thoreau is trying to impart, they would not need to read his writings.
A short list of groups who Thoreau seems to superficially exclude would include: merchants, for-profit farmers (esp. those with livestock), philanthropists, charity cases, clergymen, professors, students (?), anyone who wears fashionable clothing, anyone who owns/rents a comfortable house, anyone who lays claim to something that does not have a very Spartan/utilitarian purpose, omnivores that can read- furthermore, anyone who takes a meal for pleasure, etc. Everyone who can put a copy of this book in their hands is probably on the receiving end of some critique of their overly-complicated way of life. While reading through “Economy”, my initial reaction was that Thoreau was to find a very limited audience by excluding those who were guilty of these social indiscressions. This seems incorrect though. By specifically sighting and commenting on such a wide swath American livelihoods, a more reasonable conclusion is that those engaged in these complicated lives ARE the intended audience-everyone in the country pretty much. Granted, I have only read the first two chapters of the book, but why else would Thoreau be so specific in his comments if not to engage a wider audience?
In the first chapter, "Economy," Thoreau spends a lot of time speaking of the superfluous nature of people in the world. He uses evidence to show how the basic thing everyone needs to survive is warmth and how humans take ostentatious means to gain this basic need. Thoreau uses the example of clothing and how, throughout history, people have used fashion to put on ornate costumes to show their wealth rather than sticking to basics needed to obtain that warmth. He also makes a point about the expense and unnecessary beauty of houses, how a simple farmer will become poor trying to buy a house that is of equal wealth to that of his neighbors. This leads into his motivation to spend and use as little as possible to obtain the essential human need of warmth and all of his details of how he goes about it.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem odd that, as a Romantic author, Thoreau would be concerned about the economy of things. However he uses economic statistics to show how unnatural people have become. Romantics believed in an essential connection with nature and a simplicity in all facets of life. The fact that people wear ornate fashions and live in rich houses they cannot afford does not make sense to Thoreau, and therefore counteracts their showmanship by using economy in the most simplistic way to gain his basic needs.
--Heather Hobbs
This has nothing to do with any of the prompts, but I was very interested by the portion of this section in which he discusses how material possessions can tie you down. We spend our whole lives acquiring things (hardly getting rid of things with the same fervor), and this accumulation of items seems to rule our lives. I have moved 14 times in my life and, consequently, am well aware of the distinction to be made between the gross necessities and excess. In fact, the last time I moved (from Chicago to Columbia), I sat down in my bare apartment and stared at all my packed boxes and seriously considered just leaving them where they were. It seemed so easy to just impulsively throw everything away. Of course, cardboard boxes are a very impersonal capsule for your life's accumulation of memories and belongings, and my impulse was probably purely based on my inability to see inside of the boxes; but I often wonder if I could have happily went on about my life if I had chosen to act on, rather than fight, that impulse to separate myself from my belongings (to molt, in a sense).
ReplyDelete