--For those of you who complained of Thoreau's depiction of the Canadian woodcutter Alek Therein, surely there was much to note in "Baker Farm" and its depiction of the Irish farming family. What do you make of his suggestions to that family and his thoughts on hunting, vegetarianism and consumption more generally?
--The episode at the end of "Brute Neighbors" with Thoreau 'chasing' after the loon is often seen as a meaningful symbolic moment in the text, but critics and scholars often disagree about its significance. What do you see as its significance to the narrative?
Question Two
ReplyDeleteThe “Baker’s Farm” section of Walden was a fascinating one for me, in that it is the first time that Thoreau’s writing seems to become unnecessarily critical. In the previous sections of Walden, Thoreau has always had a tendency to pass judgement on the American society he sees as flawed. But in these previous sections, Thoreau’s judgements usually came across as advice rather than as critique. Perhaps this is because Thoreau usually seems removed from his subject of analysis. Since Walden is far from the town, we can forgive Thoreau his scathing opinions on fashion, no milliner who is being directly insulted. But perhaps if Thoreau lived closer to his objects of discussion, the reader would feel differently. If Thoreau lived directly on the land of a hard working farmer and criticized him all day for his desire to make money and feed his family, the reader would probably feel sorry for the farmer, rather than agreeing with the author.
This is certainly the case with Thoreau’s visit with John Field. It seems to me that Thoreau is attempting to use Field as an antithesis to himself; a man who is not college educated, has a family, is an immigrant, focuses on making money (to feed his family), but could, if he so chose, live like Thoreau does at Walden. The problem is, however, that it is almost immediately obvious that the Field’s family could not really do this. Even if they did not begin “with tea, and coffee, and butter, and milk, and beef” (140), but instead focused on living simply as Thoreau does, such a living arrangement would simply not be practical. It is infinitely simpler for one man to live cheaply than for an entire family to do so, a complication which still exists today. If John Field were to move his family out into the woods, he would have to catch enough food for an entire family all by himself. Moreover, it would have to be a food source which could be trusted to always be there. The Field family would not have the luxury Thoreau does, of just going back to civilization if he starts to starve. If there were a bad year in which no crops grew, the entire family would simply die.
Thoreau also forgets, in his writing, that it is easy for a fully-grown man to live alone in the woods. If he falls sick, he would just nurse himself back to health and that would be all. But what would happen if John Field’s baby or children were to become ill out in the woods? If they had too little money because they were only living off the land and making no profit, they would not be able to get a doctor. Thoreau would no doubt make some claim about how conducive the woods are for the health of a child, given his idealism in this section of Walden, but it seems clear that the risk for the Field family is too great.
In addition, from the viewpoint of a modern reader, it is extremely difficult to get behind Thoreau’s condemnation of consumer goods like coffee and tea. Yes, if one has the ability to do without these things as Thoreau does, focusing first creating a “tight, light, and clean house” (140) is a fine thing to do. But for a family on shaky financial ground, coffee and tea may be the amenities that give them the strength to go on. Certainly Field implies that it is so, because these are the things he cites to Thoreau as being his greatest gains in coming to America.
In the end, Thoreau’s entire depiction of John Field, and all the advice that Thoreau gives him, seems unnecessarily cruel. Thoreau seems to take a family struggling to get by in American way, by working hard, and he makes them into symbols of a European mode of living which cannot succeed in America. Field’s house leaks, his child is a “poor starvling brat” (139), John Field has bad business sense, their water is foul, and John can’t even catch a fish, whereas Thoreau presents himself in this passage as the perfect philosopher. All Thoreau’s criticism is piled on so thickly that it really makes him an extremely unlikable narrator in this section.
--Nick Cobblah
Thoreau seems to have no empathy with the Field family, and gives them false hope. He cannot put himself in their shoes to understand what their life is like, nor does he try. The farmer wants to have coffee, tea, and beef. Having the luxury to work hard and earn these commodities was part of the allure of moving to America in the first place. He is poor (as Thoreau points out with little sensitivity on page 142) and can't afford to stop bargaining with anyone who will help him out. It is unfair for Thoreau to expect the farmer and his wife to stop feeding their children what they understand to be is a healthy and balanced diet, just so they can be more like him. They are getting by fine, despite the challenges.
ReplyDeleteThoreau's ideas in general seem like strong ones. It is ideal to live simply and cheaply, and to spend time working "without labor, but as recreation" (140). He is right that it would be ridiculous for him to live during this life experiment working so hard unnecessarily, but it is not ridiculous for everyone to do so. That's all this is for him: an experiment. It is not a way of life. The farmer's family and their well-being is his life. If the experiment doesn't go well, Thoreau can go back to his old life. That is not how other people live, especially not uneducated, family providers who immigrated. It may be possible for the Field family to change their lifestyle to be less exhausting, but it won't be an immediate change. It would be a slow process, with many backup plans in case it doesn't work out. Thoreau was being impractical, and overly optimistic, if he convinced John to go fishing instead of "bogging" with so little persuasion or discussion. Perhaps he was taking advantage of their naivete by so strongly suggesting they change their lives.
#3 I found chasing after the loon a fascinating part of Thoreau's narrative. At first I was appalled when, having found a loon, he made a game out of invading its space. While Thoreau clearly has nothing better to do than chase birds around a pond, I felt that surely the loon must have better ways to spend its time. Later, however, whether because of Thoreau's style of writing or because that was what actually went through the bird's mind, the narrative developed into more of a dialogue as the loon began showing off and playing with him.
ReplyDeleteAs an interaction with nature, Thoreau's little game probably isn't highly significant to critics. The connotations of a loon lend it the importance I'm sure critics find: Thoreau even calls the bird a "crazy", making the loon/loony reference obvious. That he follows the bird's insane-sounding laughter signifies his interest in a lifestyle humans consider bizarre. Personally, however, I make more out of the loon's response than his: if a loon is willing to accept his presence and interact with him, it is a sign of Thoreau's growing relationship with the natural world, which is in itself important apart from whatever statements he may be trying to make to other men.
Somewhat a response to Question 1:
ReplyDeleteWalden is a sort of spiritual retreat for Thoreau. It is where he goes to be cleansed after he is worn out by social interactions and gossip. It is where he is penitent observer, in awe of the perfect qualities of the stones, the water, the fish, the trees. It is where he communes with past historic ages and peoples. It is where he can meditate on his own thoughts. It is also the namesake for his narrative, and therefore I think a key piece in this spiritual journey/natural experiment he is conducting out in the woods.
My favorite part of this chapter was Thoreau's detailed description of the many colors of the pond. Some days the water is blue, some green, some yellow - the attitude of the pond changes almost humanly. It is also isolated, unfiltered by running stream or polluted by uphill source. This suggests that it is a symbol of purity and clarity and solitude - coincidentally the things Thoreau himself is seeking. The pond reflects heaven (another spiritual characteristic) and is untouched by time or elements; the wind blows ripples that never age the surface of the water. Even after rain or snow or ice, the water remains clear enough to see the bottom from the surface. It is deep, it is serene, it is humble. The pond is divine.
And it has its effects on Thoreau. Most notably on p. 122, Thoreau says that when bathing in the waters of the pond, his skin "appears of an alabaster whiteness" that would be "fit studies for a Michel Angelo." The pond somehow has the power to make Thoreau greater than he normally is, to make him worthy of a work of art constructed by one of the greatest sculptors of all time. The pond has mystical, magical properties, and it is surrounded in enthralling mystery - including the story of its origin and the formation of the nearly perfect shore of stones that surround it and coat its bottom.
Unlike the farmer who sees in Flint's Pond a vision of dolla dolla billz, Thoreau has tried through all of this to maintain a spiritual outlook of his own pond. Yet - he admits that even his own presence has profaned the beauty of Walden Pond. At the close of this chapter, he affirms that Nature is the most perfectly beautiful and divine when there is no human there to taint its loveliness (a mirror to the comment he makes about market huckleberries at the start of the chapter).
So, with that in mind, my question for Thoreau is this:
How are we supposed to commune with Nature and enjoy its Company if we are a stain upon its existence and merely poison the beauty it has to offer us?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete--The episode at the end of "Brute Neighbors" with Thoreau 'chasing' after the loon is often seen as a meaningful symbolic moment in the text, but critics and scholars often disagree about its significance. What do you see as its significance to the narrative?
ReplyDeleteI agree with la Secadora that Thoreau calling the bird a "crazy" most certainly implys that maybe Thoreau is losing his mind being in the wilderness so much. I am starting to see a decline in his sanity. If the bird is going to taunt him and he is going to write about it, I feel that he setting himself up for being called "crazy". On the contrary I disagree with the above comment be an animal is going to, of course, protect its habitat and in a way it can seem as though they are playing games but anyone who is sane knows they are not purposefully being spiteful...they are animal...that is their instinct, but Thoreau seems to play along with the bird and make it a game. In my opinion I feel as though he is bored and he may be making things more interesting for the simple fact that he is all alone in the wilderness and it is starting to get to him.
I am not sure as to why critics and scholars do not see the symbolism in Thoreau becoming "enemies" with this bird. Is it the fact that they do not want to accept that maybe Thoreau himself is going insane? Before the bird incident there was the incident with the ants and that seemed to be strange as well. I get the sense that Thoreau is getting lonely and finding comfort in nature and animals, which is alright but I feel like his sanity is slowly dwindling due to his lack of human contact.
-Jessica Lipp
#2
ReplyDeleteThough Thoreau’s attitude towards Therein suggested some prejudices against the uneducated (in “Visitors”), he still appreciates Therein’s good humor and overall optimism. He writes how Therein “suggested that there might be men of genius in the lowest grades of life, however permanently humble and illiterate, who take their own view always, or do not pretend to see at all; who are as bottomless as Walden Pond was thought to be, though they may be dark and muddy” (104). It seems as though Thoreau has declared a personal affirmation to look for the best in people, beyond first impressions. Yet, this affirmation does not apply in the case of the Field family. Instead of engaging in light conversation with the family (whom he met after mistaking their home for a deserted hut), Thoreau lectures John Field on the various ways he should attempt to change his economic lifestyle and why it would improve their quality of life. After Field doesn’t display much eagerness at Thoreau’s ideas, Thoreau assesses that John Field is “without arithmetic, and failing so” (141). He then proceeds to attribute Field’s failed economic lifestyle to his “inherited Irish poverty” (142). This seems hypocritical of Thoreau, who is constantly lauding the lifestyle of his own self-imposed poverty.
The idea of being born into poverty and not escaping the surrounding circumstances is something Thoreau looks down upon; for he believes that anyone should be able to escape poverty if they live frugal lifestyles and are more efficient with their food and spending. Here, he seems to equate the Fields to the bad example of economy (outlined in the first chapter) and himself to the good example. However, Thoreau’s sentiments are extremely impractical. I agree with Nick’s post: supporting one person is a much simpler task than supporting a whole family (an idea that Thoreau did not seem to take into account). Thoreau even goes so far as to blame the fact that he caught more fish than Field on Field’s poor life and “boggy ways “(143). He rants about the benefits of frugality, arguing how much the family could save if they cut out luxuries such as tea, coffee, butter, milk, and fresh meat. Field is content with his consumption of these goods, as “he had rated it as a gain in coming to America, that here you could get tea, and coffee, and meat everyday” (140). Simply because Field doesn’t want to adhere to Thoreau’s guidelines to what he believes is a better lifestyle, Thoreau writes unfairly of the Field family, constantly attributing their poverty to their Irish heritage. Yet, simultaneously, he writes about their poor quality water that he drinks anyway and states, “I am not squeamish in such cases when manners are concerned” (141). Thoreau unabashedly paints himself as a sophisticated and polite citizen while continually deprecating the circumstances of the Field family.
Out of the sections we have read thus far, I find "Brute Neighbors" to be one of the more interesting ones. This section shows a side of Thoreau we do not get to see very often. I think this section relates back to previous chapters in which Thoreau talks about liking his solitude, but also states that one is never really alone.
ReplyDeleteIn this section, the animals in nature become use to him and let Thoreau interact with them. I do not necessarily think that Thoreau is going crazy in this section, but I do think some sort of process of becoming use to nature and nature becoming use to him is going on. This is evident with the mouse that lives in cabin that eventually eats the cheese that Thoreau offers it. With the loon, however, I can see two sides; on the one hand it could be a part of his growing relationship to nature, but on the other hand I can see it as the loon just trying to protect itself from Thoreau. I think critics choose to read it as the first idea because it is ideal, man becoming one with nature, but I also feel that the reality of it is just a prey getting away from its enemy. It is possible that Thoreau added more dialogue to this particular scene in order to make something normal more playful and adventurous to his audience.
Thoreau's description of Flint's Pond, and the comparison to Walden make Thoreau seem very biased. Thoreau spends a long time attempting to describe the colors of the waters of Walden, in an attempt to convey the pure beauty he feels that Walden pond represents. However, in his description of Flint's Pond, Thoreau describes it as dirty, and not as beautiful, meaningful, or important as Walden is. Thoreau starts with scathing criticism of the name of Flint's Pond itself. Thoreau's condemnation seems a bit over the top, though. "What right had the unclean and stupid farmer, whose farm abutted on this sky water, whose shores he has ruthlessly laid bare, to give his name to it?" Thoreau imagines the eponymous Flint as an example of the ignorant farmer. Thoreau mourns the fact that the farmer cannot see the true value of nature until it has been exchanged for money. He also says that the farmer would "carry his God to market, if he could get any thing for him". Thoreau also scolds the farmer that would drain the lake to sell the mud at the bottom. This comment is particularly paradoxical when he later admits to using the sand of White Pond (the BEST of all in Thoreau's opinion) to manufacture sand paper. Why is Thoreau's utilitarian use of the most beautiful lake morally acceptable, whereas a farmer's supposed use turns into a sort of rape of natural beauty in Thoreau's mind? Thoreau's view of Flint's Pond seems to be not only tainted, but fully formed on his idea that being an educated man, despite his own poverty, is better than being a dumb brute working for a living; in other words, it seems Thoreau's viewpoint stems entirely from his belief in his own superiority. Even despite the fact that Thoreau admits Flint's Pond has more fish than Walden, he still claims it is superior, manly because it is deeper and clearer. In short, it is Thoreau's confidence in his own judge of superiority that makes him sound like an egotistical and bitter hermit, looking only to confirm his high thoughts of himself. I guess this is why he starts the book by saying he is limited by the narrowness of his own experience.
ReplyDeleteThoreau sees a difference between the owner of Flint’s Pond and his own relationship with Walden Pond in the motives of the two men. Thoreau assumes that Flint views nature as a thing a man can own, dominate, and manipulate. He compares Flint to the farmers of Concord who only remain in their profession for the ignoble prospect of monetary gain, rather than for the precious interaction with nature. Thoreau posits that Flint “thought only of its money value” (Thoreau 134), thinking of all of the ways to exhaust the land and water in pursuit of a pay day. Thoreau imagines that Flint praises money as his god, while Thoreau honors nature in the same way. This is why he finds it blasphemous that Flint has named the pond, a part of nature, after himself, perhaps as a congratulatory gesture to himself for all his monetary wealth. Thoreau sees Flint’s intent for the pond as dirtying the purity of the pond, which is why he claims it “is comparatively shallow, and not remarkably pure” (Thoreau 133), in comparison to Walden Pond.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that Thoreau considers himself vastly different from Flint, though Thoreau fishes from Walden, drinks its water, and uses the land to farm beans. Thoreau’s motive in living off Walden Pond is to commune with nature, which he does by working the land in pursuit of beans and meditating in his little boat while catching fish. Though these activities do result in a profit, of which Thoreau is able to feed himself and make a little money, his intention is not to make an income from the land.
Brute Neighbors springs from Thoreau’s interactions with mice, a cat, a quartet of bellicose ants and an evasive loon. Of the four encounters, only the loon appears remotely interested in Thoreau. The mice are merely pursuing dinner, while Thoreau is clearly more enthralled with the cat than the cat is with him. There are a number of parallels made between the wars between red and black ants and the wars of men. The most telling may be that the ants do not even take notice enough to stop their mortal combat to get away from their mutual captor. It is only the playful loon who that is brazen enough to engage Thoreau in a game of hide and seek.
ReplyDeleteThe loon represents a formidable opponent, “It was surprising how quickly he made up his mind, and put resolve into execution”. Additionally, the loon is aware of his strengths and weakness, and uses that knowledge to choose the arena of competition. Finally, the loon is a boastful winner, “I concluded that he laughed in derision of my efforts”. Archetypally, the loon seems to be a leprechaun, or (anachronistically) a submarine. Neither of these is a very fulfilling. A pointless pursuit without a tactile payoff, (not sure how the mockery fits in) seems to be what Thoreau is expressing with the loon chase. This is similar, in some ways, to Thoreau’s experiment at Walden, where the value of the pursuit outweighs the tactile results of that pursuit (not counting the book I’m holding). Another possible metaphor would be that the loon is unrequited love, this at least accounts for the mockery.
While it is fairly obvious I have no idea what the loon represents, the important parts of the anecdote to me were: a) the pointless pursuit b) the mockery, c) the willingness of both participants, d) the lack of a fulfilling end to the chase, e) the enjoyment had by both participants at the expense of the other. How this fits into a larger extended metaphor is beyond me though.
Brute neighbors is a chapter that examines the distinction between primitivism and civilization. Thoreau sees civilized life as being subject to many of the same tasks and challenges as that lived by more primitive creatures (his "brute neighbors"). As Thoreau watches the ants, he sees them engage in war in a manner resembling the humanistic approach to battle. Similarly, Thoreau's fascination with the raccoon possesses an essence of self-reflection. Thoreau admires the raccoon's ability to live separately from humanity, surviving off of it's scraps. I feel as though you could make the argument that Thoreau tries to become (or at least paints himself as) a human raccoon of sorts through out Walden. Even the beginning of the chapter, where the hermit and the poet go fishing touches on the idea of civilization versus primitivism. The poet is concerned with the theoretical, the clouds, whereas the hermit is concerned with the more immediate tasks pertaining to survival, such as catching fish. The end of the piece, featuring the loon, is a moment of realization for Thoreau. Thoreau sees the life of the animal as one dedicated solely to survival, of catching the next fish or fighting the next ant. Yet when Thoreau encounters the loon, it is playful. The loon doesn't move through the water in a manner conducive to survival, he seeks to engage in the seemingly human action of play. Because of this, the loon in one manner reaffirms Thoreau's beliefs on the distinction between civilization and primitivism being blurred. Humans do need to engage in behavior that benefits their survival, making them more like animals. But what Thoreau fails to realize up to this point is that play is a part of this category of actions. Thoreau has mislabeled playfulness as a superfluous, human creation. Play is a way of enjoying one's surroundings, something he has sought to do throughout the book. I think this is where the loon challenges Thoreau's previously held notion. Playing in the water is the loon equivalent to the poet's musings. Neither is necessary but both allow the individual to enjoy their habitat. The loon's actions allow Thoreau to reach an end to system of thought regarding the subjects of the chapter.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Miller
I find the most interesting part of “The Ponds” section to be Thoreau’s attentiveness to the names of the various ponds. He claims, “Flint’s Pond! Such is the poverty of our nomenclature. What right had the unclean and stupid farmer, whose farm abutted on this sky water, whose shores he has ruthlessly laid bare, to give his name to it?” Instead, he of course believes that it should be named for nature: “Rather let it be named from the fishes that swim in it, the wild fowl or quadrupeds which frequent it, the wild flowers which grow by its shores, or some wild man or child the thread of whose history is interwoven with its own; not from him who could show no title to it but the deed which a like-minded neighbor or legislature gave him…” (134). Thoreau seems passionate, even angry in this passage.
ReplyDeleteBut even beyond this disdain for Flint and “his” pond, Thoreau also condemns White Pond. He claims that White Pond, though beautiful, is “a poor name from its commonness, whether derived from the remarkable purity of its waters or the color of its sands” (135). We then get Thoreau’s personal preference for the names of the lake, which include “Virid Lake” and “Yellow-Pine Lake.” So, it is not only that men (such as Flint) are unworthy to have ponds named after them, but also a common name is unsuitable for the splendor of the lake. I believe this naming process reflects a larger issue about owning nature.
Though Thoreau does throw around some names for White Pond, he doesn’t claim that any lake should be named after him. I agree with the point that Thoreau is elevating himself above the owner of Flint’s Pond, but in Thoreau’s defense, what Flint has done is blasphemy to one who desires a communal relationship with nature. By naming the pond after himself, Flint has left the ultimate mark on nature; he displays ownership over that which is wild. Thoreau, humbly, in my opinion, points out that though he too has “profaned” Walden, he at least attempts to leave Walden wild and live in harmony with it, not calling attention to his existence. I believe that this is the point of the Icarus allusion; he not only uses this as an example of a worthy name of a body of water (Icarian Sea), but also seems to insinuate that his wilderness experiment is just that: a grand attempt that could fail. Though this reading aligns Thoreau with a classic Greek figure and much of the surrounding text seems egotistical, I believe that this is actually one of Thoreau’s humbler moments.
For Thoreau, Walden seems to be about purity; a purity that comes from unaltered, unmolested natural landscapes. This purity is what allows him an entrance into the mind or intentions of something greater than himself. When speaking of Walden he states, “Lying between the earth and heaven, it partakes the color of both” (Thoreau 121). This quotation seems to embody what the pond means to Thoreau. It is a link “between the earth and heaven.” Alteration by man creates an environment that man finds pleasing, or in the case of Flint’s Pond, profitable. However, a landscape that is unaltered is a picture of what divinity deems sufficient in beauty and form. This is why Thoreau believes that part of appreciating a landscape is to, “...thank God that he had made it” (Thoreau 134). The aforementioned quotation is used in the rebuke he has for Flint’s mismanagement of nature through excessive cultivation. Thoreaus contempt for Flint’s pond is rooted in the lack of appreciation the owner has or had for the beauty of the natural landscape. Thoreau believes that he is integrally knit into the fabric of Walden’s landscape. Consequently, ceaseless cultivation of the land and alteration of the landscape to maximize profit is something causes even himself to suffer. He believes that by deep contemplation and emersion into the natural world, one is able to proper perspective of one’s place within the natural order. This is why he says, “A lake is the landscape’s most beautiful and expressive feature. It is earth’s eye into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature” (Thoreau 128). He sees nature as a mirror through which one is able to more clearly perceive one’s true self, or at least a more authentic reflection of one’s self. When a landscape is altered strictly to create a profit, one looses something of themselves as a result. They reduce the authenticity that could have come through a deep communal relationship with the natural world and thus, they become a base entity.
ReplyDeleteNumber 3
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading Brute Neighbors. I thought that it was infinitely easier and more straightforward than some of the previous chapters we have read. It was easy to picture Thoreau paddling around the lake trying to catch this bird. I think we have all chased an animal around at some point, whether it be one of our pets, trying to catch lightning bugs or some other animal.
I could see, however, how this section could be taken to a deeper level. I think that the fact that the loon was seemingly playing with Thoreau as he "apparently chose his course sot hat he might come up where there was the widest expanse of water and at the greatest distance from the boat." It seems from Thoreau's description that the loon is playing a game with him, intentionally picking its path to mess with him. This interaction shows a closeness with nature that was not previously evident. Thoreau and the loon are interacting directly with each other.
I think Thoreau added to the humor of this section with the puns used when describing the bird. Merriam-Webster describes a loon as "a crazy person." Throughout this passage, the loon is described as having a "wild" or "demoniac" laugh. He is also described as "silly" and "wild."
-Emily David
Like many people who have posted so far- I really enjoyed 'Brute Neighbors', and thought it was a particularly grasping chapter (although I also really enjoyed 'Baker Farm' so, based on the comments so far, I'd say my reactions to this book are probably in an outlier category).
ReplyDeleteFirst I think it's worth pointing out, when examining this chapter that Thoreau is doing some interesting navigation in terms of the way he is writing this chapters. For instance 'The Ponds' is written in a style similar to 'Brute Neighbors', focusing on sensory descriptions, whereas the two chapters in between that have Thoreau writing more broadly, bluntly addressing lifestyle choices. That being said, while I appreciate Thoreau's philosophic views, 'Brute Neighbors' feels fresh after two such chapters.
On to the Loon, I suppose. I disagree with the notion that this scene or this chapter somehow represent Thoreau gradually losing his sanity. First of all if this was the case, Thoreau doesn't strike me as the kind of author who would reveal that detail, or even allude to it in his writing. Second he doesn't strike me as the type of author or even the type of person who isn't constantly preoccupied with ideas that go deeper than the surface. That is to say, even something like a bird swimming around a pond can serve as a metaphor for something much more profound.
What that something is, it is harder to say. I am of the opinion that this metaphor is speaking of a certain harmony between Thoreau and his surroundings. Or at the very least it is meant to be interpreted as something gentle and positive. I arrived at this conclusion because it appears to me he is indeed playing a game with the bird, and that both parties are aware of that fact. It seems to me that if the bird feared for its safety or sensed any real danger it could simply fly off to another pond or at least stay out of sight or in the air until its attacker left. Instead of this, the bird swims around the pond, and calls out each time it surfaces, which gives the impression it wanted to be found.
Perhaps this scene represents Thoreau at the height of his relationship with nature, because he is interacting with a part of it in a complex way. This goes beyond the earlier scene when the wood-cock and its children curiously examine him while he sits under a tree. This interaction isn't driven by curiosity, it is driven by entertainment, and it seems as though both parties are well entertained by this game. Thus, Thoreau seems to have reached a point where his interaction with animals and humans might as well be interchangeable, which is a microcosm of a theme that this book has been exploring in depth up to this point: interaction with society vs. interaction with nature.
I seem to agree with the crowd here. Brute Neighbors was definitely one of the more enjoyable chapters, as it read easily and seemed more conversational. While a couple people seem to think that Thoreau relates with the animals because he is losing his mind and going crazy, I don't think this is exactly the case. He has been at Walden pond for a long time and has been living (for the most part) alone and without much human contact. It seems only natural to me that he would start to develop relationships, opinions, and stories with/about the animals he comes across. Because what else is he to do? What else is there for him to analyze besides the interactions among the animals and himself? I think these connections he has with the animals is a reflection of humanity and the relationships we have with other humans.
ReplyDeleteI think the loon could represent two things. First, I think this could be a way in which Thoreau represents the closeness he is finding with nature. He interacts with the loon like he would a real human being, and even begins to think the bird is playing games with him. This means he feels like the loon has other motives besides just enjoying it's self. This leads to my second thought: maybe the loon is a reflection of the absurdity of some people. Thoreau feels that there's no reason why the loon should be acting this way and can't figure it out. He expresses frustration and perhaps this mirrors human action. There are some people who just do things that don't make sense and make life harder for other's for no reason at all. The fact that Thoreau has been alone for so long makes it seem fairly normal that he is having these thoughts about the animals, specifically the loon, and I don't think it necessarily means he's going crazy or anything. He's just trying to do what any human would do - make sense of his surrounding and attempt to explain the absurd and seemingly meaningless things in life.
Thoreau assumes Flint's Pond was named by a stupid farmer after himself. He asks what right the farmer had to name it after himself if he never understood, loved or appreciated it. By opposing Flint's Pond with Walden, Thoreau is making a distinction that he has lived by its shore and made a great attempt to understand it. Walden is not there for him and his enjoyment but for the birds that frequent it or the fish and skaters that make ripples on it's surface. He even realizes that even passing over it with his boat, he is causing ripples that disrupt it's purity: "Though I passed over it as gently as possible, the slight undulations produced by my boat extended almost as far as I could see, and gave a ribbed appearance to the reflections" or that his oars scare the fish, the natural inhabitant, into the depths (p. 130).
ReplyDeleteWhat really bugs me about this distinction are all of the assumptions Thoreau makes. He scorns the villagers for transporting water from the pond to wash their dishes, yet he (Mr. Holier than thou), transports sand to make sand-paper. I get that, he "understands" the pond or at least his effects on it, but the assumptions he makes about the people transporting the water really bugged me. Could they not understand the pond better than him, even? Could farmer Flint, not also bathe in his pond? It also bugged me immensely when he bangs his oar on the side of the boat and causes such ruckus. He mentions this but it doesn't seem to connect, it doesn't seem to further his understanding of Walden. The only affect it had on me was to piss me off.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrute Neighbors seems to be a popular discussion topic. While reading, I was hoping there would be a question on this section for the blog, and luckily there is, although my discussion options are limited from posting so late.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the consensus of the Brute Neighbors discussion. I believe that, in this chapter, Thoreau is demonstrating how one being in nature for so long will eventually make them apart of nature. Thoreau takes interest in cats and mice, ants and birds, and the loon in a way he would not have done before spending so much solitary time in nature. He sees interactions with all these creatures as deep and inquisitive, pairing them with the many similarities humans share with the animals. I feel like this chapter could be a message about how much of a human's animal essence still remains even after the cultivation of civilized behavior that we adhere to.
The interaction with the loon is different from the previous animal interactions we see in this chapter. Before Thoreau was just an observer, not really attempting to interact directly with the animals. Perhaps the mischievous nature of the loon goaded him into wanting to become part of that animal kingdom. The symbolic nature of a loon causing him to interact does have implications of insanity in Thoreau, which is logical since he has been isolated for a long time. The fact that he is intelligently observing and speaking about the loon shows a kind of logical insanity. His interaction with the loon could be considered insane, but he still retains logical thought about the situation, causing a paradox.
-Heather Hobbs
I thought Brute Neighbors was the most exciting thing I've read in the book thus far, the flow of it was amazing, and I actually felt as if it were something I would read for leisure.
ReplyDeleteHis interaction with the animals, while being in solitude in nature, oddly enough, reminds me of the movie Castaway with Tom Hanks. After a while on the island, after Tom Hanks' character has made the necessary adaptations in order to provide sustenance for himself, he creates a friend out of a volleyball, and begins talking to it as if it were a person, seemingly in an attempt to fulfill the social needs and belonging space of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Although the instance of Thoreau chasing the loom in the book may not have been as extreme as the the situation in the movie, I do believe that both situations are comparable. While some believe that he was just trying to become more in tune with nature, at the same time, we have to take a more practical approach and realize that Thoreau is a person just as we are, and after being in seclusion for a while, we do need some kind of companionship, whether it be talking to a volleyball, a bird, or a higher power—which is something most people do when they feel alone and are looking for someone to confide in, or just listen to.
To me, "Baker Farm" adds the most contradictory idea to Thoreau's idea of a self-made man. It's not when he suggests that the Irish farming family is poor because they work so hard and give so much of themselves to other people. I can see that idea falling in line/thought with the rest of his "man as an island" theory. What offends me most is when he suggests the ideas of luck and an inborn station a reason that the Baker's will never be able to rise above their poverty, and is contradictory to the idea that a man has enough agency to live apart from society. In order to suggest that a man has the ability to be separate from society, Thoreau should realize that this idea implies that man is not dependent on the will of God or the luck bestowed upon him from somewhere else. To suggest these reasons as adequate ones to explain the Baker's poverty implies that he doesn't really think that all men have their own agency, just that HE does.
ReplyDeleteI like much Thoreau’s style of writing in “Walden” on a purely subjective level. The dialectic tone he takes in some of the chapters, like “Brute Neighbors,” and the meditational tone he takes in others like “Visitors.” However, I take a lot of issue with his content. Particularly, his discussions on class and his flippant attitude toward those who he perceives as fundamentally different from himself concern me.
ReplyDeleteMuch has been said in class and on the blog about his depiction of the French-Canadian woodcutter Alex. In the most recent selected reading for this class is his depiction of an Irish-immigrant Field family in “Baker Farm.” In this chapter, he takes a semi-didactic/semi-dialectical tone in exploring the reasons for working hard as well as a dialogue about the food we eat and how we procure it.
Thoreau describes the poor family he meets in a rainstorm as, essentially, a family toiling under a false assumption. The assumption is that they came to America to be able to work hard to be able to procure things like coffee, tea, meat, etc. Thoreau argues that this is false. He says, “but the only true America is that country where you are at liberty to pursue such a mode of life as my enable you to do without these, and where the state does not endeavor to compel you to sustain the slavery and war and other superfluous expenses which directly or indirectly result from the use of these things” (140).
He suggests to the Field family, who he describes in a rather disparaging way, that they are laboring under a false assumption that they need the things they work hard to have. But I would hardly believe that the family thinks that they “need” those luxuries. He gives us no indication that they feel the need to have the luxuries-only the want. And for that, they are willing to work hard to gain the few luxuries they can afford.
His depiction of this family is fundamentally different from his time with Alex. With Alex, Thoreau patronizingly incorporates him into an experiment – a way of finding out how the “simple” think about large and complex issues. With this family, he simply tells them their way of living is wrong. He tries to teach them the correct (his) way of going about life.
The fundamental problem here, however, is his lack of willingness to accept any way of living other than his own. In this way, he becomes a sort of tyrant simple-living.
I’m afraid this post is getting too long, so I will save the discussion about his discussion of simple-eating for another post.
-Adam Khalil