Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Shallow Thoughts on Walden Pond
A Ricochet member I used to respect recently posted a “Quote of the Day” from [trigger warning] Henry David Thoreau. Goodness. After my Friday bourbon, I realized that all of you out there were just dying to know what I think of Mr. Thoreau. Since you asked so nicely, I’ll share my thoughts on this fascinating historical figure Mr. Thoreau.
I used to loathe Henry David Thoreau. Well, that’s a bit strong. Let’s just say that he inspired in me a passionate apathy for his writings. That sort of makes sense, because what makes Thoreau so fascinating to me is that he is so remarkably uninteresting. I suppose it’s somewhat interesting that an uninteresting man would be inspired to compile his uninteresting thoughts into uninteresting books. Reading Thoreau is like looking at Instagram pictures of someone’s lunch. You don’t wonder how the lunch tasted, you just wonder why that person thought that you might be interested in pictures of their lunch. This is pretty much how Mr. Thoreau’s writing was received in his day. His fans proudly say that he never made a penny in royalties from his writing (His fans tend to be the type who measure the success of an individual by their lack of success.). Although his critics point out that it was not from lack of trying – he had huge piles of unsold copies of On Walden Pond in his famous cabin. His contemporaries apparently viewed his books the same way I view Instagram pictures of lunches. They rolled their eyes and moved on.
Modern audiences, however, view Thoreau as brilliant and insightful. This says more about modern audiences than it does about Thoreau. I suspect that most modern fans of Thoreau have something in common with fans of Karl Marx: They’ve never actually read the books that they claim to admire. Many modern leftists cite him as a forefather of modern progressivism. This also says more about modern progressives than it does Thoreau. I think their enthusiasm for Thoreau would be tempered if they ever read his work. To paraphrase the famous literary critic Inigo Montoya, I don’t think it means what they think it means.
I’ll start by acknowledging that quoting Thoreau is a perilous business because he wrote a lot and frequently contradicts himself. Most of his writing involves him using lots and lots of words to say very little. If you look hard enough, you can find him saying all sorts of things.
But making an honest effort to pull quotes which fairly represent his views, you come up with things like, “That government is best which governs not at all” from his book Civil Disobedience. Those of us who take a dim view of human nature might fear that such calls for anarchy would quickly lead to societal breakdown, and Mr. Thoreau quickly acknowledges, “…when men are prepared for it, that is the type of government which they will have.” Some consider this to be deep thinking. I think it is hogwash. Obvious, blatant, undiluted hogwash.
Does he really believe in anarchy? What about a system of justice? Defense from foreign invaders? Roads, schools, contract law? The tragedy of the commons? How do we make decisions as a people? This obviously won’t work. This is obvious to everyone, including Thoreau.
But rather than acknowledging that what he just wrote doesn’t make any sense, or, better yet, not writing such hogwash to begin with, he dismissively says, “…when men are prepared for it, that is the type of government which they will have.” So his ideas are good, but all of us are inadequate. It’s not that his ideas are stupid, it’s that men are not prepared for brilliant insights of our betters. Like Mr. Thoreau.
Ok, Henry David, when do you think the great unwashed will be ready for your brilliance? When will men be prepared to govern their affairs without government? And how, exactly, do you see this coming about? You expect that when men are ready, they will elect leaders who have no interest in money or power, and will not seek to exert the power of government? Or perhaps we just kill them all? And then whoever is powerful enough to lead this revolution will not seek power himself?
Is Thoreau reading what he writes? Surely not. So why do sociology majors read it?
That’s my point. I don’t think they do. They keep the book on their shelf, in an obvious spot where guests will see it, to signal their virtue. I do similar things with pictures of my kids, but not with books that don’t make any sense.
Now, to cut Thoreau just a little bit of slack, he wrote this endorsement of anarchy soon after he was jailed for not paying his taxes. He was released the next day when his aunt paid his taxes on his behalf (his family had money). So you can understand him questioning the role of government in our lives. But he doesn’t do that. Instead, he bangs his spoon on his high chair and writes non-sensical hogwash.
So I suppose maybe modern leftists really do read his work. The New York Times would hire him right now. He’s right up their alley.
Except he’s probably not.
He wrote about the benefits of a vegetarian diet but enjoyed a more balanced diet himself. He complained about the power of wealthy families but benefited greatly from his family’s wealth. Many modern leftists presume that he was homosexual, but he probably wasn’t (It’s hard to say after all this time. But those who care about such things often project current trends on his admittedly vague writing.). He was also a life long abolitionist, which in the 1850s-1860s, meant that he must have been a Republican. Which, in modern times, means he’s either stupid or evil or both. But the left reveres him.
His life was not exactly spent taking on nature on its own, uncompromising terms. He didn’t go to Alaska to pan for gold, depending only on his savvy and resourcefulness to survive alone in the wilderness. No, he spent two years in a cabin on property that was owned by his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson. His cabin was a mile from Emerson’s house, and a short walk from his mother’s house on Main Street in Concord, MA. His mother cooked his meals and did his laundry, and he lived off the generosity of Emerson and profits from his family’s pencil factory.
This is not a criticism. It sounds like a nice way to spend a couple of years. But I think those who view him as a rugged survivalist or a hermit who separated himself from the comforts of modern society are a bit off base.
These and other contradictions lead some to call Mr. Thoreau a hypocrite. Not me. First of all, if you write silly things, any time that you make a practical decision in your life it may appear hypocritical. I will just call it practical. Also, I suspect that Mr. Thoreau and I would enjoy one another’s company. We share an interest in nature, and science, and our place in the world. He doesn’t share my interest in earning a living, but if I came from a wealthy family and could figure out how to avoid honest labor, I might be inclined to do so. All those who wander are not lost. I think he had things figured out, and he acted shrewdly. He found a way to do whatever he wanted to do. Good for him.
But how Thoreau inspires movements like environmentalism or the anti-establishment hippy movement, I really don’t understand. I just don’t see Thoreau as particularly interesting. If he were alive today, he’d spend his mornings blogging on a MacBook Air at the local Starbucks, his afternoons sipping IPA’s at a trendy downtown pub with guys with beards and hand-me-down Volvos, and his evenings playing video games in his mother’s basement. And his modern mother would probably be muttering stuff about jobs and apartments, just like his 1800’s mother probably did.
So he wrote books not because he was a deep thinker, but only because his mother did not have video games in her basement. One single Play Station in 1845 could have made life better for kids in high school American Lit classes for generations.
If this guy is an inspiration for modern leftists, then that explains a lot. About modern leftists.
They want to be seen as passionate and intellectual. But they’re just lazy and uninteresting.
Modern leftists, from Gary Hart, to Barack Obama, to Beto O’Rourke, to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, claim to be inspired by Henry David Thoreau. They’re not being arrogant. They’re being honest.
Pathetic, but honest.
Published in General
Ya know, I thought Skyler was unnecessarily complimenting me, but in retrospect I think he was complimenting You!
In that case I might agree, but don’t tell your wife. Keep up the good work. I can’t wait for you to rip the next pompous and pretentious poet!
I just read it again. I think you may be right.
Sorry!
But hey, I’ll take it where I can get it…
“All those who wander are not lost.” Loved your post and especially that line…..here’s why:
I used to work in Weston and had a lousy day, including a computer bug, so while IT fiddled, I took a drive – I’m well known for my lack of direction. I stumbled upon Walden’s Pond after a few wrong turns. I’d never been – I got out and looked at it and said that’s it? It’s small. I walked around the whole thing and read the plaque. I have a book of his sayings – it was a gift. But I thought there’d be more. I left and took more wrong turns and now was late – my lunch hour was up.
Frantic, I pulled into a police station to ask for directions. As I entered, a large bee flew into my hair – I walked into the lobby with arms flaling and my head shaking, squealing – – the officer at desk jumped up with hand on gun. I said I’m lost – which way to Weston? He escorted me to the door and pointed…..I made my way back and that’s my Thoreau and Walden’s Pond story…..
PS Concord is much more interesting – really really old and spooky graveyard and great bake shop……
I heard he wrote some book about hiking in the Maine woods, so he can’t be all that bad.
No, I’m not. It’s very hard for most people to understand that critical authority is usually not very good. It’s too easy to believe a text book or a newspaper article. Most critics are either hagiographic (as you noted) or aren’t very helpful in their criticism. Those who read such authority without skepticism are usually swallowing a very biased agenda. This goes for historical accounts as well as politics and just about every field of human endeavor. What’s worse is that the days of trusting scientists are also past.
I think your comment sums up what is the most important skill all people should acquire in their daily reading and thinking.
Now you made me go look up what the word “hagiography” means. It is not the study of “hags” as I thought(!)
I’m right with you on the believability of scientists. Up til about a decade ago, I used to take for granted that whatever they said was true and that personal bias rarely entered into their pronouncements. And then I started studying the science behind Global Warming………..
“The keeping of bees is like the direction of sunbeams.”
― Henry David Thoreau
. . . but most are.
Ok, don’t leave us in suspense. Which post do you think is better?
No, he spent two years in a cabin on property that was owned by his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson. His cabin was a mile from Emerson’s house, and a short walk from his mother’s house on Main Street in Concord, MA. His mother cooked his meals and did his laundry, and he lived off the generosity of Emerson and profits from his family’s pencil factory.
I finally finished college at age 42, after I’d started at 18, dropped out at 20, got married at 21, and had the five kids. So, here I was in community college classes, taking courses while my children were in school all day, and my classmates were mostly just fresh out of high school.
Well, anyway, in one class, we were reading Thoreau, and that was when I found out that he’d only been at Walden Pond for a short time, and his mom made all his food, and did his laundry, etc. etc.
I looked at the instructor in my literature class and expressed my astonishment that everyone touted this writer like he was some kind of serious survivalist!
That didn’t go well…
I thought Gary’s most recent discussion of President Trump was particularly original and insightful…
I was going to click “like” for this, but Gary might misunderstand….
BTW, Concord MA has both a Walden St. and a Thoreau St., which I always thought was a bit much.
I could support a Civil Disobedience penal facility though.
Done.
Yeah, I blame My Side of the Mountain.
(Whilst in high school in 1964) likely my first opportunity to ID a naked emperor. And I muffed it. (I was taught to respect my elders but my mild Asperger’s often got me past that…)
It occurs to me that we would be better able to weed the literary canon garden of extraneous white men if certain elements weren’t trying to light the whole thing on fire.
Regarding whether this or that post in this thread is the “best ever”, it is a debate of no consequence. There is general agreement among experts and the general readership alike that the best ever was one I wrote in 2016. It is highly unlikely that we will see a serious challenger in our lifetimes, although three others I penned, one in late 2015 and two more last year, have been called “very nearly the equal” of the so-called “masterpiece” (a term which I modestly decline to use, myself.)
Hope this helps.
“Best post” in my comment referred to that comment not the original post. Sorry if that was confusing.
I heard that Donald Trump said your post was “Really the greatest post ever, truly the most remarkable post I have ever seen! Just fantastic!”
Yes, I realized this*, and the good Dr. does now too. I was just saying that the whole misunderstanding was over a non-issue, since, as good as both posts were, neither reached the heights of the article I spoke of.
*Which is not surprising. Using a combination of Big Data and Analytics, plus a bunch of AI things, I did a study in 2018 to determine who the ten Best readers on Ricochet are. I really don’t think very highly of my skills as a reader, so you can imagine my surprise when I read the output. I not only came in at number one, but also captured 2nd through 6th, and 10th.
Was my study credible? Well, I would ask you, is “Science” one of the most prestigious scientific journals, with a rigorous process of peer review? I submitted the paper to them, not to mention a number of other highly regarded periodicals.
I’m blushing! I didn’t want to bring that up.
Anyway, he may have simply been trying to solidify the base for 2020, and the faction known to pundits as the “Camp bloc” is a #YUGE part of that.
Very good!
Oddly enough, I did a similar study. I was number -1, 0, 1.25, and 3.14158.
Shouldn’t that be called the “Campy” bloc?
I haven’t read Thoreau’s but I Paul Johnson did and he had a take on Transcendentalism that I thought was quite funny.
I feel like Transcendentalist writing would work writer if it were read aloud and the hearer was like… way high… like… dude that is deep dude. <Strawberry Alarmclocks play in the background>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naoknj1ebqI
That is wonderful!