Thoreau

[bluosean]

I know Thoreau is supposed to be great and all, but I dont know why. How can something that is so boring be regarded as great literature? Stevenson, Dickens and Kipling can all be really boring too but then they always have something interesting to say. Thoreau is always boring. Im usually the type to read novels and maybe Thoreau is more on the philosophy side, but, nevertheless, when I try to read him I would think that I would still see some of the reason that he is regarded as so great. I dont get it.

[IceM]

I know Threau is supposed to be great and all, but I dont know why. How can something that is so boring be regarded as great literature? Stevenson, Dickens and Kipling can all be really boring too but then they always have something interesting to say. Threau is always boring. Im usually the type to read novels and maybe Threau is more on the philosophy side, but, nevertheless, when I try to read him I would think that I would still see some of the reason that he is regarded as so great. I dont get it.

I think your credibility went down the drain when you misspelt Thoreau.

[JBI]

I think your credibility went down the drain when you misspelt Thoreau.

True, though I second the motion - Walden is horribly boring - so boring in fact. It's like Big Two-Hearted River by Hemingway, except unlike his story, the book drags on for a couple hundred of pages; nothing happens, and there is no "iceberg." We get the whole thing in painful didactic preaching.

Then again, I don't care for 19th century American fiction in general, and will admit to disliking the whole transcendental movement in literature (though there are some Whitman poems that I absolutely love).

[Desolation]

I think your credibility went down the drain when you misspelt Thoreau.
No no no, the poster is referring to Threau, the classic author of such works as Warren; or, Life Surrounded by Friends in the Big City, and The Joys of Blind Government Obedience.

[bluosean]

No need to make fun of me. I dont admit to having great tastes in literature or to know that much about it. I just like to read when I can. And I dont see how I could loose any credibility by making a mistake (hes not one of my favorite authors so I can forgive myself for not remembering how to spell his name). Im just curious why he is considered to be so great.

by the way, is there a way to correct the title of the thread?

[Madame X]

I might have found Thoreau more sympathetic if he didn’t come across as downright campy. Not my cup o’ tea.


...and will admit to disliking the whole transcendental movement in literature (though there are some Whitman poems that I absolutely love).

Indeed, far too carpe diem for my tastes; oh wondrous, oh wonderful world! Wondrously wonderful world, I embrace thee in all thy splendiferously splendid splendor! :puke:

[The Comedian]

There's no accounting for taste, I suppose. But critiquing Walden for its lack of plot and drama would be similar to saying that Jane Austen would be a good writer if only she included more explosions and nudity in Pride and Prejudice. :) (This latter part about Jane Austen is entirely true, by the way ;) ) If you're looking for action-packed drama, "the course of true love never did run smooth," swashbuckling-seduction, screwed-up families, and other such stuff, then you're going to be disappointed in Walden. Walden is a simple walk the woods with a cranky & nerdy nature-boy.

Walden is not all carpe diem -- it takes him the entire book to get there and even so it is a guarded "seize the day" at that. Ultimately, for me at least, Thoreau's work is a lens through which to view early American society and landscape. If you do not appreciate these objects, then you'll probably say mean things about Thoreau too. There's a lot more to it than this too -- much of what Thoreau says about the natural world and the human condition is still applicable today. So too are his confusions: He contradicts himself in Walden all the time, mostly because he's trying to discover an ideal human relationship with the natural world (which he never finds, by the way, though he thinks he finds it on several occasions).

I'm pretty well read in environmental non-fiction, and I can say that from my experience only a few writers rival Thoreau's ability to objectively describe the natural world while imbuing it with a child-like wonder and spirituality that is at once naive and sublime.

[_Shannon_]

I don't like him either. But I am glad I have read Walden, because it gives me the right to hate it.LOL Now I take some contention with calling Stevenson, Kipling, and Dickens boring....

Like JBI, other than Twain and London and some of both Cranes I also don't care much for AMerican literature of the 1800's....also with the exception of Whitman.

[stlukesguild]

It would seem to me that admitting an aversion to an entire period or genre of art would pretty much negate any credibility your criticism might have far more than any spelling mistake. In JBI's instance this critical judgment undoubtedly owes far more to his nationalistic dislike or prejudice against all things American than to anything else. I myself will admit that I'd probably not be the ideal critic of Pop Art or Heavy Metal. "Suick" is the word that immediately comes to mind.:lol: Personally, its been far too long since I last read Thoreau to offer an honest appraisal... but dismissing the whole of 19th century American writing? I think not. I would be hard-pressed to think of an American writer of the last 100 years to rival Whitman, Emerson, Dickinson... and even Poe... or a novel that would make me never wish to read Moby Dick again. But then JBI knows of at least five living writers greater than Tolstoy and I am still awaiting this revelation.:drool5::rolleyes5:

The repeated criticism of the carpe diem message of some 19th century American literature leads me to wonder why there is such a negative response to the belief of these writers that all things might be possible... that the present represented endless possibilities and that one need not labor in the shadow of the great achievements of the past. Of course by rejecting such a notion one rejects any responsibilities for one's own failings. Admittedly, I am far more drawn to the angst-laden Baudelaire struggling with the realities of the gritty urban world. Just musing on how far we've come.:confused5:

[JBI]

It would seem to me that admitting an aversion to an entire period or genre of art would pretty much negate any credibility your criticism might have far more than any spelling mistake. In JBI's instance this critical judgment undoubtedly owes far more to his nationalistic dislike or prejudice against all things American than to anything else. I myself will admit that I'd probably not be the ideal critic of Pop Art or Heavy Metal. "Suick" is the word that immediately comes to mind.:lol: Personally, its been far too long since I last read Thoreau to offer an honest appraisal... but dismissing the whole of 19th century American writing? I think not. I would be hard-pressed to think of an American writer of the last 100 years to rival Whitman, Emerson, Dickinson... and even Poe... or a novel that would make me never wish to read Moby Dick again. But then JBI knows of at least five living writers greater than Tolstoy and I am still awaiting this revelation.:drool5::rolleyes5:

The repeated criticism of the carpe diem message of some 19th century American literature leads me to wonder why there is such a negative response to the belief of these writers that all things might be possible... that the present represented endless possibilities and that one need not labor in the shadow of the great achievements of the past. Of course by rejecting such a notion one rejects any responsibilities for one's own failings. Admittedly, I am far more drawn to the angst-laden Baudelaire struggling with the realities of the gritty urban world. Just musing on how far we've come.:confused5:

I didn't say they were bad, just that I didn't like them. They are boring, and to me, the language is rather flat. Does that mean they aren't important, or that they don't have merit? I could care less; I've read most of the seminal works already, didn't like them; my interests lie elsewhere. I could say the same for 19th century Canadian literature, which is awful at best. Besides which, I don't even agree with the assessment of some of the above posters; I don't like Twain or London, for instance.

I do not doubt their importance, but does that mean I need to read them? I study things unrelated, and have interests elsewhere - I read for enjoyment first and foremost, and Walden doesn't do it for me, though Dickinson does, I must confess. There are a handful of Whitman poems that I like, and a few other things; Poe I detest, Melville I like. Hawthorne I hate. It's all subjective.

Critical consensus, and cultural appreciation are two different things. You come from a culture that hammers these texts down every high-schooler's throat; I don't. As such, if anything, my opinion is less biased, and it's not as if Thoreau's reputation is in danger because of one of my posts, now is it.

As for the five living authors, you need to check back on the thread, I responded a while ago.

[loe]

I agree with The Comedian.
If you want to read a book with a plot, Thoreau will definitely be the wrong choice and will bore you.
Walden isn't a novel, it's philosophy. And if one isn't interested in philosophy it will be boring (no difference whether you read Thoreau or Kant or Plato... the only exception might be Nietzsche because of his writing style).

By the way, I love Thoreau!!! :)

Best regards

[_Shannon_]

It would seem to me that admitting an aversion to an entire period or genre of art would pretty much negate any credibility your criticism might have far more than any spelling mistake. In JBI's instance this critical judgment undoubtedly owes far more to his nationalistic dislike or prejudice against all things American than to anything else. I myself will admit that I'd probably not be the ideal critic of Pop Art or Heavy Metal. "Suick" is the word that immediately comes to mind.:lol: Personally, its been far too long since I last read Thoreau to offer an honest appraisal... but dismissing the whole of 19th century American writing? I think not. I would be hard-pressed to think of an American writer of the last 100 years to rival Whitman, Emerson, Dickinson... and even Poe... or a novel that would make me never wish to read Moby Dick again. But then JBI knows of at least five living writers greater than Tolstoy and I am still awaiting this revelation.:drool5::rolleyes5:

The repeated criticism of the carpe diem message of some 19th century American literature leads me to wonder why there is such a negative response to the belief of these writers that all things might be possible... that the present represented endless possibilities and that one need not labor in the shadow of the great achievements of the past. Of course by rejecting such a notion one rejects any responsibilities for one's own failings. Admittedly, I am far more drawn to the angst-laden Baudelaire struggling with the realities of the gritty urban world. Just musing on how far we've come.:confused5:
I also did not dismiss it--just rather that I don't really like it. And I feel like I've read enough of American literature to be able to have an opinion about whether I like it or not. The American literature of the early 20th century is my favorite grouping of American fiction--Anderson, Dreiser, Dos Passos, Cather, Porter, James. Though I don't care for Wharton. Almost nobody reads most of that anymore...but I like it all so much better than the 19th century American canon (for the most part).

[stlukesguild]

You come from a culture that hammers these texts down every high-schooler's throat; I don't.

Perhaps for a reason. It seems that Whitman and Poe especially have impacted readers elsewhere beyond the national borders of the US. Are there any Canadian writers that have achieved such?:D Of course I'm just having a bit of fun with your nationalistic pretensions. I quite like P.K. Page whom you recommended some time ago... and I've made my admiration for Anne Carson clear on any number of occasions.

Speaking to the notion that US culture shoves the American writers down the throats of our students, I somewhat suspect that this is no less true of British, or French, or Italian, or German, or Chinese schools. Obviously, literature is used by education to reinforce the values and achievements of the given culture. At the same time, I don't believe that American literature was hoisted upon me to the exception of everything else. I certainly read Twain, Poe, Longfellow, Dickinson, Whitman, Faulkner, Hemingway, and Steinbeck... but I was never exposed to (or required to read) Emerson, Hawthorne, Melville, Eliot, Stevens, Hart Crane, Frost, Flannery O'Connor, Saul Bellow, or many others until college... and in most instances this was as part of an elective course on American Modernism. At the same time, I recall having read Shakespeare, Homer, Virgil, Tolstoy, Dickens, Austen, Anthony Burgess, Alexander Dumas, Victor Hugo, Wordsworth, Blake, Keats, Lewis Carroll, etc... If there was a bias, it was clearly for literature in the English language. I assume France may have an equal bias for literature in French... and even if most French are more bilingual than most Americans, there are political and geographic reasons for the American bias: After being dragged into two European wars and treated like cultural inferiors by those same Europeans, the US certainly developed an isolationist mentality... and eventually a certain ego that went with the realization of our own military, economic, and cultural might. How concerned, I might ask, do you imagine the Romans were for the cultural achievements and languages beyond the Empire? What was the attitude of the great British Empire of the 19th century toward other cultures? Undoubtedly, power breeds a certain arrogance. We also... outside of the Spanish populations to our south... and we are struggling to come to terms with Spanish... lack any immediate neighbors of a differing language with which we need to communicate. This is certainly changing as the economy becomes ever more international... and you are well aware, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, and other languages have grown in popularity at American universities... and I would be quite surprised if the curriculum at the grade school level did not mirror this... especially with the increase of sensitivity to multiculturalism.

The American literature of the early 20th century is my favorite grouping of American fiction--Anderson, Dreiser, Dos Passos, Cather, Porter, James. Though I don't care for Wharton. Almost nobody reads most of that anymore...but I like it all so much better than the 19th century American canon (for the most part).

I lean more toward the Modernist poets (Eliot, Crane, Stevens, Pound... even cummings) and Modernist fiction writers such as Faulkner, Hemingway, Thomas Wolfe (not Tom Wolfe), Flannery O'Connor, etc... but personally, my absolute favorites come from all over: Shakespeare, William Blake, Baudelaire, Montaigne, Dante, Verlaine, Holderlin, Kafka, J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Eugenio Montale, Rilke, Pasternak, Goethe, Emerosn, Whitman, Dickinson, Neruda, Garcia-Lorca, Li-Po, Wang Wei, Flaubert, etc...

[PeterL]

Thoreau didn't write fiction; he wrote philosophy, and his writing is much more approachable than the writings on most philosophers. I have read several things by him, and I am awareof his way of thinking, but I have no desire to reread his works; although I have been told that Two Weeks on the Nashua and Merrimac Rivers is great. We should regularly thank Thoreau for having the nerve to stand up and refuse to pay taxes that went to the church.

[David Lurie]

do you imagine the Romans were for the cultural achievements and languages beyond the Empire?

Wrong example, Romans - first as a Republic and then as an Empire - were attentive and ready to imitate the cultural achievements of the people they conquered - just think of the influence on Rome's culture and society of the Greek and Egyptian civilizations.

[antiprefix]

I like modern fiction, especially short stories. ****in' Diaz, Danticat, Denis Johnson, Nam Le, Aaron Kyle, Jonathon Safran Foer.


To each their own

[JBI]

Speaking to the notion that US culture shoves the American writers down the throats of our students, I somewhat suspect that this is no less true of British, or French, or Italian, or German, or Chinese schools. Obviously, literature is used by education to reinforce the values and achievements of the given culture. At the same time, I don't believe that American literature was hoisted upon me to the exception of everything else. I certainly read Twain, Poe, Longfellow, Dickinson, Whitman, Faulkner, Hemingway, and Steinbeck... but I was never exposed to (or required to read) Emerson, Hawthorne, Melville, Eliot, Stevens, Hart Crane, Frost, Flannery O'Connor, Saul Bellow, or many others until college... and in most instances this was as part of an elective course on American Modernism. At the same time, I recall having read Shakespeare, Homer, Virgil, Tolstoy, Dickens, Austen, Anthony Burgess, Alexander Dumas, Victor Hugo, Wordsworth, Blake, Keats, Lewis Carroll, etc... If there was a bias, it was clearly for literature in the English language. I assume France may have an equal bias for literature in French... and even if most French are more bilingual than most Americans, there are political and geographic reasons for the American bias: After being dragged into two European wars and treated like cultural inferiors by those same Europeans, the US certainly developed an isolationist mentality... and eventually a certain ego that went with the realization of our own military, economic, and cultural might. How concerned, I might ask, do you imagine the Romans were for the cultural achievements and languages beyond the Empire? What was the attitude of the great British Empire of the 19th century toward other cultures? Undoubtedly, power breeds a certain arrogance. We also... outside of the Spanish populations to our south... and we are struggling to come to terms with Spanish... lack any immediate neighbors of a differing language with which we need to communicate. This is certainly changing as the economy becomes ever more international... and you are well aware, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, and other languages have grown in popularity at American universities... and I would be quite surprised if the curriculum at the grade school level did not mirror this... especially with the increase of sensitivity to multiculturalism.


Oh, no doubt, I just wanted to point that out, as you know as well as I, that the shaping of a child's mind will pop up later on in life. In Canada we learn mostly about British authors in class, or French ones in Quebec/New Brunswick, though the recent trend has been to move toward world literature, though there is the language barrier. I am just pointing out that the traditions one respects have quite a bit to do with the influence the system they are raised in has on them.

Many people, for instance, only will read those texts in their lives, but even those that don't - there is a special nostalgia for texts read early in life that were enjoyed, or, if the person's confidence is low, portrayed as the greatest ever written.

Canada I guess doesn't have that problem, as our work comes from everywhere - Shakespeare is a must, but most people don't like it, and the rest literally are like Toronto - mixed from all corners. As such, a national pride in literature didn't develop, so that is perhaps a decent standpoint to read from.


But anyway, that wasn't my point. To paraphrase Harold Bloom, "Emerson is the prophet of America, whether you have read him or not." You come from that culture, I don't - does that make me less informed? I was responding to your accusation of me only disliking these authors because I am Canadian - I ask you, have I not shown admiration for American authors before? You question the validity of my statements based on standpoint - I question the validity of yours based on your limited standpoint - who can properly criticize the prophet and disciples of one's own identity?

[_Shannon_]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
I lean more toward the Modernist poets (Eliot, Crane, Stevens, Pound... even cummings) and Modernist fiction writers such as Faulkner, Hemingway, Thomas Wolfe (not Tom Wolfe), Flannery O'Connor, etc... but personally, my absolute favorites come from all over: Shakespeare, William Blake, Baudelaire, Montaigne, Dante, Verlaine, Holderlin, Kafka, J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Eugenio Montale, Rilke, Pasternak, Goethe, Emerosn, Whitman, Dickinson, Neruda, Garcia-Lorca, Li-Po, Wang Wei, Flaubert, etc...


Oh, me too! I like lots of things from all times and places (though I have a serious deficiency in regards to non-European world literature reading), but amidst American literature I have a very strong preference for the time period I mentioned. Poetry-wise I am a Williams gal. Though Creeley gets a large part of my devotion, too....

I love some French and British and Russian 19th century authors as my favorite favs---I just don't care for the Americans of the same time period, Thoreau included, though he's not a fiction writer.

[bluosean]

I was just saying what I felt too. I did not try to give any value to Thoreaus work. I said I thought it was boring. Since I made no claim, there can be no credit.

Shannon: those three are some of my favorite authors. Please dont get me wrong. I mean that they can be boring but usually they are not.

Thanks everyone so far for writing what they think about Thoreau.

[stlukesguild]

Oh, no doubt, I just wanted to point that out, as you know as well as I, that the shaping of a child's mind will pop up later on in life... I am just pointing out that the traditions one respects have quite a bit to do with the influence the system they are raised in has on them.

Many people, for instance, only will read those texts in their lives, but even those that don't - there is a special nostalgia for texts read early in life that were enjoyed, or, if the person's confidence is low, portrayed as the greatest ever written.

To paraphrase Harold Bloom, "Emerson is the prophet of America, whether you have read him or not." You come from that culture, I don't - does that make me less informed? I was responding to your accusation of me only disliking these authors because I am Canadian - I ask you, have I not shown admiration for American authors before? You question the validity of my statements based on standpoint - I question the validity of yours based on your limited standpoint - who can properly criticize the prophet and disciples of one's own identity?

I would point out that it is just as possible that an individual develop an aversion or prejudice against the very writers that they felt were being hoisted down their throats in school. Speaking for myself, I remember having to read Crane's Red Badge of Courage three times. In the final instance it was required by a new young teacher trying to make connections with the Vietnam War that was rather fresh in our memories. I couldn't bring myself around to reading Crane again for years. Dickinson was another example. She was painted like the little old virginal New England Puritan spinster in grade school, and as the feminist du jour in college... neither stereotype of which proved useful in unveiling just how strong of a poet she was which I only came to realize upon reading her on my own some years after school. My experience with Emerson was somewhat the same. It has only been reading him on my own that has led to a real recognition of his merit and a real admiration for his writing. Conversely, I have no doubt that my admiration for Baudelaire, Borges, Kafka, Rilke, and many others owes much to there being examples of "exotic" foreign literature that I was not formally introduced to (at least not until my college Modern World Literature class) and whom I discovered on my own.

Can one properly criticize the prophets of one's own culture? Well, as you no doubt know, criticism of Dante in Italian is perhaps no less voluminous than criticism of Shakespeare in English. Certainly every artist... whatever the genre... has his or her weaknesses and strengths.

[The Comedian]

If you want to read a book with a plot, Thoreau will definitely be the wrong choice and will bore you.
Walden isn't a novel, it's philosophy.


Good point loe. I just want to add to it a bit. Walden isn't just philosophy (but there is certainly a lot in it). In fact, I'd say that his books' structure are much more akin to travel writing than traditional philosophy. Though, in typical of Thoreau, he'd write a travel book about staying at home.

But the book is really a first person travel log typical of Sterne, Cooper, Boroughs, the early Puritan writers and the journals of known and unknown explorers that were popular at the time. What makes Thoreau's work different (and for this reader, better) than those listed here is that Thoreau includes elements of reflection, judgment, Eastern theology, and connection in his work. His presence in American travel writing is almost hard to escape for any modern writer of this field. Edward Abbey, Rachel Carson, Mary Austin, Gretel Ehrlich, Barry Lopez, John McPhee, Farley Mowhat, and a many others outstanding non-fiction travel and nature writers are greatly indebted to Thoreau's skill as a travel and nature writer.

And, despite what the other noted posters here have said, I think Thoreau is one of finest writers of English that I have ever read. His descriptions of society, landscape, and ideas are at once vibrant, humorous, self-effacing, scientific, and mystical. In fact, his prose is so good, that, honestly, when I read his work, I find myself whispering it aloud -- reading it to myself, so that I can heard the sound of each word and phrase.

When I make such high praise of his writing it is his descriptive capacity of which I speak. As has been pointed out elsewhere, others are much more skilled in dialogue and narrative. But these writer-ly objectives are not his.

[bluosean]

Thank you The Comedian. Thoreau's writing can be quite beautiful.

[L.M. The Third]

I have not yet read Thoreau, although I'm planning to soon. (Hopefully in July, if Walden wins the book club nominations.) So, of course, I have no right to have any dogmatic opinion on it yet. However, I would say that the charge that the author is "boring" is entirely subjective to the reader's interest and reading experience. I'm interested in Walden as an ostensibly oustanding study of nature and the simple life. The fact that I'm rather young, and probably read too many novels, may make it somewhat dry reading. However, in Thoreau's own words,


To read well, that is, to read true books in true spirit, is a noble exercise, and one that will task the reader more than any exercise which the customs of the day esteem. It requires a training such as the athletes underwent, the steady intention almost of the whole life to this object. Books must be read as deliberately and reservedly as they were written.

[bluosean]

I know this passage. I believe it is from the chapter "Reading" in Walden. All I can say is exactly! You may love Thoreau so much that you are willing to read his books carefully. I have tried, because he really does have a lot of interesting things to say. But my problem with Thoreau now is that I dont think his books are worth the while anymore (I mean for me personally). I know he is supposed to be a great author, but for me I find him boring. I have found too many other authors who also have a lot to say, and who I like to read a lot more.

[loe]

... he'd write a travel book about staying at home.
That's an absolutely wonderful description! :thumbsup:
I completely agree with your post!

In my opinion Walden is one of the books that would be worth knowing it by heart. :)

Best regards

[Madame X]

It would seem to me that admitting an aversion to an entire period or genre of art would pretty much negate any credibility your criticism might have far more than any spelling mistake.

Neither is it my intent to dismiss a century’s worth of fine American fiction…Poe, to take your example, is certainly an interesting writer IMO and he hated those trippy transcendentalists too. :D


The repeated criticism of the carpe diem message of some 19th century American literature leads me to wonder why there is such a negative response to the belief of these writers that all things might be possible... that the present represented endless possibilities and that one need not labor in the shadow of the great achievements of the past.

Well, it’s certainly a favourite mantra amongst modern motivational speakers and politicians alike, so some people must still like hearing it… :p Seriously though, not that there aren’t merits to the movement (e.g., they were, more or less, nice to animals :piggy:), however, overall I don’t find this “go out and get some sun” and “the world is yours” doctrine to be particularly interesting or illuminating (harhar), moreover, I find this recurrent wide-eyed awe exhibited at the world in which we live theme so overstated it’s positively irksome. Call me a curmudgeon if you will; I’d not contest. :reddevil:

[Zhu]

I read Walden a long time ago. It was one of the first English books I read. I actually quite liked it, but I want to read it again. I think I missed a lot the first time. Sure, it's a bit boring... but I wasn't exactly expecting suspense.

At any rate, I'd rather read Walden again than Moby Dick.

[Ristshot]

I know Thoreau is supposed to be great and all, but I dont know why. How can something that is so boring be regarded as great literature? Stevenson, Dickens and Kipling can all be really boring too but then they always have something interesting to say. Thoreau is always boring. Im usually the type to read novels and maybe Thoreau is more on the philosophy side, but, nevertheless, when I try to read him I would think that I would still see some of the reason that he is regarded as so great. I dont get it.

Thoreau may be boring if you really don't understand that Thoreau is, make no mistake about it, telling you to change your life. I think it holds more relevance now than it did ever in America, especially with consumerism at an all time high, because Walden does hold a very unique message. Thoreau might come off as boring if you read it quickly and don't measure up your own life to his account at Walden pond. If anything, it can help put some perspective on your life.

Above all, it is the ultimate self-help book and really captures one facet of American life really well, which is, to summarize (poorly) some of his conclusion chapter, we always prioritize trivial things and forget what's really important. And if you think that you're life is not one "of the quiet desperation" and you have no problem working your whole life to "make a living rather than live", then the book is not for you. He's trying to make you realize that your life can be always sunrise, never twilight, and for Thoreau, that is your connection with the divine is bungled with all the forgettable moments in your life. It's all written in a prose style that is uniquely American and really can grab your attention, but the message is not received by everyone the same.

[bluosean]

I think that the main themes of Walden that Thoreau wrote about are pretty much universally agreed upon. Im sure he had a lot of great things to say. But many other good wirters have a lot of good things to say too.
Somewhere he says that "this is the only way they say, but there are as many ways as can be drawn radii from one center". He is talking about the labor of his countrymen I think and that they could live some other way if they wanted. I dont remember. Anyway, he is right, and one not need follow his chosen way of life to be happy. Thoreau was happy I think and he was so close to his family that he visited them every week even while he was living at walden. But he was never with a woman. There are other ways than his, and other ways to be happy. I can understand what he is saying and still find it boring.

[stlukesguild]

I find this recurrent wide-eyed awe exhibited at the world in which we live theme so overstated it’s positively irksome. Call me a curmudgeon if you will; I’d not contest.

This reminds me of a diptych (two-panel painting) by a contemporary artist (Robert Colescott) in which he contrast two poets. One lays on a hill-side contemplating the glorious wonder of nature in all her bucolic splendor. He begins his poem "I see this place..."

The second poet looks out his tenement window at the filthy gritty reality of the sprawling modern urban wasteland, and he begins his poem "Look at this place...":lol:

Living in such an urban environment myself, its not surprising that I lean more toward Baudelaire than Whitman, myself... although Whitman is far from being a glassy-eyed Romantic. On the other hand... I have made numerous drives across the vast and undeveloped landscape of this nation and I can only imagine how it must have appeared 100+ years ago... let alone how such landscapes must have awed poets such as Wordsworth. I can't say that either camp has a patent on "reality".

[quasimodo1]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;912837]I find this recurrent wide-eyed awe exhibited at the world in which we live theme so overstated it’s positively irksome. Call me a curmudgeon if you will; I’d not contest.