Analyzing Henry David Thoreau's 'In The Eyes Of Solnit'

September 5, 2014
Thoreau In the Eyes of Solnit It seems that Henry David Thoreau writes in such a way as to intentionally confuse readers from his time. But if this is his intention, how does he expect readers who can no longer relate to his time period to be able to relate to his theories? Rebecca Solnit translates Thoreau’s writing into something that contemporary readers can relate to and understand based on how they currently live and what they rely on in the modern world. She does so by modernizing Thoreau’s writing and making him more realistic and relatable to the modern reader. Thoreau initially is very difficult to decode through many different aspects of his writing. Within his book, Walden, Thoreau shows many examples of complicated
language and difficult metaphors. “Still we live meanly, like ants; though the fable tells us that we were long ago changed into men; like pygmies we fight with cranes; it is error upon error, and clout upon clout, and our best virtue has for its occasion a superfluous and evitable wretchedness.” As a modern day reader, it is challenging to decode his writing style. Many of the allusions and metaphors he uses are no longer relevant. This makes understanding his thoughts an intricate puzzle that the reader must arrange into a still unclear picture. Even after solving the puzzle, the reader can still have difficulty understanding Thoreau through his choice of words. The time difference also plays a large part in making sense of his word choice. This also makes it problematic for his audience to be able to put themselves into his shoes, attempting to understand his opinions. Due to his extremist ideas, as well as the time difference concerning reliance on technology, readers seem to picture Thoreau as a symbol of solitude or some hypothetical writer. Because of these difficulties, Solnit uses many different approaches in her writings to help her audience understand where Thoreau is coming from, as well as how to interpret his writings within the modern world. “His two-year stint in the small cabin he built himself is often portrayed as a monastic retreat from the world of human affairs into the world of nature, though he went back to town to eat and talk with friends and family and to pick up money doing odd jobs that didn’t fit into Walden’s narrative” (“The Thoreau Problem”). Solnit attempts to help readers understand Thoreau’s perspective by bringing in aspects of his life that we would have otherwise not been aware of. Solnit continues, “He went to jail not only because he felt passionately enough about national affairs--slavery and the war on Mexico--to refuse to pay his tax, but also because the town jailer ran into him while he was getting his shoe mended” (“The Thoreau Problem”). She simplifies his statements into something that a modern student could understand and relate to. By simply changing our perspective, Solnit can apply Thoreau’s writings and ideas to our contemporary society.
Another difficulty Thoreau’s writing contains is attempting to understand his tone as well as remembering the extreme time difference between him and the modern student.
Thoreau writes in a very elitist tone that makes readers unwilling to even attempt to understand his opinion. He holds back nothing and is very direct in his opinions. For example, “The nation itself, with all its so-called internal improvements, which, by the way are all external and superficial, is just such an unwieldy overgrown establishment, cluttered with furniture and tripped up by its own traps, ruined by luxury and heedless expense…” (Walden). Solnit translates Thoreau’s judgmental ideas by using much more simple language and tweaking his ideas into something more relatable. She does this by keeping her tone much lighter than that of Thoreau’s. Within her essay “Mysteries of Thoreau, Unsolved”, she takes this idea and translates it into a more relatable thought. “Truth for me has always come in tints and shades and spectrums and never in black and white, and America is a category so big as to be useless, unless you’re talking about the government” (19). She translates his condescending tone and extreme ideas into something that modern readers might take more of an interest in, as well as putting her own opinion into the mix. Solnit also includes a brief biography of Thoreau that makes him someone that readers can relate to as a physical being rather than an imaginary character. “Though we talk so
much about the twenty-six months he dwelt at Walden Pond, he spent most of the rest of the forty-five years of his life at home with his family, as an intimate and essential part of what appears to have been an exceptionally loving group” (Solnit 21). By including personal details about Thoreau, Solnit transforms him from a harsh, elitist writer to someone with a family and a life outside of his writings. This background knowledge allows readers to take his ideas into account when considering how they wish to live their own lives. The many difficulties that Thoreau’s work cause for readers stops not only at the understanding of his words, but also lead to misinterpretations of his meaning.
Readers attempt to find the meaning behind the words, but instead end up oversimplifying what he intends to say by choosing choice words and sentences to focus on. Critics and readers then focus on these small ideas that Thoreau did not even intend for his audience to pay close attention to, which in turn causes large audiences to blow off his real meaning because of what they have chosen to focus their attention on. Solnit points out one of these focus points in her essay, “Mysteries of Thoreau, Unsolved”. “There is one writer in all literature whose laundry arrangements have been excoriated again and again…” (18). She then continues to correct the misinterpretations that surround that idea by turning Thoreau into a real human being, rather than the hypocritical writer that many have made him out to be. She points out that although some may not live by their word, it doesn’t make their words any less true. For example, she speaks of Martin Luther King Jr., “Martin Luther King Jr. was right about racism and injustice whether or not he led a blameless life” (Solnit 20). Thoreau is often focused on as who he was as a symbol rather than who he was as a person. Solnit attempts to make her readers see him as a person, therefore making him more relatable, as well as making his writings more understandable. She refutes
those who insist that he was simply judging others while living the same life he was criticizing. “Do we care who did the chores in any other creative household on earth? Did Dante ever take out the slops? Do we love housework that much? Or do we hate it that much? This fixation on laundry is related to the larger question of whether artists should be good people as well as good artists, and probably the short answer is that everyone should be a good person, but a lot of artists were only good artists” (Solnit 20). She tells her readers that although Thoreau insists on an independent lifestyle, he never states that you must be completely independent from all people and help. He is still a human being with a family and a life, therefore he will most likely rely on others for certain things. Solnit rectifies Thoreau’s arguments to show the modern reader that his ideas still have plausibility today. Although it is hard to decipher his meaning, he points out that we must be self-sufficient. In today’s society it may be hard to think of being independent of technology, but Solnit uses Thoreau’s past theories and relates them into today’s terms. She shows us that we should look at Thoreau’s work as a whole, rather than picking out small portions of his writings and focusing solely on them. He demonstrates the enjoyment of freedom from society’s stronghold. Within the modern society that we have today that is strongly connected to technology, Thoreau’s works can help us to take a step back from what we think we need. Within Walden he states, “Why should we live with such hurry and waste of life? We are determined to be starved before we are hungry.” Thoreau wants us to reevaluate our lives and try to live in such a way that doesn’t require dependence on so many people or things. Solnit points out that Thoreau had a very strong connection with his family and that dependence on people is not necessarily a bad thing, but she showed that his intention was for people to try to be independent while still relying on those close relationships. Solnit explains Thoreau to us so that we may use his theories to improve our lifestyle. Solnit takes a larger picture from Thoreau’s work when she says, “Those who deny that nature and culture, landscape and politics, the city and the country are inextricably interfused have undermined the connections for all of us” (“The Thoreau Problem”), She shows us that his intention was for us to find meaning within his works and that was his reasoning for making his language so incredibly difficult. If he had made it something we could easily read, no one would have taken an interest in it to look for a deeper meaning. Through his complex language, incredible metaphors, and the time difference, Thoreau has spoken to us about the meaning of life, and as he had wished, we listened. Though Thoreau’s writings are written to make his readers think and read on a deeper level, his messages are ones that are important for us to take into account. Solnit helps us realize the importance of his works by translating his terms into a modern light. By doing so she shows how we can apply Thoreau’s ideas to our own life and become more independent and self-sufficient. Although Thoreau wrote of his own experience within his time, his works can still be applied successfully today with a few minor tweaks.
Works Cited
Solnit, Rebecca. “Mysteries of Thoreau, Unsolved.” Orion May/June 2013: 18-23. Print.
Solnit, Rebecca. “The Thoreau Problem.” Orionmagazine.org. May/June 2007. Online.
Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. 1854. New York: Penguin Books, 1983. Print.
Thoreau, Henry David. “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For.” Academic Universe: Research and Writing at Oklahoma State University. Ed. Richard Frohock and Ron Brooks. Plymouth: Hayden-McNeil Publishing, 2012. 369-371. Print.