I think one way of thinking about the value of the Transcendentalists' rejection of received wisdom is in their attitudes toward slavery. Thoreau in particular was one of the most radical antislavery thinkers in his day and age--he was the first major white figure to defend John Brown, for example--and his antislavery convictions grew out of his sort of anti-normative philosophy. Hawthorne, on the other hand, carefully avoided voicing antislavery sentiment, apparently in large part because being politically contentious would have gotten in the way of his own personal advancement and attainment of sinecures.
This isn't to say that we should only judge nineteenth century figures on their relation to slavery, or that we shouldn't read Hawthorne because he is Bad, but it is to say that the "anti-everything" but at times content-free stance of the Transcendentalists had some value: it helped many of them see injustices that comparatively fewer white Americans were able to see as unjust at the time. If you can reject any social rule or standard, you have to judge which ones are worthy of your acknowledgment and which ones really are the unreasoning accretions of the ages. What I enjoy most about Thoreau (beyond his uncanny skill for aphorism) is that he gives me this sense of freedom--this reminder that I don't have to sleepwalk through life, just doing what I'm supposed to do: I can choose. Nobody should try to live out all of Thoreau's principles (see Into the Wild), but what I love about his work is that it really forces you to think through your commitments and challenges you to discard the ones you can't defend.
Yes! I think this was back in Naomi's earlier post about Melville, but it's interesting to think of him in relation to these two poles (Emerson/Thoreau and Hawthorne) because he's not as much of an abolitionist as the first two but is more of one than Hawthorne. This also maps pretty well to his general philosophy---he's more willing to dive into the muck of real life than Hawthorne, but he also wants to spin a good narrative in a way that Emerson and Thoreau almost explicitly reject in their scattered, idiosyncratic philosophy.
When we read the Scarlet Letter in high school, the teacher made a point of her favorite bit, the sly parody of Hawthorne, where schoolchildren decide to participate in the public opprobrium of two sinners (can't remember if this was Hester or someone else, as foreshadowing), and say 'Come, let us fling mud at them" like perfect Shakespearian scamps. At the time I didn't fully get the wit, but over time (it stayed with me, she was very insistent) I came to see what she meant, and how 19th C writers were usually FUNNY by understatement and sarcasm, very British, really, and for many of the same socially conventional reasons. This is why I understand that Moby-Dick is one of the funniest novels ever written.
You're a wonderful writer! I remember 60 years ago, first looking into Melville's diary, him roughing it on the then Indiana frontier and thinking, "This guy's a dummy! If he could do it (passionately cribbing from others, the way I crib from Wikipedia!), I can do it too!" I don't know you do it, write and read and think so much and so well. Spring has sprung in Maine. After two days of hard rainn and two more of hard, immutable, imperturbable sunshine, most greenery has asserted its intentions, daffodils and the few tulips we could scrounge up last fall, are in yellow and white impious blossom, and the magnolia in the yard next door is finally in full nude bloom. The house is silent and I am excited with gratitude. I believe, maybe arbitrarily, that the root of Naomie is soul, whether Sanscrit or Hebrew, I don't know, as in Noah of the ark, and somehow Jonah in the belly of the whale, it's vital core lying in the obscure truth of metaphor. God bless you. My best friends are Hawthornes, metaphorically, but no kidding. A hawthorne accidentally gripped can pierce a hand, which will then swell to twice its size. Wikipedia says this is due to something in its sap which nourishes pathogens.
You're a wonderful writer! I remember 60 years ago, first looking into Melville's diary, him roughing it on the then Indiana frontier and thinking, "This guy's a dummy! If he could do it (passionately cribbing from others, the way I crib from Wikipedia!), I can do it too!" I don't know you do it, write and read and think so much and so well. Spring has sprung in Maine. After two days of hard rainn and two more of hard, immutable, imperturbable sunshine, most greenery has asserted its intentions, daffodils and the few tulips we could scrounge up last fall, are in yellow and white impious blossom, and the magnolia in the yard next door is finally in full nude bloom. The house is silent and I am excited with gratitude. I believe, maybe arbitrarily, that the root of Naomie is soul, whether Sanscrit or Hebrew, I don't know, as in Noah of the ark, and somehow Jonah in the belly of the whale, it's vital core lying in the obscure truth of metaphor. God bless you. My best friends are Hawthornes, metaphorically, but no kidding. A hawthorne accidentally gripped can pierce a hand, which will then swell to twice its size. Wikipedia says this is due to something in its sap which nourishes pathogens.
The reason why I like Emerson more than Thoreau and don't quite lump them together is Emerson's essay "Experience," the thesis of which actually seems to be something of the opposite of "Self-Reliance." In the former, he basically rejects all of that individualism and whimsy of the latter and says that everything is an illusion, most of the transcendentalist schemes were too ambitious, and we should just be practical and patient and stop fighting with everyone. It's almost an anti-transcendentalist essay. Thoreau never does this. He's just kind of the same guy who made Walden until he died, except for adding in "Civil Disobedience," which is kind of even more Walden.
I think one way of thinking about the value of the Transcendentalists' rejection of received wisdom is in their attitudes toward slavery. Thoreau in particular was one of the most radical antislavery thinkers in his day and age--he was the first major white figure to defend John Brown, for example--and his antislavery convictions grew out of his sort of anti-normative philosophy. Hawthorne, on the other hand, carefully avoided voicing antislavery sentiment, apparently in large part because being politically contentious would have gotten in the way of his own personal advancement and attainment of sinecures.
This isn't to say that we should only judge nineteenth century figures on their relation to slavery, or that we shouldn't read Hawthorne because he is Bad, but it is to say that the "anti-everything" but at times content-free stance of the Transcendentalists had some value: it helped many of them see injustices that comparatively fewer white Americans were able to see as unjust at the time. If you can reject any social rule or standard, you have to judge which ones are worthy of your acknowledgment and which ones really are the unreasoning accretions of the ages. What I enjoy most about Thoreau (beyond his uncanny skill for aphorism) is that he gives me this sense of freedom--this reminder that I don't have to sleepwalk through life, just doing what I'm supposed to do: I can choose. Nobody should try to live out all of Thoreau's principles (see Into the Wild), but what I love about his work is that it really forces you to think through your commitments and challenges you to discard the ones you can't defend.
This is a good point! About the slavery, I mean :)
Yes! I think this was back in Naomi's earlier post about Melville, but it's interesting to think of him in relation to these two poles (Emerson/Thoreau and Hawthorne) because he's not as much of an abolitionist as the first two but is more of one than Hawthorne. This also maps pretty well to his general philosophy---he's more willing to dive into the muck of real life than Hawthorne, but he also wants to spin a good narrative in a way that Emerson and Thoreau almost explicitly reject in their scattered, idiosyncratic philosophy.
When we read the Scarlet Letter in high school, the teacher made a point of her favorite bit, the sly parody of Hawthorne, where schoolchildren decide to participate in the public opprobrium of two sinners (can't remember if this was Hester or someone else, as foreshadowing), and say 'Come, let us fling mud at them" like perfect Shakespearian scamps. At the time I didn't fully get the wit, but over time (it stayed with me, she was very insistent) I came to see what she meant, and how 19th C writers were usually FUNNY by understatement and sarcasm, very British, really, and for many of the same socially conventional reasons. This is why I understand that Moby-Dick is one of the funniest novels ever written.
Moby-Dick really is hilarious, even more so because it's a surprise nowadays. I was expecting Ahab, but not Stubb and Flask lol
I agree that The Scarlet Letter is funny! I keep trying to bring out the humor for the high schoolers, with varying degrees of success.
Transcendentalism sounds similar to Taoism.
You're a wonderful writer! I remember 60 years ago, first looking into Melville's diary, him roughing it on the then Indiana frontier and thinking, "This guy's a dummy! If he could do it (passionately cribbing from others, the way I crib from Wikipedia!), I can do it too!" I don't know you do it, write and read and think so much and so well. Spring has sprung in Maine. After two days of hard rainn and two more of hard, immutable, imperturbable sunshine, most greenery has asserted its intentions, daffodils and the few tulips we could scrounge up last fall, are in yellow and white impious blossom, and the magnolia in the yard next door is finally in full nude bloom. The house is silent and I am excited with gratitude. I believe, maybe arbitrarily, that the root of Naomie is soul, whether Sanscrit or Hebrew, I don't know, as in Noah of the ark, and somehow Jonah in the belly of the whale, it's vital core lying in the obscure truth of metaphor. God bless you. My best friends are Hawthornes, metaphorically, but no kidding. A hawthorne accidentally gripped can pierce a hand, which will then swell to twice its size. Wikipedia says this is due to something in its sap which nourishes pathogens.
You're a wonderful writer! I remember 60 years ago, first looking into Melville's diary, him roughing it on the then Indiana frontier and thinking, "This guy's a dummy! If he could do it (passionately cribbing from others, the way I crib from Wikipedia!), I can do it too!" I don't know you do it, write and read and think so much and so well. Spring has sprung in Maine. After two days of hard rainn and two more of hard, immutable, imperturbable sunshine, most greenery has asserted its intentions, daffodils and the few tulips we could scrounge up last fall, are in yellow and white impious blossom, and the magnolia in the yard next door is finally in full nude bloom. The house is silent and I am excited with gratitude. I believe, maybe arbitrarily, that the root of Naomie is soul, whether Sanscrit or Hebrew, I don't know, as in Noah of the ark, and somehow Jonah in the belly of the whale, it's vital core lying in the obscure truth of metaphor. God bless you. My best friends are Hawthornes, metaphorically, but no kidding. A hawthorne accidentally gripped can pierce a hand, which will then swell to twice its size. Wikipedia says this is due to something in its sap which nourishes pathogens.
The reason why I like Emerson more than Thoreau and don't quite lump them together is Emerson's essay "Experience," the thesis of which actually seems to be something of the opposite of "Self-Reliance." In the former, he basically rejects all of that individualism and whimsy of the latter and says that everything is an illusion, most of the transcendentalist schemes were too ambitious, and we should just be practical and patient and stop fighting with everyone. It's almost an anti-transcendentalist essay. Thoreau never does this. He's just kind of the same guy who made Walden until he died, except for adding in "Civil Disobedience," which is kind of even more Walden.
The section of Melville’s Confidence-Man making fun of Emerson and Thoreau is great and very funny. I’ve enjoyed these posts!