Talk:Walden/Archive 1

Categories
I can't figure out why the "category: 1854 books" isn't working ... any ideas?
 * not fixed now. Walden 13:52, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Is it worth having a category with cultural references of this book? I only know of two - The Perks of Being a Wallflower and in "Ghosts", the second short story in the New York Trilogy. are there any more? Malrase 18:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ? Levellers, Battle of the Bean Field - "As the sun rose on the bean field, they came like a wolf on the fold" (a song about unconventional traveller lifestyle and the clash of these people with the UK establishment - also references Stonehenge and "the 303" (a UK road))

"Making wild jungle love to trees...?"
This means that Thoerou hired a prositute to have sex with him in the jungle trees. :D He liked it a lot.

"It is wrong to see Walden simply as propaganda or a diatribe.", that sounds like an opinion to me. Consider it deleted -Vladimir Lenin 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed some vandalism
Or reverted the change to be more exact

194.144.92.20 09:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Walden's conclusion is the most poetic prose?
this seems to be POV, im deleting it:

saved here: "Walden's last paragraph is as poignant and poetic a piece of prose as has ever been written." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.229.76 (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Never Married
Thoreau was never married, so his wife could not have cooked his meals or cleaned for him, as stated in the first section. I do not have an account, so could someone edit that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.52.91.157 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Critical response
Did anyone like the book? There's three pertinent and well sourced negative views of the book, but how about someone who liked the friggin thing? Surely a work described even by its detractors as great had at least a few supporters...72.78.6.248 (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. One of the critical responses seems to lack any knowledge of what Thoreau actually claimed to have done and exaggerated his reliance on Concord for food. His book is about living a simpler lifestyle and REDUCING reliance on others, not about cutting it off entirely.

Rename "Modern Influence"
This section is simply a list of "References in Pop-culture" not a discussion on the influence of Walden in modern times. As such, I propose the section's title be changed. Quillaja (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms?
I think it is misleading to have Emerson criticizing Thoreau in a block quote right at the beginning of this article. Emerson and Thoreau were good friends and in many respects are kindred spirits. Though they do have disagreements, I don't think it makes sense to just have Emerson criticizing Thoreau. More importantly, since this is a criticism (and perhaps not even one that is even about Walden, but about Thoreau) it is better to put it in the reception category than to have it right in the opening section, which should be reserved for material indicating what Walden is about and so on.

Similarly, I don't think the summary of "Solitude" is the right place for yet another criticism. Particularly a misguided one.

Why am I wrong to think these things? Or what's up? 71.195.1.198 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Emerson, being Thoreau's contemporary, should not be placed in a section that deals with later criticism. It is more appropriate at the beginning. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does it say anything about 'later' criticism? If it shouldn't end up there, it seems it also should not be where it currently is. Why doesn't that seem to bother you? In particular, you still haven't addressed the following potential issues raised in my previous post:
 * 1) There should not be a criticism in the opening section of the article.
 * 2) Emerson's criticism is not about Walden as such, but rather is about Thoreau -- maybe it should go on the Thoreau page instead.
 * 3) What about the Solitude criticism, which is the kind of lowest bar criticism that English teachers pass around? Why should that remain unmoved also? Hoobalkanoobal (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, please format your talk page messages correctly to save others the trouble of having to do it.
 * Why is it misleading to have the Emerson quote in the lede? It is clear that Emerson and Thoreau had significant differences of opinion and philosophies that diverged as the two got older.  When Thoreau was jailed for not paying his tax, Emerson was aghast and did not understand Thoreau's decision.  Clearly, he also did not understand Thoreau's decision to live in the cabin at Walden.  There is nothing wrong with having the quote in the lede, especially considering the relationship between the two men to which the lede makes reference.  The other quotes in the criticism section are from men who were not so closely associated with Thoreau.
 * As for solitude, the brief information there are simple statements of fact, and not criticism per se. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 22:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, but I still don't feel you have addressed several of the problems I think exist with this article which I would maintain justify some revision, if not the revisions I have tried to make myself.
 * 1) Emerson is not even talking about Walden, which he may well think is a good, well-written book -- even an ambitious book -- but about Thoreau's lifestyle in his criticism. It is a mistake to conflate the two, thus Emerson's remark seems only tangentially relevant.  If anything, Emerson has some sense that we have lost something because Thoreau didn't invest himself more in living his life; if he has this sense, it probably comes from his appreciation for Thoreau's mind, which is likely to be rooted in part in an appreciation for the book.  I would be fine with having this remark, since it is kind of cool, if it were at least in the criticism section, but it doesn't seem appropriate to begin with something this tangentially relevant. At any rate, the opening section is supposed to be devoted to non-critical remarks, is it not? In which case nothing else matters -- the quote has to go. See WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article for information on how the article is supposed to flow.
 * 2) The section under which the "Solitude" criticism appears is designated for synopsis of the book. It is not a question of whether these are facts or not, but whether they are facts meant to give a synopsis of the book. These facts are not giving a synopsis of the book, so they should be moved. Further, the context in which these non-synoptic facts are presented makes clear that they are in fact a criticism. They are presented in the context of "however" as in "Thoreau claims to enjoy solitude, however these are the facts about him." It is a criticism to present these facts this way because doing so amounts to levying a charge of hypocrisy. The attempt is also a misguided one to a large extent (most Thoreau scholars would agree), albeit one that should be presented in some manner. I would prefer if we could agree on some way to present the response, but since that seems unlikely, let's at least move the thing to the appropriate section. Even if it did fit where it is, it would fit better in the criticism section, partly because it isn't just about solitude, but also about dependence.
 * 3) Isn't it a problem that the quotes from the criticism section do not include a range of material, rather than a guiding consideration for what should be added? It is usual to include contemporary responses and then later developments in the reception of the book, is it not? (cf. Moby-Dick) I would like to see an account of how the book was initially dismissed, was not regarded as a unified work and was not commercially successful, but started to gain prominence in the 20th century beginning with F. O. Matthieson and people like Stanley Cavell.
 * 4) Do you agree that this entry has a number of criticisms of Thoreau but nothing to suggest the value of the book, as has been suggested? If so, do you think this is a problem you'd be willing to help fix, since you clearly have time on your hands and an interest in the subject?
 * Thanks for your patience in educating a noob. I take it wikipedia depends on people like you to be good liaisons to the public.Hoobalkanoobal (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chapter Layout
The chapter layout does not agree with those here, here or in physical volumes. I believe this page should be consistent with those volumes, so I have removed this poem's status as a separate paragraph and merged it with chapter 1. Soluphobe (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

German?
Does the title maybe allude, as a second meaning, to the German language where "walden" (which is the title of the translation too) looks at once like a fictious verb built of a certain noun: namely, Wald which of all words in the world happens to mean forest. Too much of a coincidence?--77.4.122.136 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Half-cent and quarter-cent expenses
Hello. If you wonder how Thoreau could have expenses such as "1.73 1/2", "1.04 3/4", or "a balance of $25.21 3/4" (from Chapter One), the answer seems to be that they still used:


 * the half cent (United States coin)
 * the bit (money) = 12 1/2¢
 * the picayune = 6 1/4¢ (synonyms at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fippenny_bit )

Shouldn't that be worked into the article? There's already a line claiming, "he spent a mere $28.12½", that could be puzzling to readers: this could have a note explaining the half-cent, and the quarter-cent by the way. HTH, 62.147.62.247 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Influences
The "Influences" section is clearly, for the most part, minor references to Thoreau and Walden that probably don't have their place here. They are most likely all added by the people who were "influenced," and, as such, are nothing more than self-promotion. I suggest that most of them be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkmc (talk • contribs) 11:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Walden. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123151/defense-thoreau
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123162/everybody-hates-henry-david-thoreau

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Themes"
I propose to remove this entire section of original research. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 02:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060318110150/http://www.kenkifer.com/Thoreau/ to http://www.kenkifer.com/Thoreau/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Class assignment
Hi, I plan on making significant changes to this article in the next week. I will be shortening the lead to only include necessary information, so I can make it concise and a good overview. The other information from the lead will be used to create a new background information section. Then, I will remove the origins and publishing history section and move that information into the new background section. Also, the plot section seems to be too long and starts to include some analysis rather than just summary. I will remove the unnecessary information that is included in the plot section. Lastly, I will be creating a new combined analysis and style section. It will contain information from the plot section, themes section, and new research that I have done. These edits will bring a clearer structure to the article with more balanced coverage and additional reliable sources. Here is a link to my annotated bibliography: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aIeYgjFHmSwnTCi1jCY8le4oLLEukoxA33cgm03-CL8/edit?usp=sharing --Abair26 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)