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
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
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