Thoreau's Woods: The Foliage of His Words

How does one live a more meaningful life? Does it mean eating all organic or having a plant based diet? Do I listen to the news, or to nature? Does it entail doing yoga or meditation? Do I always have to be in the current moment, and conscious of what is happening right in front of me? Do I act accordingly, or do I take initiative? The answer to all of the above is simultaneously yes and no. It depends on who is asking the question, and what they intend to do thereafter. For me, I could willfully take action on some of those questions, whereas with some others I may just walk away from it having done nothing. For Henry David Thoreau, his answer to the initial question is to go to the woods. ​This paper aims to explore the transformative meanings that become apparent when understanding the depth of Thoreau’s passage that begins with, “I went to the woods...”​ This precursor paragraph states his case of moving to the woods and makes the claim that the action is motivational towards living with more intention. He is at his best in writing his aims with brevity and clarity; however, a closer read reveals the complexity and impact of his simple message.

Thoreau’s language is overall simple and to the point in his prose; he wants to go to the woods to live deliberately, but there is a particular moment that requires a closer read to understand the vigor of his intent. He writes, “I wanted to live deep and suck out the marrow of life, ... and reduce it to its lowest terms,” this passage is problematic in contrast to the rest of the paragraph because Thoreau resorts to poetic language. Though the passage is riddled with schemes and references, the meaning behind the language is not so practically understood. Without knowing the references or literary functions, then the meaning behind the writing becomes potentially inhibited, if not completely misunderstood. What did living deep mean? Deep in a rabbit hole, deep in the depths of the open ocean, deep in the woods? Life is not like a bone in that it has marrow. Was he trying to do some farming or gussying up when he said he wanted to “cut a swath” or “shave close”? Spartan-like sounds aggressive and a bit bruttish. Knowing the schemes that are at work is detrimental to better understand Thoreau’s endeavor. For example, “to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life” could be a metaphor for discovering whatever he believes or finds to be important in life in the process, “to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life,” as a simile to him filtering life and reference to the power of ancient Greeks that conquered far and wide, and “to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms,” as a personification that makes life a figure that is able to be maintained, taken control over, and simplified. Though at first glance the meaning behind the language may not be clear, nor as strong, the change in Thoreau’s rhetoric from explaining his objective goal to expressing his subjective experience is a balancing act that is fundamental to his process of living more intenfully.

Phrases such as “I wished to live deliberately,” “the essential facts of life”, “unless it was quite necessary,” and “reduce it to its lowest terms,” could be understood as Thoreau fixing himself up a framework of how to live intentionally. To dig deeper into the depths of potential meaning would require a close read of the words individually. He wanted to live more intentionally or thoughtfully when he said “deliberately”, and he also wanted to live more simply when he said that he wanted to “reduce it to its lowest terms.” The words “essential” and “necessary” are particular words that could be interchangeable, but have slight differences that could make significant change to the meaning behind them. He uses “necessary” as a remark towards having to resign from society, and would have done so only if there was an absolute need to. The “essential facts of life” pertain to the essence; the important qualities found of life, if ever found. Essence is being used ambiguously here. What would constitute “important”? Thoreau could be addressing “essence” in terms of a spirit, of an indescribable account, or perhaps an understanding of a small part of a grand whole. What is most polarizing is that he states that it is the “essential facts of life” that he will face in the woods, and not the “necessary facts of life.” This would mean that going to the woods could potentially have no effect on him since “essential” comes off as important, yet has an ethereal quality that could make realization go amiss should Thoreau not be able to perceive the facts. Whereas “necessary” could imply that there are certain expectations that will, on an absolute basis, become apparent to Thoreau no matter the circumstance. With this exploration, it is better understood that Thoreau had some faith and trust in putting his life in the expanse of the woods, and away from the confines of civilized living. This marks a development in Thoreau’s relationship not only with himself, but with the woods.

Thoreau’s use of “mean” and “meanness” has connotations that expand on the developing relationship between himself and the woods. He writes “if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world,” Is “mean” being used here as a way to be indicative or definitive, or does he use it in a way to describe being in the middle ground of understanding his explorative transcendentalist philosophies? Perhaps it is being used to attribute the woods with having a mean quality to it; being unkind. In this case, Thoreau is anthropomorphising the woods; nature is being projected onto with human qualities. What follows next is the use of “genuine” as an adjective to “meanness.” This usage provides further curiosity to its meaning. Exploring the notion that the woods are unkind, and paired with “genuine” redefined as honest or sincere, would make it the honest and unkind woods. This anthropomorphism could be Thoreau’s acknowledgement that his quest to live deliberately in the woods may go awfully and awry, but the struggles he faces in the process are important in being able to measure his experience. Though Thoreau skews the natural existence of the woods, he is now seeing it as a force that influences him to not only think or live a certain way on a philosophical level, but more interestingly feel a certain way on an emotional level.

Further picking on specific words, Thoreau’s usage of “sublime” and “true” is ambivalent. Sublime, given the transcendentalist philosophies of Thoreau, here is being used as if his experience out in the woods is a miraculous or spiritual one. The quality of the experience being so grand could change Thoreau’s life beyond material capacity, one that would change the perspectives, sensibilities, and purposes he ponders and abides by in life. Thoreau was moving away from a life of possession, property, and civilization to the quiet and inner inquiry that he expects to have from being in the woods. But when does sublime occur, and how does it present itself? Is it a sort of epiphany that happens in the moment, or does the realization happen after the experience? If it happens after, how much of what is perceived is retained or augmented when translated later onto paper? With the lack of clarity in what Thoreau meant to be “sublime”, I assume a tautological argument can be made. This poses an issue with his ability to make a true account of a sublime experience. True, or truth, is a word that aims to be representative of fact or reality. He may be able to perceive the truth, and may have the experience of it, but there is the potential to reveal a subjective and biased truth when he turns to write about it. Despite his objective to be seperated from society, his account could only be as true as there are readers who find his experience to be relatable, meaningful, and reasonable.

Moving from identifying specific words to analyzing the greater lengths of syntax provides further understanding for what is at work in the paragraph. If parts of the prose were to be ellipsized, then there are possible emphases that reveal underlying meaning. There are several anaphoric lines where Thoreau writes to the extent of, “I did something in order to gain something,” which creates a sense of agency between him and the woods. On one hand Thoreau seems to be writing a manifesto. “I wished to live..., to front only... I did not wish to... nor did I wish... I wanted to live deep... to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout..., to cut..., to drive..., and reduce it to...” The rhetoric in this example seems anthropocentric, Thoreau makes it clear why he has gone to the woods: so that he can discover how to live intentionally. This becomes a sort of an appeal to pathos. Given Thoreau being a transcendentalist, a practical move to the woods was a spiritual quest to better understand life, especially during a time where westward expansion in American meant further development of agrarian and civilized societies. Was the expansion a discovery that was simply for gain--for power and property, at the expense of colonization and agricultural evolution? What did a life not lived look like to him? He did not want to find out, especially not by being passive. For him, going to the woods was a stepping stone to fostering a sense of self discovery in this context.

On the other hand, while Thoreau makes his declaration, he also makes it clear that his enlightening experience comes from being in the woods. He writes, “I went to the woods to... publish its meanness to the world; ... and be able to give a true account of it in​ ​my​ ​next excursion.” There is a bit of uncertainty when it comes to being able to determine what will come about from his time in the woods because “meanness” is vague, but what is for certain is that something will happen. Though what will happen is not explicit, what is possibly happening is faith. Taking action and having faith becomes his ethos. His faith is partly in his efforts, but may also be in the woods, and in the hopes that the woods would reveal to him some enlightenment or lack thereof. The ecocentric mode of the prose is subtle, but it would be better to say that Thoreau is approaching ecocentrism, or is at a developmental stage where his writing begins to shift back and forth between being anthropocentric and ecocentric.

Interestingly enough, Thoreau does not use the word “nature” in place of woods, nor does he describe much of the environmental aspects of it. Why did he choose the woods, and not the desert or mountains? Why could he not live deliberately in a city or a town? I think this minor detail is a specificity that he makes as a way to avoid possible tautologies and cliches, while still remaining inconclusive in his introduction; however, this is a claim to be made with further research. There is some vague quality to the way he writes that invites the reader to become aware of a bigger part to come: the force of nature revealing the meanings of life. I pose the rhetorical question to end: is he having this experience for himself, or is he doing it for the world? He could have chosen to not write about his time in the woods, but perhaps it was detrimental to his experience of discovering a “deliberate life” and the “essential facts” of it. A clear answer matters not, especially considering how his writing has resurfaced over time in contemporary culture. The words may have been for himself, but the world continues to live by them as a way of life.