Thoreau: Consummate Poseur of the Greens

If there were a 15-round fight between Mike Tyson and Hilary Swank, my money would be on Tyson. I realize that he is older now, but I still think he would be the go-to guy under those conditions.

Why would he accept the challenge? It would not build his reputation. Not only is Hilary Swank not a very good fighter, she is actually an actress who was in a movie where she played a fighter. It seems to me that the world would not stand up and applaud him for having put her out of the fight after three rounds. Probably, one half of one round would do it, and even so, he would not be heralded as the master of the ring.

I don’t think he would take up the challenge. But what if Hilary had kept going to the press and insisting that she could beat him to a pulp? What if the press began taking her seriously? How would Mike handle this problem? Poorly, in all likelihood.

I know exactly how he would feel. This is my problem in responding to the academic equivalent of Hilary Swank. I have been publicly attacked by a lady who has a Ph.D. in English. She has said that I really don’t know what I am talking about in the field of literary analysis. She said I have misrepresented one of the greatest literary con men in American history: Henry David Thoreau.

DR. SNIPPETS

She has a reputation for being a writer. She occasionally writes in a libertarian magazine. She also has a book with her name on it, which is generously called a textbook by her New York City publisher. Actually, it is not a textbook. It is a collection of other people’s writings. She then makes brief comments on these writings.

This genre has been around for about half a century. Somebody with a Ph.D. collects extracts snippets out of journal articles, or snippets of primary source documents (preferably not copyrighted), and tries to find a publisher that sells textbooks to colleges: books with extremely high markups. The publisher targets the book, so-called, at captive college students. It costs the company about three dollars to print the book in paperback, and the book is sold for about $125 to the hapless students, who cannot escape. Robert Nisbet described this academic genre a generation ago: great snippets. He regarded this as one of the marks of the decline of higher education in America.

In the 1960-61 academic year, I wrote a satire piece for the campus newspaper on snippets books. I remember only my proposed title for one such collection: Readings in the Fetal Pig. The target of my satire knew exactly what I was referring to. He was hauling in royalties from two of these collections: Oliver Johnson of the famous Beatty and Johnson collection of snippets of Western civilization, which is still generating royalties at $90 each for two paperbacks. He mentioned this to me, somewhat defensive. I remained politely silent. Neither of them could teach worth a hoot, but they surely could snip.

Yet she did not write the book. Her father wrote it. That is to say, he collected it. It has been around for over 40 years. She re-edited it, and added comments. The book is on rhetoric. Maybe she will include this article in the next edition. I am pretty good at rhetoric.

The key to understanding her book, according to the publisher, is that it is not meant to be understood. The publisher’s blurb says this: “Best of all, the text’s short, easy-to-read essays ensure that your class time will focus not on what the readings mean, but on what they mean for your students’ writing.”

With this as background, I begin my response. She thinks I do not know how to read critically. She wrote an article on my inability to read critically. She found a publisher. That was her first punch in round one.

Someone sent me a link to her article on October 30. I shall now complete the round.

THOREAU: MASTER OF THE POSE

The debate is over Henry David Thoreau’s book, Walden (1854). I regard it as a classic example of how the academic Left resurrects a book that almost nobody read when it was published. College professors then force generations of students to read the book. They substitute Cliff’s Notes. Nobody else reads it. They may buy it — “It’s a classic” — but they don’t finish reading it. It’s one of those books to which this rule applies: “Don’t read it while smoking in bed.”

Outside of English departments, the book is rarely assigned. Thoreau was a poseur. His neighbors knew this, which is why they were not impressed by Walden.

I wrote an article in mid-April on the nature of Thoreau’s pose, and how his legion of promoters fail to mention this. They praise him to the stars. I went through the Wikipedia article on him, line by line, exposing the nature of his con game, and the academic community’s continuation of his con game, especially English departments.

The lady protested. My article was posted on April 18. Ten days later, a libertarian magazine published her rebuttal.

If you want to see what I wrote about Thoreau, the original article is here. “Thoreau’s Walden: Phony Testament of the Greens”. I spent five weeks analyzing Walden for my freshman English course for the Ron Paul Curriculum: 25 25-minute lectures.

I wrote this:

The book had no influence in his lifetime. He died in 1862. It became widely read by intellectuals in the 1930’s, during the Great Depression. It was part of the anti-capitalism worldview of Leftist intellectuals. They recognized a kindred spirit.

I also wrote this:

The praise that literary critics heap on the book is a public testimony to the academic con job known as literary criticism.

THE POSE BEGINS

Here is what I said about Thoreau’s return to the land. He built a shack on Ralph Waldo Emerson’s land. He lived there for 26 months. He was 27 when he built the shack. He went into town for entertainment several nights a week. He bought his food there. He borrowed money to pay for this food. After his 26 months in the shack, he returned to the family’s pencil-making business.

The average college graduate knows none of this. All he knows is that Walden is about a return to simpler living.

I said this about his views on capitalism.

He really did hate free enterprise and commercial life, but he went right back into it after 26 months in his shack. He worked for his family’s company for the rest of his life.

I could have added this: at exactly the same time, Frederick Engels was doing much the same. He hated capitalism more than Thoreau did, and he was a far more successful capitalist than Thoreau was. He spent his life running his family’s textile factory in England.

According to my critic,

North’s major arguments are as follows:

Walden is anti-capitalist and pro-Green. Walden is a big fake. Walden is a badly written book that only has its reputation because it fits into the anti-capitalist/pro-Green agenda.

And all of these arguments are wrong.

So says a lady with a Ph.D. in English and the co-author of a $125 paperback book of snippets.

Read the rest of the article