Could it be true that Thoreau was only seeking the adventure of Mt. Katahdin for poetic “raw material”? Did he traverse the range solely for a thrilling story for the public? As a hopeless literary romantic, I would dare say not; and will go further to defend the legitimacy of Thoreau’s expedition!
In Claiming Maine, Disabato accuses Thoreau of venturing into the wilderness in order to obtain an economic gain, the likes of which he claims to denounce in excerpts of The Maine Woods and the Economy introduction of Walden. She states, along with other authors, that Thoreau perhaps was only involved in such an undertaking to “extract” what he needed from nature, in this case the raw material for his journals. Now, it is simple to equate that Thoreau, considering himself a writer or thinking – man by profession, has the right to define the means of his own income. For this span of his life, while residing at Walden Pond, the successes of his labors were not the fruit of work or of his chores, but the result of a fulfillment of something more true to heart – a man’s desire to relate himself to the natural world around him. These economies related to no one but himself, and he himself acted as proprietor and consumer. It is my romanticized idea to believe, within the entirety of my logic, that upon traveling to the Maine woods Thoreau wished to only traverse a landscape more wild than previously experienced. Is it too much that a man desire the shelter of a nature more desolate, in a sense of human stability? Could a landscape deprived of human influence be more beautiful than that of a scenic hamlet? In this case, who is allowed to define beauty? Is seeking such a place and solidifying an experience extracting a metaphorical raw material? Are we thinking way too far into this?