Asher Sisneros

Thoreau is widely acclaimed and respected in the academic community for writing his masterpiece, Walden Pond. But Walden Pond is a curious book. Defining what it is, is difficult. In some respects, Thoreau wrote an autobiography, but one could also argue that Walden Pond isn’t an autobiography but a societal rebuttal. Since the nature of this book is undefined, addressing this week’s essay prompt is particularly difficult. In this essay, I must dissect whether Thoreau’s backstory would have benefited the book. 

Most of the autobiographies I’ve read tend to focus on an overarching mission. The writer’s life is the story, but they are trying to get you from point A to point B. In Helen Keller’s autobiography, The Story of My Life, she sets up the narrative that she is blind and deaf. This original point is fulfilled when she learns to read and write, goes to college, and eventually becomes an author. Her achievements seem impossible. Because of these impossible odds and the story’s mission, the story works well. This overarching mission is also in Sergei Kourdakov’s autobiography, The Persecutor. He starts the book by running away from the Communist Party, yet he’d grown up a staunch supporter of Stalin. How did he go from fighting for Communism to fleeing it? In the book, he recounted key events that led him to betray the USSR. In both of these examples, the ending of the autobiography is the fulfillment of the beginning. I call this the overarching mission of the book. 

So far, I haven’t found any overarching mission in Walden Pond. At first, it appeared that Thoreau was moving there to prove that self-sufficiency worked and the division of labor was irrelevant. That would have made sense, but the book didn’t end. It continued and started addressing other social issues. Mark Twain did something similar in his autobiography. There wasn’t an overarching mission—and I think that was to Twain’s discredit—but the reader understood who Twain was. It was an autobiography. While Twain failed to tell a story with a greater purpose, he succeeded in giving the reader insight into his life. Thoreau did neither of these things. That’s why it would appear that Thoreau wasn’t trying to write an autobiography. The absence of his backstory aligns with this theory. Throughout the book, he doesn’t touch on his childhood, family, turning points, or anything outside his stay at Waldon Pond. It’s not a story about him; it’s not a story with a mission; this book is an awkward compilation of words. However, Waldon Pond does have one notable characteristic: It’s full of rhetoric! That manuscript is a group of talking points on social issues. Waldon Pond is a rebuttal of the common practices of the United States.

What would have happened if Thoreau talked about his personal life more? Would Waldon Pond have benefited from more backstory and a mission? It is true that would make the book more palatable. But is that what Thoreau intended? I have spent so much time addressing the nature of this book—whether it was an autobiography—because that is important. If the purpose of this book was to send a message, and making it more autobiography-like took away from that message, well, that is counter-productive. Thoreau’s backstory must add to his message for it to be relevant. I don’t know if he could’ve cohesively done that; he didn’t write down his backstory, so I don’t know what it is. Since I don’t know what it is, it’s unclear if it would’ve benefited his book. Only Thoreau could have determined that. However, if Thoreau’s backstory didn’t add to his message, it would’ve been redundant, excessive words. 

In conclusion, Walden Pond is hardly an autobiography. It is a societal rebuttal. If providing his backstory would have added to the message, then Thoreau should have included it. If not, it would have been excessive dead weight. Good writing is like a good steak; for both of them, you must trim the fat until the best remains.