Asher Sisneros

Autobiographies paint a picture of the time and environment. Thoreau painted such a picture of Walden Pond. His brush compiled words and sentences together, forming a story. But as a mediocre poet, Thoreau’s words were sloppy. He had literary devices at his disposal but didn’t use them effectively. In this essay, I will explore one literary device and how it could’ve improved Waldon Pond. 

I’ll step away from the painting metaphor just for clarity. A majority of Walden Pond describes two things: Walden Pond/the wilderness surrounding it, and also America at the time. He does so by writing long descriptions. For example, in chapter 7, Thoreau writes paragraph after paragraph about nothing but a bean field. The depths he goes on to explain the process of planting and harvesting the beans is absurd. I’m confident that some people would find such an elaboration insightful. I am not one of those people. The point is that Thoreau does that throughout the whole book. However, in the twelfth chapter, Thoreau does two things. First, he writes, taking the perspective of two fictional characters conversing. There is nothing wrong with that—compared to his standard descriptions, it was relieving—but the change was abrupt. The reader didn’t anticipate it, and there wasn’t an explanation, leaving the reader bumfuzzled. That first change is not what I’m going to focus on. There is something far more interesting. After reverting to his standard descriptions, Thoreau goes into immense detail about an ant war. Although I wouldn’t consider myself a fan of Thoreau, the narrative about ants was beautiful. He spoke of two ants kingdoms waging war against each other. While reading that section, I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. He went into detail about ants ripping off each other’s limbs. Perhaps this is because I’m a male, but I find ant crusades far more riveting than bean fields. Whereas I was half-heartedly reading about the bean field, the ant carnage completely engrossed me. Why? Both were detailed descriptions, so why was one intriguing and the other dull?  

So, to answer this English assignment’s prompt: Would I have spent more time addressing the ants? Yes, I would have. However, it wasn’t just the ants that made it beautiful. In both the case of the bean field and ant wars, Thoreau went into immense detail. So, it wasn’t the detail I had a problem with or the long rants that irked me. So, what gives? The answer: It was the first time Thoreau correctly used the writing technique of anthropomorphism. That is, applying human-like characteristics to animals or objects. To say that crickets were singing would be another example of anthropomorphism. They are not literally singing, but we say that as a literary device. Thoreau tried using that technique multiple times in Waldon Pond. The only successful attempt I noticed was with the ants. He described them as soldiers with armies, which is anthropomorphism. So, yes, I would’ve written about the ants more; but that singularly can’t solve the problem with Waldon Pond. The entire book should’ve utilized this technique more effectively. If Thoreau had properly applied this writing technique to his book, Walden Pond would’ve been more enjoyable. The book would have transformed from an academic-like societal rebuttal to a page-turning novel. He needed to use anthropomorphism to make beans, trees, and ponds relatable to humans. He should’ve written the entire book like the ant war.