Thoreau's Walden; the ultimate 'I am not like other girls'

I am well aware the following blog post is more so for people who have an interest in literature/ have read Walden. My apologies for the slightly less accessible subject (I promise you can still read this and have a certain understanding of whatever I attempt to state even without having read the classic.) I wrote this essay a year ago for one of my university courses. I admit I am shamelessly recycling and moulding it into something 'blog-able'.

I had not lived there a week before my feet wore a path

from my door to the pond-side; and though it is five or six years

since I trod it, it is still quite distinct. It is true, I fear that others may

have fallen into it, and so helped to keep it open. The surface of the

earth is soft and impressible by the feet of men; and so with the paths

which the mind travels. How worn and dusty, then, must be the

highways of the world, how deep the ruts of tradition and

conformity!

(Thoreau D. 1899)

Thoreau's Trail of Reflections on Conformity

The author observes that people follow and maintain this path, repetitively treading the same ground to keep the route easily accessible. Thoreau draws a parallel between this phenomenon and the notions of tradition and conformity within society. He reflects on how witnessing someone walk a particular path can swiftly lead us to perceive it as a good or correct one. Subsequently, we tend to perpetuate this path, driven by habit and the notion of aligning ourselves with societal norms. When contemplating the origins of conformity, it naturally begins with a small group or an individual who believes they have discovered the truth or the correct way in our daily lives. We, as humans, seem inherently conformist or perhaps lazy, thus following the pre-made trail, wearing it down into a defined path. After all, who in real life would not prefer an easily accessible trail over the still-hard, unmoved ground?

Thoreau eloquently touches upon a significant aspect with this quote. The conformity inherent in human nature extends beyond persisting in a single idea; on the contrary, the societal conformity we seem to exhibit is diverse. We conform by nature but don't limit ourselves to a singular topic. Contemporary society's conformity also appears to be encouraged by the numerous new ways we devise to share our opinions or perspectives on what is deemed good or right in life. Anyone refusing to conform to these newly accepted values and norms, likely established just yesterday or the day before, is in for a challenge.

What if someone dares to forge their own path in our field when there is already a commonly accepted trail? Would that not be unacceptable? Suppose they mostly traverse our path but then create a fork to arrive somewhere else. Or perhaps, even worse, imagine they forge a path in a completely opposite direction? Thoreau appears decidedly against the concept of conformity and expresses through various quotes that he would rather encourage deviation from any other path. However, this stance presents a paradox in light of his actions. He writes a book in which he shares his perspective on life and his thoughts about society. The decision to depart from society, to isolate oneself, and become dependent on nature is one he clearly advocates. By sharing his view of life, isn't he leaving a trail of his own? Isn't he, in parallel, creating his path through a field? He might be straying from the established path and hearing society cry out that it's dangerous, but through that deviation, he is also creating a trail that has the potential to inevitably become a recognized path. Does he not contradict himself?

When you, as a writer, embark on a book explaining why your way of life is superior to that of the general society, you must realize that your words are forming a path as well.

From Unabomber Cultivation to Wilderness Wanderings

Let's look at some practical cases of people who followed Thoreau's trail, further proving my point. The two most notorious examples are Theodore John Kaczynski and Chris McCandless:

The first is better known as the Unabomber. This man was undoubtedly inspired by Thoreau. Kaczynski deviated from the established path to follow Thoreau's trail and live as a recluse in nature. He sustained himself by cultivating the land around his cabin. However, following Thoreau's trail led him onto a different, and unfortunately more violent, path (one that, regrettably, was also widely trodden). Next, we encounter Chris McCandless, also known as the individual on whom the film 'Into the Wild' is based.(A great movie by the way, I recommend watching it!) This man ventured into the Alaskan wilderness under a pseudonym to vanish from society. He discovered an abandoned bus in the wilderness, turning it into his version of Thoreau's Walden hut. McCandless tragically perished in the wilderness due to a lack of food (or possibly from eating the wrong berries if you believe the movie), unprepared for the challenges of the environment. He, therefore, traversed a significant portion of his journey along the Thoreau-Kaczynski trail, but his odyssey came to an abrupt end. This story led to numerous adventurers attempting to reach Chris's bus, creating a sort of pilgrimage.

It exemplifies the phenomenon of the potential of a trail leading to the action of a path. McCandless followed the trail that Thoreau initiated and that Kaczynski had encountered.

The rush of adventurers prompted local authorities to remove the bus where Chris had lived. More and more people tried to follow the trail, some with no knowledge of surviving in the wilderness. The trail became so heavily used that the intended idea and authenticity of the path disappeared. The philosophical reasons for fleeing society were no longer maintained by everyone walking the path. Therefore, it seems to me that Thoreau commits the same error for which he criticizes others. He initiates a trail that inevitably transforms into a path. Does not every individual automatically leave a trail when charting their own course? Are we not all occasional trailblazers?

Thoreau's trail leads to an impasse. He attempts to diverge from the societal path, seeking a romantic communion with nature. However, he encounters the fact that his presence in nature, like footprints in the grass, will always leave a human trail. He mentions living there for not even a week, and a path already existed from his door to the lake's shore. Moreover, he observes others maintaining this path. Even in nature, Thoreau cannot escape others. Kaczynski encounters the lingering trail of Thoreau. He walks it closely, following the romantic author's discovered footsteps. Yet, Kaczynski also seems to confront the impossible desire behind the trail. He, too, abandons it and shifts to a more trodden path: terrorism. His romantic dream transitions into violent fantasies.

McCandless encounters a slightly more traversed trail and chooses to follow this route. With determined steps, this young man initiates his journey. He will be the only one who, involuntarily, falls into the abyss of Thoreau's impossibility. His death becomes the only outcome where, as a result of this trail, he truly merges with nature. However, this is a kind of tragic failure because his assimilation into nature requires his death. His end serves as a requiem, clearly illustrating that Thoreau's yearning must end in a dead-end alley.