Sorry, New Yorker, Thoreau is more relevant than ever

Primack, Richard; Miller-Rushing, Abraham

From the article: "Katharyn Schulz recently suggested that Henry David Thoreau and his most famous book, 'Walden,' are not worth their place as classics of American philosophy and writing. In her article in The New Yorker ('Pond Scum: Henry David Thoreau’s Moral Myopia'), she made some well-worn, if sometimes misleading, points — namely that Thoreau was conceited, contradictory, hypocritical, and perhaps worst of all in Schulz’s eyes, he did not like people or society. She pokes holes in the modern 'myths' of Thoreau and 'Walden,' which don’t match historical reality. Her article makes for a fun read, but it is decidedly one-sided. In point of fact, most people are unaware of just how timeless Thoreau’s legacy is — how it continues to be relevant for issues such as the loss of species, excessive materialism and consumer culture, and the value of higher education. His writings are even (or especially) relevant for more recent issues such as climate change, which were not issues at all in Thoreau’s time. In some ways, the modern myth of Thoreau doesn’t do the author justice."