My AP Language & Composition class is organized to trace the changes in literature through American history. When we finished learning about the transcendentalism era, my teacher assigned a homework assignment to go out into nature, think about life, and determine if we are a romantic (i.e. we glorify everything), transcendentalist (optimist), or realist (pretty self-explanatory).
I don't need to go out into nature to know I am a transcendentalist. Transcendentalism isn't something you experience just by observing life in nature; it's about recognizing life in any situation. Many people know about the famous transcendentalist, Henry David Thoreau, who dropped his entire life to live in solitude in the woods for three years, and from that automatically assume that one has to go to extreme measures to be transcendental. I, however, argue the exact opposite.
Drawing from my personal experiences from performing this homework assignment, I have come to the conclusion that the harder you try to be as transcendental as Thoreau or Ralph Waldo Emerson, the less likely you are to succeed. Thoreau and Emerson succeeded in their time because they lived in an era of romanticism, where droning on for paragraph after paragraph on one small topic was not only acceptable but highly encouraged. American literature has since changed and very few people enjoy these long-winded works.
So to my fellow transcendentalists, and really anyone for that matter, don't force yourself to act a certain way because people in the past did. If you love writing long, detailed papers about nature and humanity then keep doing so! If you are more like me, and don't always have the patience, time, or skill to write your observations down, don't feel pressured to do so. You don't need to write like Thoreau or Emerson to be transcendental; it's the thought that counts (and if anyone tells you otherwise, you have my full permission to insult them in Shakespearian language).
So what do you think? Are you more of a transcendentalist, romantic, or realist? Let me know in the comments!
Drawing from my personal experiences from performing this homework assignment, I have come to the conclusion that the harder you try to be as transcendental as Thoreau or Ralph Waldo Emerson, the less likely you are to succeed. Thoreau and Emerson succeeded in their time because they lived in an era of romanticism, where droning on for paragraph after paragraph on one small topic was not only acceptable but highly encouraged. American literature has since changed and very few people enjoy these long-winded works.
So to my fellow transcendentalists, and really anyone for that matter, don't force yourself to act a certain way because people in the past did. If you love writing long, detailed papers about nature and humanity then keep doing so! If you are more like me, and don't always have the patience, time, or skill to write your observations down, don't feel pressured to do so. You don't need to write like Thoreau or Emerson to be transcendental; it's the thought that counts (and if anyone tells you otherwise, you have my full permission to insult them in Shakespearian language).
So what do you think? Are you more of a transcendentalist, romantic, or realist? Let me know in the comments!