Who is superior: Emerson or Thoreau?

[Anonymous No.6473887]

[Anonymous No.6473892]

>>6473887
Whoever you read last?

[H.Q.S.S.G No.6473897]

>>6473887
>>6473887
Stupid question. Emerson by miles. Even strictly regarding influence.

[Anonymous No.6473912]

>>6473897
>Emerson by miles.
y

[Circe No.6473962]

Here's what Harold Bloom had to say about it:
Yes, I started reading him [Emerson] all day long, every day, and pretty much simultaneously reading Freud. People would look at me with amazement and say, Well, what about Thoreau? He at least counts for something. And I would look back at them in amazement and tell them what indeed was and is true, that Thoreau is deeply derivative of Emerson and very minor compared to him. Emerson is God.

Source: http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/2225/the-art-of-criticism-no-1-harold-bloom

[Anonymous No.6474004]

Thoreau is not derivative of Emerson. He is a transcendentalist, but the most loosely associated and by far the best. Just because they both reference the Gita doesn't mean they are the same.

[H.Q.S.S.G No.6474015]

>>6473912
because
>>6473962
Thoreau is nothing without Emerson. Not only was Emerson a better essayist and poet, but his influence can still be traced to today in American poetry, much like Whitman. The same can't be said of Thoreau. Henry isn't really worth anything when you have Whitman and Emerson. He never did anything profound or revolutionary, at least nothing that hadn't already been done and better.

[H.Q.S.S.G No.6474025]

>>6474004
Thoreau Whitman and Emerson are the triumvirate of the transcendentalists. You can't tell me anything Thoreau wrote comes close to the other two.

[Anonymous No.6474940]

neither

They're both hacks

[Anonymous No.6475037]

>>6473887
Emerson is more quotable, but Thoreau walked the walk.

[Anonymous No.6475050]

>>6473887
Paul Auster