Today I’m here to answer a simple question: Would Walden have been a better book, had Thoreau explained his background and his past life to add context to his experiment? I’m going to explore this idea, and why I think that adding context would not have made Walden a better book.
Walden is a bit of an odd book. Thoreau talked in metaphors for almost the entirety of the book, and this clouded understanding, in addition to not providing enough context for the reader to truly understand what Thoreau is trying to convey. I think Walden was an inaccurate book because it lacked context, but I also think that adding context would not make the book better. Walden would make a much better fictional work without added context than a non-fiction work (allegedly) with context.
In conclusion, I think that Walden would be better off not adding extra context, but also not claiming to be a true story, as opposed to adding context and defeating the entire purpose of the book by telling the whole truth. Instead of creating a mediocre work with enough truth for him to claim it is non-fiction, but not enough context to make it really true. I wish Thoreau had picked one or the other.