"There is no malice, only some malic acid." Seriously, Thoreau?

If Emerson speaks only in topic sentences, then Thoreau speaks only in supporting details. Note: I do not mean this as an insult! But where I found myself searching out metaphors to ground myself in Emerson's work, in "Wild Apples" I had to search for explicit relation to humanity-- lines like "...but the apple emulates man's independence and enterprise." It seems while Emerson is concerned with nature as a metaphor for the human mind, Thoreau's writing is more biocentric; he lets himself become fascinated by nature in and of itself. "Let your condiments be in the condition of your senses. To appreciate the flavor of these wild apples requires vigorous and healthy senses..." says Thoreau, while Emerson says, "So much only of life as I know by experience, so much of the wilderness I have vanquished and planted, or so far have I extended my being, my dominion." Now, I'm not well read in either Thoreau or Emerson, so I don't mean to speak in generalizations, but it seems to me Emerson preaches alignment with nature for the benefit of the mind ("my being, my dominion"), while Thoreau sees unity with nature as being, among other things, an end in itself ("to appreciate the flavor of these wild apples").