Into the Wild - John Krakauer
As you are reading, might I suggest you listen to "Into the
Wild" by Pearl Jam's front man Eddie Vedder. My personal
favorite tune is "Tuolumne." Connections among the songs,
their lyrics, and the book would be cool ideas for blog entries.
I understand how Chris(aka.alex supertramp)wanted to seperate from society and live on his own for a while, but why wouldnt he want to make sure he would survive? For example, when the guy in the truck, Gallien offered him things to survive, why wouldnt he accept if the truck driver KNEW what was needed? Thats really all that makes me mad about McCandless.
ReplyDeleteMariah, I also wondered why Chris (a seemingly intelligent young man) decided to wander into the Alaskan wilderness without the proper equipment. Looking through the book (pg. 44), it is mentioned that his obsession with Jack London's narrations might have clouded his judgment between fictitious fantasy adventures and the reality of harsh Alaskan survival. More so, I began to question if his high morale from accomplishing past travels with only the bare minimum added to his sense of invincibility in Alaska. It is also mentioned in the book how he believed Alaska to be the ultimate test for him and the last venture he would complete before returning to society. Being provoked by such a tremendous feat and a meaning for life, maybe he thought surviving in Alaska without all the necessities would prove to others his view point and show how one can live simplistically anywhere. His strong rebellion evolving from family issues and naive behavior due to his youth is perhaps additional reasons behind McCandless's actions. Yet, every viewpoint on Chris's motives is different, and I am still left wondering the truth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily in that Chris' downfall could have something to do with his being naive and headstrong on the matter. But we also have to remember that it takes a whole lot of courage to do what he did. He left his family and friends behind to pursue an ideal. My question to anyone who is reading this book is this: Whould you be able to leave behind your family and friends and become basically non-existent to prove a point to society? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI understand Dany’s idea about McCandless’s courage and his endless strength behind proving his point, but I also see the side that Mariah and Emily point out about McCandless’s idiocy. I agree with both sides, but I feel that he could have been courageous and smart at the same time. Going out into the wilderness alone is enough courage. Why did McCandless refuse to take the supplies that Gallien offered to buy him (pg. 6)? Why would Chris not want to know the date, time, or his location (pg. 7)? Why did Chris have to take on the identity of Alex Super tramp (pg. 23)? These are all questions lingering in my mind.
ReplyDeleteChris had a set life for himself- a savings bond of $25,000, the support of his sister Carine, and a good future ahead. I question what McCandless hoped to gain from the trip. I understand that he needed to get away and wanted to be a leather tramp living a non-sedentary life, but why did it have to be so suddenly? Why did he have to leave his parents in Annandale wondering? Why did Chris have to make tramping so hard on himself? Chris had no contact with his parents, hitched rides from strangers, lived in the wild, didn’t bathe for days at a time occasionally, lived in harsh conditions, got rid of all of his money and almost all of his belonging( including his beloved Datsun), and fought his way through his last years of life all because of what? Because he wanted something more to his life. Because he wanted to be like London, Tolstoy, and Thoreau. I do not know the answer. I suppose we could all speculate and make assumptions, but the only person who truly knows would be McCandless and obviously, we cannot ask him. Therefore, as I continue to read I’m sure I will discover many answers as well as questions, but that is the best thing about reading- to question and then discover.
The last thing that I briefly want to point out is that in the book “Into the Wild” Jon Krakauer talks often of rivers, canals, cities, ect. that isn’t always important to the script at hand. Furthermore, it is dreary to read about all these names, some of which you cannot even pronounce, that do not even add much meaning to the story. Most of the time when they mentioned these places or things I did not have any idea what the author was saying. That is just how I feel about naming the places, even though some statements of places are relevant.
I recently read pages 66-132 and in this section, I learned more background on Chris McCandless. I was surprised to learn that Chris’s desire for adventure and tramping was stronger than his sexual desire (pg. 66). “His yearning, in a sense, was too powerful to be quenched by human contact” (pg. 66). This showed me how serious McCandless was about his odysseys. The more I read about McCandless the more interested I become. There are so many people infatuated with him. Was it his outlook on life, his differences, his hunger for knowledge, or his adventurous nature that attracted onlookers? Nevertheless, from what I have read, it might have been best not to be attached, because of Chris’s risky nature. Chris’ Father, Walt, exclaims, “He didn’t think the odds applied to him. We were always trying to pull him back from the edge” (pg. 109). From that point on his adventures became more dangerous. He walked the streets alone living out of a backpack, usually without money or the right equipment. That seems unsafe to me. Even more so now, because it wasn’t just one summer. It was the many years between the time he left college and the time of his death.
ReplyDeleteMcCandless’s death in Alaska came as a shock to everyone who knew him. However, from the letters McCandless sent right before entering the wild terrain of Alaska, I see a sign, a foreshadowing of McCandless’s death The things he said like: “This is the last you shall hear from me ”, “If this adventure proves fatal and you don’t hear from me again..”, “This is the last communication you shall receive from me” , and “..it was great knowing you” (pg. 69), all seem to be pointing to a death which, to me, does not seem coincidental. Furthermore, the note to Wayne on page 69 is also on the first page of “Into the Wild”. Is this also coincidental? I do not believe so. I believe the Author, Jon Krakauer, was trying to emphasize the meaning behind the note. It just makes me question suicide. Maybe Chris planned to die in Alaska, because this note does not sound simply precautionary. Moreover, Carine admitted, “If something bothered [Chris], he wouldn’t come right out and say it. He’d keep it to himself, harboring his resentment, letting the feelings build and build” (pg. 122). This bottling of feelings could lead to depression, which can lead to thoughts of suicide if it is not counteracted.
My last blog introduced my thoughts on McCandless’s death, which, to my surprise, was acknowledged by Jon Krakauer. Krakauer states, “When the adventure did indeed prove fatal, this melodramatic declaration fueled considerable speculation that the boy had been bent on suicide from the beginning, that when he walked into the bush, he had no intention of ever walking out again”(pg. 134). This is almost exactly, what I tried to indicate. However, Krakauer does not believe in this speculation. As I read I noticed that Krakauer depicts how much alike he feels he and McCandless could be. I also noticed that he thinks he knows a grave amount about McCandless. Furthermore, he became obsessed with McCandless’s death. Krakauer felt he had the answers to most things when it came to McCandless, from what I have read, because he and McCandless were one in the same. A paragraph on page 184 really made me aware of how many assumptions were made by Krakauer. Krakauer feels,”McCandless wasn’t some feckless slacker, adrift and confused, racked by existential despair. To the contrary: His life hummed with meaning and purpose. But the meaning he wrestled from existence lay beyond the comfortable path: McCandless distrusted the value of things that came easily. He demanded much of himself…” (pg. 184). I just couldn’t get past the fact that Krakauer is telling readers how McCandless was, but Krakauer never met him. I think it would be perfectly fine to infer, but this is more than simple inferences. I just feel that the only person who can tell us exactly who Christopher McCandless was would be himself, but as we all know he is now deceased.
ReplyDeleteEven though he was young, it was nice to know that McCandless “was at peace, serene as a monk gone to God” (pg. 199). It is sad that he withered away, alone, starving, and with irony, only a three hour walk away from safety. Nevertheless, McCandless had done what he had intended to. He came to the Alaskan bush and survived about one-hundred and thirteen days on his own. Furthermore, he survived off the land only, staying in an old bus eating only things he killed or scavenged from the wild. Roman claims, “…I’d bet you that very few, if any, of the people who call McCandless incompetent have ever done it either, not for more than a week or two. Living of the interior bush for an extended period, subsisting of nothing except what you hunt and gather- most people have no idea how hard that actually is”(pg. 185). McCandless was smart, living off wit. This is obvious, but it was also smart to keep records as he did. He took photos, wrote in books, and definitely left his mark. Without all of the things he left behind it might have been impossible for us to learn so much about him and his odyssey. Additionally, we would have not known his actual cause of death. So, it can be considered a good thing that Krakauer was so obsessed with McCandless’s adventure, because without him Christopher McCandless may have remain just another ignorant boy looking for adventure who died because of his own stupidity.
I have recently finished the book, and I admit, it's become one of my favorites. Yet, as t.mart suggested, one thing that caught me up sometimes as I read were the names. I found myself looking back at the maps provided to find out exactly where Chris was based off of the names provided, yet this distracted and sometimes confused me.
ReplyDeleteNow I want to address the last paragraph of t.mart's blogging, about Chris doing what he had intended to do; live off the wild. I found myself almost proud of Chris as I finished the book. Though I wish he would have been a little more prepared, he was happy. On page 195 in the last few pages of the book, Krakauer copies a journal entry of McCandless',"DAY 100! MADE IT!" Chris sounds ecstatic that he had made it so far, and I shared his happiness in this. My happiness for him was added with dread though, because these were the days where he was struggling to survive and you knew the end was coming. I kept hoping that somehow, even though I knew he was going to die, he would find some food and make it back to the road.
The last thing I want to bring up is how crucial the little details would prove in McCandless death. For example, on page 173 Krakauer mentions how when he followed Chris's trail to the bus he was armed with a topographic map, and how with it he was able to find a way to get over the flooded Teklanika river. If Chris had just had that map, he probably would have been able to survive his adventure. He would have known along with Krakauer how to get over the flooded river when he had tried to leave on July 3 (p.169). It also would have shown that in fact,"Just sixteen miles to the south beyond an escarpment of the Outer Range, hundreds of tourists rumble daily into Denali Park over a road patrolled by the National Park Service." The fact that there had been four cabins surrounding the bus, really got to me. Even though they had no food due to the vandalism that had occured, you just wonder, what if he had found those cabins and there had been food; would he be the one describing his journey through the alaskan wilderness?
All in all I envy Chris for having the guts to go out on his own like he did, but I wish that he had not been quite so careless, as both myself and Emily mentioned in the first two blogs.
Into the wild is a well thought-out but extremely confusing book. I Liked the book in general but the way Krakauer wrote it threw me off. I really wouldve liked it better if Alex's adventure had started from the beginning of his journey to his death. Every writer has a different style, i particularly didn't like his. Although the book ended up having a very good storyline.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning I had some thoughts about supertramp's life. Why would such a well- educated man be suddenly interested in exploring his surroundings with nothing on his back but his clothes and a few pounds of rice. I understand everyone has some kind of desire or curiousity about the world around them, but why is Alex making such a big fuss about getting out there? This is along the lines of what Mariah and Emily were discussing. Although they believe it has something to do with his naive character.I understand where they're coming from but I also believe it has something to do with his personal life. He mentioned a few times of how he refused to speak with his parents. No postcards, phone calls, or anything of that nature. So that makes me wonder what really happened with them. It's in most peoples nature to argue with loved ones, but eventually settle the problem later on. I have not quite finished the book yet, so possibly something may happen that i haven't gotten to yet. But with the way he's acting and the way he speaks of his family to others, i don't expect him to suddenly have the urge to find a resolution with them.
When Alex donated the 25,000 dollars to OXFAM America i had to ask myself why the charity?
If he's so interested in the wild then why not give all the money to the World Wildlife Federation or another major organization protecting the means of the outdoors. Alex obviously has a passion for society's wildlife and surroundings.
After going back over the book to look for an answer i discovered that Alex had taken classes on African society and hungar(pg.21). Could this class be involved in Alex's decision to donate to OXFAM? Or even possibly invoke his passion on urging society to plunged out of their comfort zone and look up at the world around them?
Here's another thought. Going out on your own is scary enough. Even if it's inside your own state or city. Our society fears being alone. That is why Alex is such a courageous man. On top of the fear of lonliness he has a massive amount of freedom on his shoulders. Which I myself feel is way to much for one person to handle. America is free to a limit. For example, a person is free to drive where they want if they're sixteen and obey the rules of the road or a person can speak his or her mind as long as it's appropriate in certain situations. And that person can choose to take advantage of these freedoms if it fits their own personal needs. Although the rules we do have, we have for a reason. To protect us from danger or harm, to keep us out of trouble. Alex was wreckless and sometimes immature and naive. This freedom is too much for him, for anyone. Deciding to go out on a limb and explore alaska and the west coast takes preparation and patience. Alex should've had better supplies and ideas of his plan of travel. Just because it is avaliable for him to just wonder the wild does not mean it will prove a point to anyone or make something of himself. It's just senseless to do something like that. Maybe if Alex had the patience and knowledge to not make careless mistakes, then just possilby in the end it could have saved him.
Jessica, you bring up a lot of well thought out points. On the contrary to your first paragraph, I rather liked the way Krakauer narrated the book. I do understand how at certain sections it became a little confusing and I wondered why he would jump from present to past to different topics. However, I think if his writing style was based on a chronological timeline of Chris's life, then the book wouldn't have held as much interest to me. I enjoyed the way he flopped from different ideas and characters, how he related them to Chris's life and adventures, and how throughout the book his narrating style uncovered interesting clues and details I was hoping to find out.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your questions regarding Chris's family issues, you will grasp more detail as the book goes on. Mid-way through the novel I was wondering about those same thoughts. What drove Chris to rebel against his parents? Obviously, typical teenage rebellion couldn't have driven him so far as to detach himself from society and family for so long, could it? As you prod your way through the reading, you will discover the much needed details about his family's past that, when uncovered, shocked me to find out. Did anyone else feel the same way?
In relation to your question about OXFAM, that is another issue where at least one more major clue is uncovered as you read. When I discovered the charitable work he did for his community as a teenager, I began to see more into his character as well. I was touched by his generosity and thought that my assumption of Chris's hard outer shell towards society and people became cracked to expose his deeply caring character. For anyone who has read that section (around page 113?), what were your thoughts?
As far as the points your bring up in your last paragraph regarding societal rules and freedoms, there are sections in which I agree with you and some where I believe differently. Absolutely Chris McCandless was an extremely courageous person, as are many explorers, because most of the time they have the odds stacked against them on their endeavors. Such wildlife extremists always carry with them the possibility of death or injury and must be mentally strong to block out fear in panic situations. So, I do acknowledge Chris in the respect and fully agree that he was one who never succumbed to his fears. However, I don't solely think that simply because he was alone means he was courageous. Many people travel on solo hikes, trips, and climbs, and I believe that they also enjoy being alone as well. Chris was looking to separate himself from society and it was a desire of his. I understand how being secluded in the wilderness may be a fear for some, but I don't believe everyone in society has that type of fear.
Also, I see your viewpoint of Chris's wrecklessness, but then again, it just wasn't his personality to go into the wild with proper supplies and previous preparation. Simply picking up and leaving on a whim was something he enjoyed because it was a challenge for him. I don't think the cause of his death was based on the fact that America grants too much freedom to people. Really, its not even as if he was living under America's freedoms and rules anyway. He sort of created his own society and moral code within himself and followed those standards. After reading this book, I do admire the challenges he overcame because Chris is far from the typical traveler. Most people pack, plan, and prepare as you have mentioned, and his story I'm sure stirs frustration in those who do not share his viewpoint. Looking back at Chris's adventures, he knew the possibility of death. He also knew that making it through the wild with the bare necessities was an incredible feat for him. Chris was aware that he would either fully complete the expedition his way, or take a chance with death. I understand that it is hard to accept this tragedy because simple precautions could have saved his life, but in the end, it just wouldn't have been the way Chris wanted to travel.
Jessica, like emily I rather enjoyed the manner in which Krakauer wrote this novel. Yes, there were times where I found myself confused, but I loved hearing input and backround information thrown in. Without the knowledge of Krakauer himself, I may have even found the book dull.
ReplyDeleteFor example, through pages 189-195, Krakauer described the intensive research he went through to try and pin the demise of Chris on one object. He had written, " Long after the first edition of this book was published in 1996, I continued to puzzle over the absence of alkaloids in the seeds tested . . . . Over a period of several years I doggedly sifted through the scientific literature, hoping to fine a clue that would explain this conundrum(p.193)." To me, this intensive dedication to a novel that was "finished" shows that he is a great author. Does anybody else feel this way?
Jessica, as for you comment of, "Just because it is avaliable for him to just wonder the wild does not mean it will prove a point to anyone or make something of himself. It's just senseless to do something like that," I disagree. To me, Chris was not trying to prove a point to anyone, or even trying to make something of himself. He left and explored because it was something he wanted to do. Think of it this way, have you ever done something just because you wanted to, even if it wasn't such a smart choice? If you find yourself passionate about something, i'm all for trying to get there. It just so happens that mistakes can easily be made in the risky road that Chris followed.
Lastly I would like to comment on the story that Krakauer had written of his own adventure in the novel. His adventure about climbing the devils thumb was really well placed to me. It was interesting to hear that Krakauer related to McCandless in such a big way. I found myself deeply immersed in Krakauer's story and also happy to be able to rely on his story and opinion's on Chris. In a way, he was talking through experience throughout the entire novel.
Oh, and Macke, fyi, I was also pretty moved on pages 113-114. Especially the lines, "So he spent the ten bucks on a big bag of hamburgers and we drove around handing them out to smelly guys sleeping on grates." My thoughts on why these pages effected me is because towards the beginning of the story I showed feelings of finding McCandless selfish and sort of stupid I guess. Yet, after I hit the middle of the book around those pages I began to cosider Chris as a warmer, better person, but with a complex personality.
Mariah, likewise, I enjoyed the way Krakauer shared personal adventures, narrations of struggle, and love of the wild. Obviously deeply enveloped in Chris's story and death, Krakauer was determined to provide an accurate philosophy of McCandless. Throughout the book, I noted that his strong interest, dedication, research, and presentation of unbiased facts allowed myself as a reader to trust his views. Specifically on pages 71 and 72, Krakauer reveals the other side of McCandless's story and presents letters of criticism to the reader. I respect Krakauer for even expressing some of his opinions at times, as humbling as he did, and appreciate that when I ended the book, my personal judgment did not feel impeded.
ReplyDeleteAs you have mentioned, I also found the author's personal adventures of hiking in Alaska, as well as the narrated journeys of many other men, to be an interesting addition to the novel. These inside views into the expeditions of other men in the wilderness allowed me to compare, contrast, and reason Chris's character and motives. What I found especially shocking were the immense similarities between Chris McCandless and Everett Ruess. On page 57 in Chris's letter to Ronald Franz, he states, "You had a wonderful chance on your drive back to see one of the greatest sights on earth. . . . But for some reason incomprehensible to me you wanted nothing but to bolt for home as quickly as possible, right back to the same situation which you see day after day after day." His words sound all too familiar when compared to the letter written by Everett Ruess to his brother saying, "Even from your scant description, I know that I could not bear the routine humdrum of the life that you are forced to lead. I don't think I could ever settle down." Neither of these men would ever succumb to the typical routine of American society, and it intrigued me to understand just how alike their mindsets and views were.
However, in addition to your thoughts on Krakauer's narration about Devil's Thumb, I found a passage in the book that caught my attention: "The unnamed peaks towering over the glacier were bigger and comelier and infinitely more menacing than they would have been were I in the company of another person. And my emotions were similarly amplified: The highs were higher; the periods of despair were deeper and darker" (pg 138). I found this excerpt interesting, yet I wasn't quite positive what meaning he was trying to portray. For anyone who may have caught this line as interesting, what are your thoughts?
Emily, like you I found myself making a number of comparisons between Chris and the other people mentioned throughout the book. His similarities with Everett Ruess were rather uncanny. Especially with the comparisons between their letters. One line that caught my attention in McCandless' letter to Ronald Franz; "The very basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion for adventure. The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy that to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun" (pg.57). You can feel the passion that Chris feels for the unknown in these lines. To me, thats what really connects McCandless and Ruess. They both had a love for the unknown and considered the wildness and pure beauty of the open country as the strongest lure to man.
ReplyDeleteAs for the excerpt that you mentioned, "The unnamed peaks towering over the glacier were bigger and comelier and infinitely more menacing than they would have been were I in the company of another person. And my emotions were similarly amplified: The highs were higher; the periods of despair were deeper and darker" (pg 138), I was also interested by what he meant. I'm not positive as to what Krakauer was trying to portray, but there are some things about this line that I love. As I thought about it, what he said makes complete sense. When you are alone it does seem like everything becomes amplified. It may be because there is no one there to distract you or pull you out of your thoughts, or even just the fact that you know if something happens, no one is there to help. Therefore, you become more intuned to your surroundings.
One small example that most of us has guilty of: when your home alone and you here the slightest noise and you freak out. The fact that you are alone makes that sound scarier, if you were with someone, it would not be as threatening. Does anyone else see where I'm coming from?
Lastly, I would like to bring up the story of Gene Rosellini (pg.73). His purpose, "I was interested in knowing if it was possible to be independent of modern technology," really intrigued me. The line, "He became convinced that humans had devolved into progessively inferior beings," sparked my imagination. Rosellini brings up a very good point. Do you guys think that we could go back to lets say, the stone age, and survive? Truthfully, I don't think most of us could. Over time, maybe, but even Rosellini wrote in a letter, "In the last 10 of it [of the last 30 years] I would say I realistically experienced the physical, mental, and emotional reality of the Stone Age.... I learned that it is not possible for human beings as we know them to live off the land" (pg. 75). I would like to know anyone elses thoughts to Rosellini's experiment.
To be honest, I found this book completely boring. I mean I understand that the stories of other adventurists could be compared to Chris McCandless, but I didn't find them relevent. I wanted to read about Chris's story and I felt it kept getting off topic. The parts about Chris' adventures were the only parts I found interesting.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how Chris could abandon his life at home for traveling around the country with basically no money. I do not think I would ever be able to do that so I admire his courage. The author had interviewed several people who thought Chris was stupid and I don't think he was. He lasted for a long time in the wilderness with very little supplies and not everyone can do that. I wish this book would have been more interesting because I expected more from it.
I agree with Jessica about Krakauer's writing style and with a. ball when she says that he got off topic a lot. However, I think that the stories that he threw in were meant to help the reader understand McCandless and his views and beliefs, and therefore relevant.
ReplyDeleteAs for Mariah's question of whether or not we could go back and live like we did in the stone age, I bellieve that we could not. Think about it: If you had to go just one day without technology, how could you do it? First of all, getting food would be a challenge. The way we live today, most of us don't have to hunt or gather to get food. And I know that I wouldn't know how. Also, finding clean water and building shelter aren't things we practice daily, like our ancestors long ago. I think that over a long period of time we might be able to become primitive again, but not many of us could.
By reading this book, I really started to appreciate and understand McCandless and his motives for leading the life he did. However, I started to wonder how Chris could ever have returned to society, as he was planning on doing once he completed his journey in Alaska. In the later part of his life, Chris stuck out in almost every way from society - he did his best to shut the world out, and live his life the way he wanted. How would such a strong-willed and unchangeable person be able to put aside his views and fit in? Opinions would be appreciated.
When I first began the book, I really wondered why Chris (a.k.a. Alex) took the challenge to explore Alaska alone. He had a good life, was intelligent, and an outstanding personality. It seemed odd to me that he just dropped everything to go live on his own; also because he did not even bring any tools to help his living easier. I do take all the advice he gave to his fellow friends in his letters because it is all so true. He does not drop everything and live out on his own for the publicity or just because. He has a reason behind everything he does and does it because he feels that people should live their lives how they want. Not live it while doing things they do not enjoy or love. As Mariah stated, I too envy his courage to do what no one else dares to do. He broke away from society, although he kept in touch with the ones who helped him most.
ReplyDeleteI am about half way through the novel and curious to see what else happens. It seems that he explores, and then returns for a short period. He obtains an easy job and then packs up and travels elsewhere. I do not think I could ever do this because it is almost like he is alone all of the time. If I did have the desire to do what Chris did, I think I would have done it similar to what he did though.
As I continue to read on in the next few days, I will carefully observe Chris and his actions. His personality really stuck out to me because he is kind and caring. It saddens me that he died out on his journey and that it hurt the people who helped him along his way. It is hard for me at this point to choose a side, whether I believe in or do not believe, what Chris did was right. It is brave, but very different at the same time. The story about Chris is interesting and makes me want to read more.
Allison, I completely agree with you when you said that people wouldn't be able to live without the technology we currently have. I tried to go without my cell phone for a week and I couldn't do it. There are so many things we have become accustomed to, it would be extremely difficult to leave it all behind. I think the further we advance in technology, the harder it would be for each generation to attempt to live like people did in the stone age.
ReplyDeleteWhen i was reading this book, even though I knew he was going to die in the end, I really wanted Chris to make it. He seemed like such a nice person, and I felt sad that he tried to get out of the wilderness but the river he crossed had flooded so he was trapped. I didn't think in the beginning he would want to leave so that part came as a shock to me. I wondered the same thing as Mariah, why wouldn't he take what people who were trying to help offered him? If he had, maybe he would have been able to last long enough to escape.
A. ball, I definitely experienced the same hopes that Chris would make it out alive, and I actually thought he would make it for a bit. However, I was very upset in the end, especially when I learned about the close proximity of useful cabins and the way he could have gotten across the river.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am also a little disappointed of Chris. The 'wilderness' he planned on having his great adventure in turned out not to be not very wild at all - "less than thiry miles to the east is a major thoroughfare, the George Parks Highway. Just sixteen miles to the south...[is] Denali Park over a road patrolled by the National Park Service" (165). This shows that Chris was not truly in the wilds, as his 'Great Alaskan Voyage' was supposed to take place in. Also, Chris "yearned to wander uncharted country, to find a blank spot on the map....He simply got rid of the map. In his own mind, if nowhere else, the terra would thereby remain incognita" (174). This frustrates me because it shows that Chris could have recieved help if he had a map, and that, again, he was not truly in the wild.
A. ball, I think that Chris did not want to accept the helpful items from others because the whole point of his journey was complete independence. He didn't want too much help from others because he wanted to do everything himself. Also, i believe that he wanted to live with only the bare essentials, and he didn't welcome anything extra. He believed that he could get along fine in the wild without others' help, as he had done so often in the past.
I have to agree with Allison when she says that the book was boring. It was hard for me to get engrossed. I found this strange because I really enjoyed the movie, and the two are incredibly similar. I did, however, feel that the book was much more informative and descriptive than the movie was, and I really enjoyed the letters you would find scattered throughout the book.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Glu when she says that "The 'wilderness' he planned on having his great adventure in turned out not to be not very wild at all - 'less than thiry miles to the east is a major thoroughfare, the George Parks Highway. Just sixteen miles to the south...[is] Denali Park over a road patrolled by the National Park Service' (165)". When the closest sign of civilization is sixteen miles away you are in the wild, especially in Alaska where 16 miles is 16 miles of traversing rugged mountains in either deep snow or EXTREMELY thick bush. Getting back to civilization would have been nearly impossible for Chris.
Almost finished with the novel, I find myself wondering more details about Chris's death. It seems odd to me, however, because throughout the whole book people mention his death and how it happens. I do not usually like when books give you the main details at the beginning, but in this novel it fits well.
ReplyDeleteAt first I was a little jealous of Chris and his bravery for going 'into the wild' all alone. Now that I have read more, I have come to a different conclusion. Chris gave up so many things to explore the wilderness alone and hurt various people along the way. He totally kept his life a secret from his family which is terrible. He even kept his risky behavior and ambitions from Carine, his close sister. Chris was a kind and humble man, but looking at the whole picture I find him as a stupid man. He was not suicidal, but knew that living out alone in the wilderness could turn out fatal. He still continued with his plan and only a few people knew of his misjudged ideas.
I also found it odd that he was so intelligent, but never found his way back after the last time he decided to return, but then gave up. As the novel stated, he could have waited until August to cross the river again, but he decided to go on living in the bus. The bus was where he died of starvation, which I also find it hard to believe.
Another thing I found was that all the men that went out to explore returned for some sort of schooling or research before the went back to explore. One can tell by this that these men we not dumb, just stubborn. In the next couple of days I will finish the book and learn how Chris died. I still think that his choices were poor throughout the book and that his personality is hard to grasp, but I do change my mind about being jealous of Chris McCandless.
After rereading some of the comments posted, I have noticed that there is basically one issue being repeated. The personality of Chris mcCandless and style of the book.
ReplyDeleteThere are two different sides to this matter. One being you believe Chris' erratic behavior and stubborness brought him straight to his death and Krakauer's confusing writing style got excessively off topic at points. Or, you believe this intelligent young man was out to prove himself to society and the book was written perfectly to show his strong faith in his goal for life.
As i have explained earlier, my belief is that this seemingly intelligent man made mistakes that lead to his death.
The whole point of Chris' adventure was to prove that we can survive on our own. Society is too dependent on each other. Although that point was lost in the process. Chris set out to justify himself but ended up getting some supplies, rides, work, etc. from the people he met on the way. I thought his goal was to not get help from others? Be able to survive on his own?
Well the information gathered from previous generations has brought us where we are today. Their mistakes and accomplishments have given us our society. We depend on each other. That's our survival. If Chris would just understand that, maybe he would be alive right now to tell his story to the world. Instead he took the lessons learned from our forefathers and threw them out the window. Our society lives and breathes off one another.
It's not as if we can't survive on our own, it's just that we don't need to find that out when others before us have already been through those hardships and struggles. They've taught this generation better. For example, if someone were to touch a hot oven and notice that it burns your skin. That person would then pass on to the next person that it hurts and not to do that. Chris was acting as if he doesn't need to depend on the pervious person to tell him anything about a hot stove. He will figure that out himself. Then Chris gets burned. Why keep making the same mistake over and over again?
Our society will always have a Chris McCandless.
Jessica makes a strong and accurate statement about society always having a Chris McCandless. Just look in the generations before him; his idols. This includes Thoreau, who secluded himself at Walden Pond. I'm sure in generations to come we will hear about another young thinker who followed in his footsteps.
ReplyDeleteAllison, I agree about the book being boring. I felt it lacked action and although, it contained adventure, the plot seemed to be based more on his hitch-hiking and the people he met rather than the struggles he faced in the wild.
ReplyDeleteI found myself enjoying Krakauer's tale of his battle on the Stikine Ice Cap more than the story of McCandless. (pgs 134-156). Krakauer used vivid detail to describe how he conquered the Devil's thumb and lit his tent on fire. I believe the reason his story was so appealing was because he had firsthand emotions that had no way of existing in the story of McCandless. Besides the sparse journal entries, no one will ever know how Chris truly felt out in the wild.
Even though I felt Chris was careless on most occasions, a feeling of celebration came over me as I read about how much game Chris was killing. Yes, Chris died while in the wild, but in my opinion he proved to everyone that we could survive on his own if needed.
I also agree with Jessica and Chris in regards to the fact that there will always be a Chris McCandless in our society. I’m curious though, if the new adventurers will learn from others past mistakes and end up surviving in the wild. If so, will they be as well known as Chris? If Chris would have survived in Alaska would there still be a book and movie about him? I honestly don’t believe there would.
Allie makes a good point in stating how there probably wouldn't be a book or movie about Chris if he hadn't had died. I had never thought about that before, but what does that tell us about society today? This is what Chris was trying to escape; the mainstream, the glamour, and the way we react to certain situations.
ReplyDeleteChris was very wise for how old he was. If you had never met him before I'm sure you would guess him much older than he really is. His views on life are that in which only a few brave souls ever attempt his lifestyle.Props to Chris for at least attempting to live out his dreams.
Chris's comment about how McCandless was trying to escape mainstream society is very true. Chris never wanted to be famous and with his death he received the exact thing he was running from. Having a movie and book about his venture into the wild defeats the point he was trying to prove about surviving without modern technology.
ReplyDeleteFinishing the book finally let me in on how Chris died. I find the situation he ended up in odd because he did know so much about every plant or animal he consumed. When I read the end of the novel, however, I found myself sympathizing most with his family; in particular, his mother.
ReplyDeleteI disliked Chris for a few reasons, but mostly because he never informed his family on his whereabouts. They were left wondering for a long period of time and then were hit with the news of his death. He never even contacted his sister, Carine which surprised me because they were so close. Chris was said to be very well mannered and educated, but this little fact makes me rethink his common sense. What man in his right mind would give up everything he has to survive alone off the land?
When Chris's mother and father came to Alaska and visited the bus after his death, I really felt his mother's pain. She had no idea where he was and then all of the sudden she finds out he died; he was even pretty close to a form of civilization that could have saved him. Chris did what he did to escape from society and live out on his own, but in these days that just seems silly. His actions were not always well thought out and he hurt many close friends and family. His death could have been prevented and more information could have been discovered if he had made more useful journal entries. They way he existed and planned on living did not really seem to have a point, so that makes me wonder even more why he just left and decided to explore vast areas of nothingness.
The novel overall was surprising and interesting, but I do agree with Allison and Allie about how the book was a bit boring. Even though it was mainly an adventure type of novel, the action levels were lacking.
I agree with Andrea when she says that she was disappointed that he never told his family where he was going. Even if he didn't want them to know everything he was going to do, he could have at least given them a general idea or a hint of what he was planning. It's not fair that his parents had to find out about his death and his adventure the way they did. They had a right to know.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that had Chris survived the wilderness, he would not really be remembered for what he did. He would have been just another person who went into the wild for a short amount of time and then left. I really like how Allie phrased her blog about how making a movie about Chris defeated the purpose of his trip. I could not think of a better way to say it.
Andrea, I understand where you are coming from, but no matter how much Chris loved Carine it was stated in the book that his desire to live in the wild overwhelmed any personal relationships he had- even the love for his dog buck. I believe that Chris felt that if he would have told his family his whereabouts he would be "cheating" and I'm sure he assumed his family would come searching for him.
ReplyDeleteTo us it seems rediculous and heartless that he kept his family waiting but, I'm sure all of us also think it would be rediculous to live in the wild. Chris' views and desires are just skewed from the average human
I agree with a lot of the points that people have brought up lately, especially how Allie said that he would not have been this important if he had not died. Also, I agree with her when she says that Chris recieved attention in the end, which was what he was running from in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have to dispute the statement that by not contacting his family, Chris was being heartless and making a big mistake. I beileve that he had good reasoning to not contact them - the point of his voyage was to find himself, and to be independent. His series of solo trips were to escape the life he had led before, and by contacting family members he would have brought back the stressful and controlling influences he was running from. I don;t think he was being heartless (even though his family didn't get along that well), I think he was just trying to be his own person.
Also, had he contacted his family, they surely would have forced him to come home, which was definitely not what Chris wanted or needed.
An eighty something year old man that has been a follower of Christ renounces the Lord because Chris McCandless died. It is very powerful, but very stupid, but I shouldn't start an argument on faith right here. It show how powerful Chris's, or Alex as he was known to everybody, appearance was in the lives of some of the that he met. However, I believe him to be a bot of an idiot. He was a well educated man from a well off family that wanted to go to Alaska and live freely. He could have lived very freely and gone to Alaska with what he had availible to him at the time of his graduation. Instead he dumps it all and begins to work from scratch, and that i can respect. But he burns his cash and often refuses help that could have saved his life. The stupidity of his situation was rather grand.
ReplyDeleteThere is an excessive amount of back story of other people that I find unnecessary and distracting. It adds some to the story, and too much to the book. Yes, it is nice to know some of the people that McCandless was like and the history of his family, but it feels like it doesn't need to be there. I doubt it, but Krakauer seems to have filled this book with several thngs such as these simply to add pages.
ReplyDeleteKrakauer tells us of other travelers that are a bit like Chris McCandless, and practically all of them are dead. It appears that going out thinking with something other than your head is not the most intelligent thing to do. The dead venturer's like to act grom their guts, their hearts, and their balls, and you can see what can happen when you do that.
I finished this book at least two weeks ago and I will openly admit that I don't think that it's all that great. The reason that I feel this way is because there was just too much. I felt as if Krakauer was cramming useless information into my head that took away from the story itself. I got lost in other characters' backgrounds and couldn't really focus on Chris.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I really liked Krakauer's writing style and I love the fact that he started out with the scene where Chris' dead body was found. It literally reaches out and smackes you in the face that the main character is dead in the first few pages. And then you take the journey back into Chris' life and how he got to where he was. It was like the book was in rewind and I really liked that fact.
Over all, I feel that the plot and the writing style of the book were great. I just feel the Krakauer could have shaved the book down a bit and not put so much information in 'Into the Wild'.
Christopher McCandless appeared to stay adolescent in terms of his emtions at times. His father had an affair with his ex-wife that McCandless dug deep to find. And because he judged people based on an impossibly strict moral code and "Chris apparently judged artists and close friends by their work, not their life, yet he was temperamentally incapable of extending such lenity to his father." (pg 22). One mistake, be it a large one, condemed Walt in Chris's eye's. Because of this he grew to hate is parents, this hate drove him from his home, being away from home indirectly killed him. If he had "extend[ed] such lenity to his father" as he had to aolmost everyone else, such as his severly flawed and hypocritical heroes, Then perhaps i wouldn't be having to write about his story right now.
ReplyDelete