"Into the Wild" (Book)

K

KEmSAT-Survival

Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
1,928
This is not a "bash McCandless" thread.


This young man is always a hotbutton issue when you talk about the wilderness, survival, and other such topics. Opinions seem to range from "hero!" to "idiot douchebag", and for the longest time I was in the camp of the latter.

Until I found "Into the Wild" by John Krakauer in my local libray. Krakauer was the author who wrote the original article in Outdoors magazine, who later went back and spoke with people who'd known McCandless; compiling this book as a result of that research. Krakauer throws in a few historic accounts of cases similar to McCandless's, among them is the story of Everett Ruess and Carl McCunn, at an attempt to provide some insight into the thinking of such people.

McCandless's story is not as black and white as the movie makes it seem; and he is not as heroic as Sean Penn's interpretation made him look. The book gives you a more in depth examination of what McCandless was like, the people whose lives he'd become part of on his "adventures" (a LOT of people seemed to really like the guy and thought of him as extended family, one guy even asked to adopt him!)-- as well as possible clues to why he did what he did.

This thread is basically a challenge to anybody who wants to see the other side of the argument. If you're in the camp of "he was an idiot" (and the various versions of that opinion), read this book. You may find out like I did that nothing in life is as black and white as you might think. Think of it as an experiment in understanding.

The book is very interesting, a great read, and gives a glimpse at the state of mind of the modern gypsy. If you're in a drought of reading material, check it out.

My opinion of McCandless has changed quite a bit. I no longer find it acceptable to dismiss the kid as just another naive idiot, as I had originally after reading his story; a naive, adventurous kid who overestimated his strengths and underestimated his weaknesses...but not an idiot.
 
Last edited:
Good post. I read the book long before the movie was made and I agree that he overestimated. He made some really dumb mistakes, but that is part of what makes us human. What I REALLY took from the book was the lesson he learned, albeit too late, that life and the enjoyment thereof is better when shared. When I was young and dumb, I too desired the solitary life of a hermit, bumming around the woods, not a care in the world except what was important to that days survival. Tried it for a while. Now? Now I live in a cabin in the Rockies with my wife, daughter and three dogs. Life really is about sharing it with people you love. Too bad McCandless learned that too late.
 
Last edited:
I agree; my opinion of McCandless changed after reading the book. He obviously still made mistakes, but he had a lot more experience than I was giving him credit for. It just shows that doing anything in the wilderness solo is inherently dangerous.
 
I saw the movie long after I had read the book. Like with most books, there is a lot more detail into the story than the movie has, and movies tend to "bend" the story a little for entertainment's sake.

Although I agree with the sentiment that he acted foolishly, he also was quite brave IMO, to give up the modern trappings and live the tramp lifestyle.

A simple mistake led to his undoing, something any one of us might do. I'd still like to think most of us would have some kind of a backup plan in case of emergency, but I don't think Mcandless was an idiot.

Glenn
 
I read the book 1st & then watch the movie....
I never thought he was a idiot and when he came full circle in life and decided to leave mother nature thought other wise with the swollen river...
 
Read it 1st, didn't want to see the movie.

Idealists are what they are until (sometimes) harsh reailty collides with their idealism. I feel bad that the young man got in over his head and died as a result of it. Thats sad.

I don't think he was an idiot, just lost. Truly, profoundly lost. Regardless of intellect (or maybe in spite of it), people make mistakes and unfortunately his had a high price tag.
 
This is one of the few movies I have ever seen that I actually liked better than the book. I thought Sean Penn did a great job with portraying McCandles. I think what I disliked about the book most was Krakauer's constant comparing himself to McCandles. I wanted to read about McCandles, not him.

FWIW I read the book prolly 15 years ago?
 
When reading things like this, I try to take away a perspective on just how small and frail we really are when compared with Nature.
You hear a lot of people say things like: "conquering nature", "living with nature", "bending the rules of nature", etc...
I'm starting to seriously believe that these kinds of people are deluding themselves, and maybe even my own ideals are off by a degree or two.

Can a person really, I mean, really AND truly, live with nature?
What rules does nature follow exactly? "Build a shelter and nature won't kill you with an errant lightening bolt, or touch a tornado down on top of you in the middle of the night in some freak weather pattern"?
You can forget conquering nature. A person can't conquer nature anymore than a pissant can conquer a Kenworth.

I'm starting to seriously wonder if, when a person it out there, they have to just be. Nature is a force. It's not good, not bad, it just is. Can a person be "just a force"?

All this didn't come from just reading this book, that'd be silly. I've been wondering this for atleast 3 years now. It's causing me to seriously inspect and examine how I do things. Am I too hung up on carrying things like knives and kits, etc...? When I go out, am I going out as a "skills practitioner" (which seems to amount to little more than a guy with a knife, armed with some neat tricks, hellbent on making a ramshackle version of solitary society: fire, house, water, food, yadda yadda)? Or am I going out as something else? Just a guy who likes to play mountain man? What?

I'm not talking "go out and hug a tree", I'm thinking maybe we get too caught up in owning the world. Maybe we get so caught up in being master of our domain that we forget there are some things out there that not even the best knife and an arsenal of skills can fix.
 
I think it is mind over Matter (Matter being what Nature throws your way) & if you come out on top they think they conquered something instead of thinking mother Nature got bored and moved on & they just Survived :D
 
xmp said:
i agree; my opinion of mccandless changed after reading the book. He obviously still made mistakes, but he had a lot more experience than i was giving him credit for. It just shows that doing anything in the wilderness solo is inherently dangerous.
Click to expand...

exactly
 
Well I haven't read the book, but I just added it to my reading list. My kids read it for school a couple years ago, and we all watched the movie after they had read it.

Even though I haven't read it, I have mixed feelings after watching the movie and reading more about Chris McCandless online. On one hand, I admire his spirit and willingness to follow his dream. I imagine a lot of us have had the desire to do something similar at one time or another. I know I have.

On the other hand, he was not prepared for his adventure, and died needlessly. True enough that it was a simple mistake that did him in, but he also made a lot of other mistakes that could have done him in just as easily. I found the way he ignored his family to be the most troublesome, at least in how it was portrayed in the movie.

No one really knows what his mindset was at the end, but I believe he was neither heroic nor an idiot, or maybe he was both, in a way.

I know this thread is not about bashing the man, but I found this piece by an Alaska Park Ranger very enlightening: http://nmge.gmu.edu/textandcommunity/2006/Peter_Christian_Response.pdf
 
The author of that piece has some very valid arguments (especially about "Jack London" syndrome). McCandless was ill prepared, didn't take a map, etc...
But, if he'd had have paid attention to what he read, he'd have known that McCandless didn't want to die, not even subconciously. The whole point of his tramping all across the country was to "live", or atleast to experience life outside the trappings of material things.
I don't think the book's aim was to sensationalize McCandless's lifestyle, as much as was to make people aware that there is this alternative mode of living; and that some people prefer it.
Quite possibly, maybe even the author was comparing himself to McCandless in a search for his own answers. As well, I'd imagine he took a few artistic liberties with the story -- writers and such people do it all the time, so you have to factor that in to account.
"Into the Wild", atleast for me, wasn't about a hero/villain or naive kid/wayward son as much about an attempt at objectivism on a subject to which I was curious.
Blame psychology.
 
Well, I just finished reading the book, and also highly recommend it, even if you have already seen the movie. There won't be any surprises as far as the facts of McCandless' journey, but Krakauer is an excellent writer, and it is a really good read filled with a lot of other information about other adventurers and some excellent insights.

A couple of quotes I think are relevant to this discussion:

(from a resident of Alaska): "...I'm sure there are a lot of Alaskans that had a lot in common with McCandless when they first got here, too. Including many of his critics. Which is maybe why they are so hard on him. Maybe McCandless reminds him a little too much of their former selves."

(from his father): "Many people tell me they admire Chris for what he was trying to do. If he had lived, I would agree with them."

I've read Thoreau, Kerouac, Steinbeck and others with similar inclinations as McCandless (and will now read others that were mentioned and quoted in this book), and found this book to be inspiring and educational in many ways. It's a shame the man died, but then again, if he had lived, we probably never would have heard this story.
 
He died from hubris. While I don't think he was an idiot, he certainly wasn't all that bright either. Much of his time was spent in the south west. Survival was easy. At no particular time was he subsisting entirely off of the land. He got cocky and headed to Alaska and and jumped into a lifestyle where he had to completely subsist on the land. Nature is a harsh task master.
 
i read the book, and essays/articles about the book. mccandless is very clearly an intelligent and courageous person.

before alaska; a wandering, if not lost soul. his reasoning to go to alaska; lunacy.

...there is such a thing as a courageous idiot.
 
762 shooter said:
He died from hubris. While I don't think he was an idiot, he certainly wasn't all that bright either. Much of his time was spent in the south west. Survival was easy. At no particular time was he subsisting entirely off of the land. He got cocky and headed to Alaska and and jumped into a lifestyle where he had to completely subsist on the land. Nature is a harsh task master.
Click to expand...

Actually, starvation killed him.

He was a lot brighter than you're giving him credit for, 762, don't fall prey to that kind of one-dimensional thinking. I agree, he certainly acted less than intelligently with such an ill-prepared trip to Alaska, but it would be fallacious to dismiss him as some kind of dullard or mental deficient because of his err in judgement (prideful or otherwise).
I made the same mistake, too, but then I read this book. McCandless was an extremely intelligent person. He had a successful business when he was just a kid, wrote a computer program that revolutionized his parents' consulting firm, and an extremely hard worker.
He was also fiercely devoted -- by all accounts -- once he set his mind to doing something.

Too naive, too overconfident, whatever you want to call it -- but he wasn't a slowcoach; ignorant, maybe, but not less than bright. If anything, he was too bright and that lead to his overconfidence in his abilities.
 
Classic case of good intentions and fatal overconfidence.

He lacked a few skills which would have saved him in all liklihood. First he would have benefited from knowing how to process and dry meat.

Second he could have made it out if he had known how to cross a river using his gear for floatation.

Thousands of folks go into the wilderness each year far less prepared than he was. What he lacked was just a bit of critical knowledge, and some good mentoring from experienced people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top