Forrest's review
Into the Wild (MTI)
by Jon Krakauer
This is an excellent overview of the major issues and themes explored in "Into The Wild." I guess my only question, which you don't seem to address explicitly in the review, is "Why only 2 stars?"
To me, at least, this book deserves at least three, maybe four stars for providing such a well-wrought retelling of McCandless's physical and emotional/spiritual journey. To me, the "stupid college boy or romantic idealist debate" this story provokes is well worth having, especially when enriched by other literature and philosophy of "the Outsider" - (see, e.g., the book with that name by Colin Wilson)
You probably have a point on the book’s worth. I’ll try to explain where I’m coming from.
It’s been years since I’ve read the book, and what I remember about it is pretty well encapsulated in the review I wrote at the time. That, and the author interjecting his own personal story at time – it may not be fair of me, but if a book is about someone else, I find it a bit egotistical for the writer to involve himself. I don’t read much, or fast, and what I remember of this one makes me not want to read it again.
Further, the low score is a backlash against all the people who see this as a life-changing read, who hold this guy up as someone to emulate, without noticing the fatal flaws and mistakes that he repeatedly ignored until luck ran out. In short, I’m not hearing a debate. If the average person that reads the book doesn’t see past the naïve idealism, why would I recommend the book?
Finally, I know these ratings aren’t exactly a bell curve situation, but I didn’t want everything I put up to be 4 and 5.
I’m new at this sort of thing. Do I rate based on how much I enjoyed a book? On how worthwhile I think it is? On how well-written it is? These are completely different criteria. I suspect I’ll fine-tune ratings in the future.
OK - thanks for the clarification. I agree that Krakauer might have presented the material more directly, and made some different choices.
In my class debates on the issue, I like to wrap up by suggesting a compromise position (which Krakauer more or less endorses) that McCandless was reckless, immature, and naive BUT he was also a passionate and courageous thinker and feeler.
As far as the ratings, I guess it is all subjective, but 2 stars seems decidedly negative and I wasn't seeing a clear basis for that opinion in your review.
Forrest's review
Into the Wild (MTI) by Jon Krakauer
Forrest's review
rating:
n April 1992, a young 20-something walked into the Alaskan bush to live off the land and experience Reality. His emaciated body was found four months later. Some of you may have heard about the incident; it was reported in an article in Outside magazine, and carried by some news services. Some lauded him as a new Thoreau, living life to the fullest and taking the consequences; others say he was a stupid, hopeless romantic, an example of what happens when suburbanites try to do The Nature Thing.
Who was Chris McCandless? He was naïve. He was Immortal. Like many of that age, he thought that if he wanted something passionately enough, he was entitled to it. Many of us secretly envy his kind, the drifters who revel in "owning no more possessions than you can carry on your back at a full run," for whom each day is an adventure, an indelible experience. To paraphrase Monty Python, those who live free in the wilderness subsequently die free in the wilderness.
The author sugge...more
Who was Chris McCandless? He was naïve. He was Immortal. Like many of that age, he thought that if he wanted something passionately enough, he was entitled to it. Many of us secretly envy his kind, the drifters who revel in "owning no more possessions than you can carry on your back at a full run," for whom each day is an adventure, an indelible experience. To paraphrase Monty Python, those who live free in the wilderness subsequently die free in the wilderness.
The author sugge...more
This is an excellent overview of the major issues and themes explored in "Into The Wild." I guess my only question, which you don't seem to address explicitly in the review, is "Why only 2 stars?"
To me, at least, this book deserves at least three, maybe four stars for providing such a well-wrought retelling of McCandless's physical and emotional/spiritual journey. To me, the "stupid college boy or romantic idealist debate" this story provokes is well worth having, especially when enriched by other literature and philosophy of "the Outsider" - (see, e.g., the book with that name by Colin Wilson)
You probably have a point on the book’s worth. I’ll try to explain where I’m coming from.It’s been years since I’ve read the book, and what I remember about it is pretty well encapsulated in the review I wrote at the time. That, and the author interjecting his own personal story at time – it may not be fair of me, but if a book is about someone else, I find it a bit egotistical for the writer to involve himself. I don’t read much, or fast, and what I remember of this one makes me not want to read it again.
Further, the low score is a backlash against all the people who see this as a life-changing read, who hold this guy up as someone to emulate, without noticing the fatal flaws and mistakes that he repeatedly ignored until luck ran out. In short, I’m not hearing a debate. If the average person that reads the book doesn’t see past the naïve idealism, why would I recommend the book?
Finally, I know these ratings aren’t exactly a bell curve situation, but I didn’t want everything I put up to be 4 and 5.
I’m new at this sort of thing. Do I rate based on how much I enjoyed a book? On how worthwhile I think it is? On how well-written it is? These are completely different criteria. I suspect I’ll fine-tune ratings in the future.
OK - thanks for the clarification. I agree that Krakauer might have presented the material more directly, and made some different choices. In my class debates on the issue, I like to wrap up by suggesting a compromise position (which Krakauer more or less endorses) that McCandless was reckless, immature, and naive BUT he was also a passionate and courageous thinker and feeler.
As far as the ratings, I guess it is all subjective, but 2 stars seems decidedly negative and I wasn't seeing a clear basis for that opinion in your review.