book discussion

This book is one of the books which I would not bother my self to read and would not waste my time on if that was not mandatory. It talks about a guy's adventure to Alaskan forest, in which he died, experiences, life and society. Many people around the world have had similar experiences, some times not by their choice, but they have been forgotten, and/or no one has cared about them and their experiences. Even though, they had thought about their adventures smartly and made them in a way that makes the adventures less dangerous, nobody has written a book about them. His acts do not make any cense to me. Why would any one burn his money while there are people who are starving to death? degrade himself to ask for help while he has the ability? It is not a shame to ask for help from his family because he is a part of that family, in actual fact, asking others is a humiliation to once pride and there is no pleasure in it.
The author has a very good way of describing situations in the story that makes it much easier for the reader to picture and imagine scenes in the story; however, the book is full of unnecessary details which have confused me and lessened my interests in the story.

I AM NOT IMPRESSED WITH YOUR POSTING HERE H3. This is an amazing and influential book it is full of amazing characters and ideals. What makes it more amazing is that it is a true story if you want a fast flowing story that has no background and realism then you should read fiction. This book has made a huge impact in my own life and it is a heart wrenching story. Granted in the middle of the book he describes others who have done similar things and the author even places a personal story inside but the best part are the continuation of the last two chapters of the original story. You gave up to soon and I am sad for you. The donating his college fund to hunger charity and burning his money was leaving his old identity behind.

It is definetly not a great story by any stretch of the imagination. I would rather read about something meaningful myself. I think it is analogous of the child who said he was going to hold his breath until he died or got what he wanted. The difference is this guy didn't know what he wanted. It's pretty much the story of a guy committing suicide. A very confused person at the least. I suppose it is worth immortalizing in print because alot of people have similar stories. Sad and frustrating not inspiring or moving. If their was a point I have not had it explained to me yet.

He left his parents because he found out about their lies of cheating and another son in California. He held a low moral aptitude for their sins. He chose to live a different life away from them. His goal after two years of living like a tramp was to survive for 2 months alone in Alaska then return to write books. He made some serious errors and nature took over. This is a real good story. Sure he was a spoiled brat but he felt he needed self discovery which sometimes men need to find.
I think every man has that wild carnal nature to go out and do something, test of manhood type of action. If there were not people like him out there then there would be no discoveries we may even still feel the world was flat. He was an adventurer and would live one day at a time and conquer challenges thrown at him.
READ THE BOOK IT MAKES MORE SINCE THAN THE MOVIE.

I was handed this book several years ago by a former rock climbing partner of mine, and I have to say this has been one of the best books that I have read in years. I can only assume that the inability to understand the main character by some stems form a lack of an adventurous soul. This book chronicles the life of a young man who was brought up in a well to do family and had a strong desire for personal growth. The fact that he donated so much to charity and then burned his money only shows the level of devotion to his undertaking. I only wish that more people could take the time in their busy lives to experience life from a different perspective.

Yes Jay & Laura. To understand McCandless one must have an adventurous soul. A societal discontent triggered by his parents hypocrosy also contributed his desire to "escape". I have much admiration for him.

The book is good, empirically. However I found McCandless selfish and impetuous. Had he bothered to learn more and prepare more for his "adventure" he may have survived and I may have had more respect for his attempt. In the end I did recommended the book to a couple of friends, both men. Men have less of a need for a "happy ending", which is I believe why the book ultimately appeals less to women.

First off, let me disagree with H3 on one minor point; yes, people have had similar experiences and been forgotten. Or later found after years, by some hunter, trapper or explorer. I think that's one thing that Krakauer aims to address in his book, though I would argue it's not his clearest point, which is that Chris is representative of the people who suffer the same fate. His story is their story, etc. There are other stories out there, by the way. Sure, they don't get a lot of attention, but I've read several - one is discussed below.

McCandless is a good choice for a case study, in my opinion, because he was exactly the typical person to do this - a well-educated, upper middle class guy with such a naive ideology and a lack of experience as to make his belief in his own survival near impossible to swallow.

I just finished reading a book, Cold Burial: A Story of Endurance and Disaster, that also deals with this subject - the similarities between the two men are disturbing. The man in that book was slightly more experienced with the wildnerness, yet he too made reckless decisions that led to his own demise, that of his 16 year old nephew, as well as that of a long-time friend and companion. They froze to death in the Canadian wilderness, and were warned that their expedition was unwise - just like Chris McCandless, and like Chris they felt that they knew what they were doing and ignored those who actually had experience in the Canadian bush.

In Cold Burial, the gentleman was also from an upper class family, with a good education, eccentric behavior and a naive ideology. He had idealized the wilderness, and the idea of rugged survival, just like McCandless did.

http://books.google.com/books?...

As we know from other sources, including documentaries like Grizzly Man, another stunning story of naivete in practice in the wilderness, going into that environment is something you should do with someone who is experienced - and not at all something you should undertake alone. Even group ventures are not to be entered into lightly; the number of participants doesn't necessarily lessen the possibility of death.

http://news.nationalgeographic...

I thought Krakauer's other book Into Thin Air was better written, but primarily because he had more personal experience to add to that book. This one was fleshed out of an article he wrote for Outdoor, a magazine, and I was surprised it was as thin as it was. I found the most compelling part was the end of the book. I won't spoil it here, but if you want to know feel free to read my review because I mention it there.

I think stories like these are important reading: There are many out there who romanticize life on the frontiers, on the edges of civilization. These books show that this belief is still in full force today; it is not some shadow left over from the times of Shackleton and Scott. It may be part of the human condition, the human spirt.

But cautionary tales are still educating; and Chris McCandless' story is no less so.

By the way, I saw the movie and it's excellent. Highly recommended; Sean Penn does a great job. There's also an Iconoclasts episode on Sundance Channel that has Krakauer and Penn discussing the movie. I found it compelling viewing, but probably because I enjoy the subject matter.

http://www.sundancechannel.com...#/episodee/210240964

Populist opinion is that the movie is greater than the book. Two different media. The book has some merit although I did not find it all that great in terms of writing as a craft. There were high spots of thought and ideology. A top 100 book though it is not but thought provoking at points none the less. I don't think one has to be of an adventurous spirit to appricate this man's struggle within himself.

Story aside, how you feel about McCandless aside, everything aside, I have to say that I found Krakauer's writing riveting. He used more than 15 vocab words that had me on my ass, searching through a dictionary, but he didn't overdo it. He writes beautifully and descriptive and if I was faced with the task of writing about McCandless' life and ultimate demise, mine would be a shadow of a job next to Krakauer's account. He really makes you think without telling you what to think. I enjoy books with a good story but more important to me is how the author writes and I don't think any reviewer here has given Krakauer a fair shake.
Read it again, go slow, and take it all in. That's my advice.

I think Krakauer did a remarkable job of tracking McCandless and his trek, which ended in disaster.

I think what's most intriguing is how Krakauer seems willing to let the reader decide for himself whether McCandless was a committed idealist or just another dilettante who got himself killed through his own stupidity.

McCandless seems unable to see anything in other than black & white, and it seems Krakauer's book similarly polarizes readers.

Like all Krakauer's stuff, it's extremely well written, and hard to put down.

"McCandless seems unable to see anything in other than black & white, and it seems Krakauer's book similarly polarizes readers." Excellent point, Tom.

I'm always surprised at the animosity aimed at this book and Chris McCandless. Jon Krakauer is an excellent writer with an uncanny ability to bring to life another person's adventure to us armchair adventurers.

There is something in man that makes him hunger for adventures, and McCandless and others like him have a hard time finding adventure in such a "tame" world with no new frontiers. Krakauer explains this when he veers off to tell us about his own adventures as a teen when he just had to "steal up to the edge of doom and peer into the brink."

My two favorite passages that sum up everything this book is about:

"It is easy, when you are young, to believe that what you desire is no less than what you deserve, to assume that if you want something badly enough, it is your God-given right to have it."

“In coming to Alaska, McCandless yearned to wander uncharted country, to find a blank spot on the map. In 1992, however, there were no more blank spots on the map--not in Alaska, not anywhere. But Chris, with his idiosyncratic logic, came up with an elegant solution to this dilemma: He simply got rid of the map. In his own mind, if nowhere else, the terra would thereby remain incognita."

I still think about Chris' life and death. Maybe I'm just more sensitive to it because I have a little boy who might get it in his head to go on a similar adventure.

Couldn't agree with you more Wes! This book is so inspirational and so moving. It has completely changed my brother's life. This book awoke his inner outdoorsman and has given him a new outlook on life. I find it to be quite a compelling story. It has made me re-evaluate my own life.
Sure, Chris or Alex rather, lives a fairly selfish life. But why is selfish always such a bad thing? There is a type of selfish that is healthy. Chris wants to reconnect with himself, he wants to find himself, and he wants to liberate himself. It is a valid search. I will never understand why society does not value this type of search. It is a noble pursuit.

This thing drives me crazy!
Warm, wealthy, overfed and overconnected Krakauer is glorifying the sad tale of someone who needed emotional and mental help, not encouragement to chase "adventure and liberation" from conventional life.
As a former outdoor professional I'm incensed that this boys problem is given validation.
Krakauer and Penn put on the gore tex and got flown in to the site of his perhaps inadvertant suicide and think they can speak about adventure!
A map, a compass, proper clothing, provisions, a book about edible plants, what the fuck!?!?! His emaciated, lifeless body was found in an abandoned rusty bus with a supply of sweet potatoe seeds which killed him (he was eating them and they cause the body not to metabolize food-he didn't know this) still in his "pantry." He had tried to walk out but got turned back by the swollen river, not knowing there was a way around it just a few miles away and indeed a hunting camp close by as well, with food in the cupboards and visited periodically by hunters who could have helped him. How did he stay there for several months and not know these things were close by? Perhaps because he laid in the bus shivering, in a deep depression or because the seeds prevented him from getting any benefit from the other food he was eating and he was too weak to walk around! This is NOT a story about ADVENTURE! It is a hideous death tale that Penn and Krakauer are making money on by glorifying his heartbreaking end. WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED!!! And shouldn't be perpetuated by these pampered delusional twits writing books in their warm libraries and dreaming of making movies from the comfort of the beverly hills perch. Arrrrggggghhhhh. He's DEAD, and there is nothing glorious or noble or adventurous about how he died. It's vile that these men are encouraging others to blindly and blithely head off into the wilderness unprepared!

He died Maureen... how does that encourage someone to say... "Cool, I want to do that!"? And how did he stay there for several months without knowing a way across the river or hunting cabins were close by? He was seeking isolation, a place uncharted and truly wild. So the desire to find these things wasnt there to begin with... he was content at the bus, alone. It was until he became too weak to venture out that it probably became a priority for him to find help... which by then it was obviously too late. You talk about prevention... how would it benefit the world... our society... to have every death prevented. It would be more harmful than helpful. Why not take the inspiring life of a young man, although it ended in death, and celebrate is desire to break free from conformity? Whether he got the mental and emotional help you say he needed.... in the end McCandless still dies. We all do... get over it.

Maureen, I disagree. I don't think he was depressed or mentally unstable at all. In fact, I think he was just the opposite. I think he was energized about the adventures in front of him. I think he was perhaps too idealistic, but not mentally ill.

It's obvious by the time he wrote the note he stuck on the windshield of the bus that he had started to panic from his weakness and knew he was in danger. But before that, he was enjoying being "in the wild."

Have you ever read any of Krakauer's other books? I don't know about Sean Penn, but I think Krakauer can "speak about adventure"! He's had many adventures since he started climbing as a teenager. I don't think he was too warm, wealthy, and overfed when he was on Everest in 1996.

Jed, great post. Women for the most part are self-preservationists, and that's fine because that's the part we play in this world. But I've always admired the adventurous side of males. Without that, where would humankind be right now? Perhaps not sitting in front of a computer discussing Chris McCandless.

At least Chris died doing what he loved and not sitting in a Lazy-Boy watching TV with an economy-sized bag of chips on his lap.

I've worked with bush pilots, professional wilderness guides, and expedition organizers in Arctic Canada, Iceland, Scotland, the American Southwest, Mongolia, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon, primarily running wilderness rivers. I've participated in trips in Maine and NB Canada as well as backcountry camping, hiking and sled dog trips.
Chris starved to death, cold, and alone. If as he was slipping away he still said to himself..."at least I'm doing what I love," then I would contend he was indeed crazy and needed help. Instead, I bet he died going "oh shit what did I foolishly do to myself."
My point about Krakauer is he is glorifying a romantic notion of "the wild" and "adventure" that is false. He is perpetuating stupidity by wrapping it up in false romantic notions.
When the world truely had mapless voids, people still took provisions, knew what they could and couldn't eat or had a method of finding out. They took compasses and knew navigation and used them as they drew the maps. Self preservation is not a bad thing. Knowing woods lore, and wilderness survival techniques and first aid is part of the fun. Chris stepped into terra incognita with an innocent notion of what he needed to survive. I hate that Krakauer is glossing over that.
Everest has it's own controversy. There is a lot of debate in the professional outdoor community about Everest and people's need to grab the summit regardless of safety. With the support teams, oxygen etc. it's not quite the same risk in one way but with the flippant attitude of the Krakauer ilk it is now quite a different risk that has quite frankly lost it's nobility. Professional guides and rural outdoorsmen and women who have been going into the wild for their whole lives don't have as high a view of Krakauer as he does of himself.
I have an incredible love for the wild and normally feel if you are so stupid to go out there unprepared then you deserve to die. But I think naivete killed Chris and I hate to see it perpetuated.

Truth is nobody knows what this kid Chris was thinking. His death by what I can see was a result of several things and I would include mental illness in that list. Chris appeared to be detached from not only society in general but himself specifically. I don't buy that he was on this self discovery trek thing only. And if he was an adventerer he appears to have been ignorant and in many ways stupid. He was ill prepared and even more there is a sense of self irresponsibility too. I agree with Maureen. this kid needed professional help mentally not an ill planned stint in the woods in a climate he knew nothing about. Society understands so little about mental illness and this kid was just another victim of himself and it appears to me untreated depression.

Maureen, I seriously doubt that anyone reading about Chris' sad, lonely death would think, "Wow! I want to do this!" I think Chris' experience would serve as a cautionary tale of how to be adventurous in a safer way.

I still don't see that Chris was depressed. In school he turned inward, but I myself am a solitary person; that doesn't mean I'm depressed or mentally ill or want to kill myself.

It's Chris' fault and his alone that he didn't take enough precautions and provisions. I don't think Krakauer romanticized his experiences in the wild. Krakauer admitted that Chris was foolish not to be prepared, but he did admire his adventurous spirit. I think there's a difference and Krakauer is being unjustly criticized.