Bamstutz
Bamstutz asked Michael Finkel:

As I read your book about Christopher Knight I couldn't help thinking about Christopher McCandless. They were both part of the post-boomer generation (born in the mid 1960's), rejected modern life, and went off to find authenticity in the wild/woods. What are your thoughts about the cultural significance of these two men? What can we learn from their quests?

Michael Finkel Good question. Depending on how you look at it, McCandless and Knight either have a great deal in common, or almost nothing in common. First, what they have in common: Both escaped the word in a rather radical way, and when both were quite young. Both have provoked a wide array of opinions, from deep admiration to utter disparagement. And both are named Christopher!

But they are mostly very, very different. McCandless survived only four months in the wilds -- he did not even make it through one winter. Knight survived for 27 years and walked out strong as an ox.

McCandless was actually quite outgoing, and like other people's company. Knight never liked being around other people. McCandless' adventure was supposed to be a short-term stunt, and he kept a journal, and was surely going to tell may people about his adventure. Knight was committed to living his entire life in the woods, never wrote down a single word, and was not planning to tell anyone about what happened to him (those plans changed when he was captured, and I am grateful that Knight agreed to share his story).

Though of course I read "Into the Wild," I never mentioned McCandless in "The Stranger in the Woods" -- to me, the men were completely different, except in the way other view them.

I hope this answer was helpful!

About Goodreads Q&A

Ask and answer questions about books!

You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.

See Featured Authors Answering Questions

Learn more