What makes it interesting ?!

[Bob]

Steve,

Thanks for your nice comments about my post.

- - - Is it acceptable then that we are allowed to self-destruct and have people idolize these traits? - - -

You're right about this, of coarse. Many people, including me, will not idolize Chris, but Chris did have some admirable traits.

I don't want to pat him on the back for the foolish risks he took, but I do want to complement him on his attempt to discover himself. Many people never even try to find out who they are and what they believe. They just do what is expected of them and believe what they are told to believe. Had Chris lived, this self-discovery would have been the story.

I agree there is a fine line between courage and stupidity, as well as genius and insanity.

[[deleted user]]

yep
what dixie said
and bob
i'm stating my opinion
no meds needed to be concerned about other people

krakauer as i said in a prior post is an adult who purports to have outdoor experience
indeed purports to be an outdoor professional

he should know better

as a former outdoor professional i have a very strong well informed opinion (steve?)

chris is dead because he followed a romantic notion of adventure rather than reality
my problem with K is he perpetuates the romance
yes we all write our own ticket but we don't do it in a vacumn
we do it with input from amatuers, professionals, wise people and fools
k is a fool

i also mentioned Lawrence Gonzales book "Deep Survival" a wise man
it doesn't matter if chris had read larry's book or not as a former post mentioned he was intent on destruction

i wouldn't want to be the arbiter of adventure books and of course k can write whatever he chooses but i can have an opinion so save your breath your insults only make me want to write more

[Steve]

Sorry Maureen, I meant Jed and Tressa in my post - Oops! You've quite clearly stated your expertise and opinion - my bad.

[[deleted user]]

no problem
:)
i was just kinda wondering how i got lumped into that one

[Marty]

I thought the book was an interesting worthwhile read.

[Iris]

This is one of the few non-fiction books i've read. With the movie coming out my class read it. It was like a long article and although there were boring chapters the book was pretty well written. I mean since the start we know what will happen so he did a good job keeping our attention.

[Iris]

When I heard about it I was thinking we'd read about a crazy kid who went to Alaska and died. But when I read, I found out he lasted over two years. I am the exact opposite of Chris, I won't even camp in my backyard cause I'm such a city girl. Alex had a great education, a loving sister, loving parents even though they didn't really show it, and a bright future. I don't think he should have gone to Alaska and if he did, he should have been at least a little more prepared. He told Walt he was planning on returning and starting a family which was good but he still went to Alaska, his last big adventure. In the book, we really don't get to know Alex and what he thought we just saw him through the eyes of other people. According to them, he was a special kid, social, and smart, not just another crazy traveler.
I don't agree with what he did and how he left all these people. To me, he had a good heart and was a good person but selfish or very devoted to something not real(what I mean is living the life that transcendentalists wrote about and books like Call of the Wild where the writers didn't even go as far as Chris). He should have fixed things with his family. I am close to my family and they have done stupid mistakes and something about different families happened to my uncle by my mother forgave her brother. His children forgave her and I think Alex was just obsessive over this but at least he did it and went all the way. But what I'm most angry about is he didn't say goodbye to his sister and they were close. i have a brother and if he just left I wouldn't forgive him and regret not saying bye or anything if he never came back. Alex was just way to individualistic and maybe he just wanted to get away from it all. (Nowadays we have therapy but he had to go his own way). I'm not going to call him stupid even if I don't condone what he did because it seems he fully believed in it and almost lived.

[nicoleV]

i couldn't agree with you more, DIXIE DIAMOND. i was equally as unimpressed. definitely not inspiring or moving at all for me. very sad in that this kid who was supposed to be inspired by such greatness was just so foolish and died tragically because of it. i suppose that he documented any of it might make it a worthy story for some. for me, not so much.

[Anne]

"There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written."

This book happens to be badly written. End of story.

[Amy]

I go back and forth with Krakauer's writing - he's prone to flowery excess and (in my opinion) occasionally smug about his "literariness". There are times reading Into The Wild where Krakauer seemed not so far removed from his climbing bum past - and trying a bit too hard to prove his intellectuality. That being said, I always enjoy his writing (I too have delusions of grandeur clearly. ;-) I thought the movie was well done and touching as well and from a fictionalized perspective I enjoyed watching the tale.

The main problem that developed for me, and this has definitely changed my take on the book, is that Krakauer wasn't apparently telling the whole truth. Regardless of Chris McCandless' motivations, basic character, abilities etc., the story itself wasn't as clear-cut as it should have been. A documentary film called Call of the Wild was just made that found some major disparities between Krakauer's story and the facts of the case. Facts that alter any interpretation we as readers might make of Chris' journey. (here's the link to the film's website if you are interested - http://www.tifilms.com/wild/call_intr... )

As a book, Into The Wild is often riveting, and I especially enjoyed the inclusion of so much classic american nature writing. As far as being a work of non-fiction, apparently its NOT. As far as being a vehicle for Krakauer to explore themes of civilization, isolationism, adventure, youth and the exploration of the inner world via the outer, it was an enjoyable read. If you, like me, were interested in learning more about Alex Supertramp Chris McCandless, there's more out there. Ultimately, we will never know his deepest motivations, but I salute his willingness to push beyond his earliest socialization to experience a life completely different from what clearly was expected of him. Its sad that he didn't survive to be able to share his tale directly, but I can't say that I think it was selfishness that lead him to that end. Just a matter of youth and timing - had he survived, I've no doubt that he would have tempered as most of us do with age and perspective.

[Skiddin]

I am not quite finished this book but I love it. First, Krakauer is an awesome writer; he sentences are fluid and the vocabulary he uses is better prep for the GRE (or any other standarized exam that test quality vocabulary) than I've seen--and I've seen plenty. Second, I can completely relate to the disconnect between the lives we live in our head and then the reality that can shatter it. I'll never forget my first hike--I was propelled by a single thought--conqueoring the Wissahickon but in my daydreams I didnt account for my fear of bees, snakes and even my clumsiness. Sure, sometimes our passions can cost us our lives but it can also make us great and I think its people like McCandless who try but don't succeed that make us survivors more humble (and more prepared) than we otherwise would be. I respect McCandless effort to be better than what he saw in the world, to be fearful and do it anyway, to attempt to live his ideal and to have ideals, especially because it would have been easier to do otherwise.
I'll just respond to one more point made earlier-about him not being prepared. I don't think that was the point for him--I think he wanted to see what he was made of up against real-life challenges, the kind in which one doesn't get to totally prepare for. I think for him it was about truth and beauty and I learned from his story that these things give us some unexpected whispers

[Tressa]

Skiddin, it's good to hear from someone with a positive comment about this book. I also think Krakauer is a very good writer. Many of his passages border on the poetic, especially when he's describing something.

I agree with your opinion about Chris' preparation for his trip. Chris was smart enough to go overboard in preparing for his adventure, but he wanted to it as a minimalist. It's obvious that wasn't a wise thing to do, but he did it to see how far he could push himself.

[Skiddin]

Thanks Tressa! McCandless story made me feel and think about so many things. I've read some of the other post and I think whatever ppl's opinion, they feel strongly about them. Perhaps, everyone (albeit in different ways) trying to come to terms with death/mortality. Its especially painful when its someone so young but I am of the Braveheart mind that "all men(women) die but not all really live." McCandless last note was simple that he "lived a good life." I accept what he said. Maybe because the ppl who actually met him, including fam and friend from northern VA portrayed him as a hard-working and trustworthy individual. I learned from his story (i think a lot like him, I definitely tend to live in my head)and have decided to get some formal wilderness training before I do the long solo hike I was planning before I read the book. I guess I really enjoyed this book b/c i felt for the young man and it really made me ask myself some important questions. What is my reason for going into the wild? Adventure? Seeing is I can survive "off the fat of the land" (such as it is)? clear my head? strengthen my endurance? Just to see? I think my motivation willl/must dictate what/how I go into the wild.

The other questions are: If I had the same motivation/goals would I have done the sojourn the same way? Is mortality really limitations of our existence/actions based on our own limited or full understanding of whatever? How can I aquire understanding or expand it given how I learn? If one is "stupid" or "arrogant" or "naive" should one just stay in the house? or "deserves to die"? I think I am both resigned and energized (as in I better learn more and quickly) by the fact that I am limited by my own understandings at any given point in life. I know my ignorance has/can benefited me and has also cost me dearly. I guess I'll just keep hoping for the best.

[Jed]

Skiddin... you're lucky that psycho Maureen deleted herself from goodreads. She woulda been all over your comment... foaming at the mouth.

[Maria]

I have seen the movie and read the book and I think if you are going to delve into this story the book is the way to go. I found the metaphors and analogies of the movie corny an annoying.

[Maria]

I like your outlook on this one. I find myself struggling with how I feel about McCandless but I also felt that struggle in Into Thin Air. I guess in the end reckless abandon doesn't do it for me personally but is no less fascinating to read about.

[Tressa]

Jed, what great news. I had hesitated to even post here anymore because of her. I'm glad Skiddin was able to post her thoughts on Chris without getting mauled by bull dog Maureen.

[Chloe]

I personally disagree with you. It's definitely worth reading. And it's not exactly like Krakauer didn't point out he had faults; it's not like anybody is trying to worship him or anything of the sort. And do you remember how it mentioned in the book he donated 24,000 dollars to OXFAM. He only burnt some money that was in his pocket, it wasn't much at all. If you didn't like it, though, that's okay too. I found it kind of inspiring in some ways, and I think helped me be more compassionate to people. After all, we are only people...all of us have faults. But he also did something extraordinary; he followed his dreams. And I think that is definitley important.

P.S. If you are upset that people haven't written books about other people who went on adventures similar to Chris', you could do some research and write something about them.

[Taylor]

To adult this story might seem reckless and a radical choice to make. But christopher was far more brave then all of us commenting this page. He left not knowing where the hell he was going. Now a days most people need a plan. why? lifes not planned out? I think most adults forget what its like to free spirted and kid trying to find themselfs. And for all you saying that Penn made money off the story and did not care about christopher. He waited 7 years till the family was ready. How many of you wanted the same thing 7 years ago. Penn was passionate about the story. Christopher found the answers he was looking for. but was unable to tell the world. His answers, his story will forever he bound into the book "Into The Wild"

his journey ment something to someone. me. just a teenager

[Marv]

I think that the main problem with the book and with this thread is that people have vastly different ideas of what "bravery" and "courage" are. I understand people who see a certain nobility in Chris. I felt that way as well as I was reading the book, but I don't think that it was "brave" of him to go into the wildrness as woefully unprepared as he was. I think it was more about the arrogance of youth. He felt that he could handle any situation and then unfortunately paid the price for his ignorance. I think that when people have the idealistic notion "live off the land" they tend to forget that nature is not there to provide for us. Nature doesn't give a damn if we survive or not. I think a lot of people romanticize the idea of living with nature or else becoming "one" with nature. After all if the Native Americans could do it why can't we all? What we tend to forget is that Native Americans spent centuries and generations passing their knowledge to their children, who in turn passed it on to their own children. Chris's problem was not that he wanted to live off the land, it was that he felt that he was above learning any of that. Like I said, it is not "brave" to go into the Wild without a map. That, quite simply, is stupid. I would have a lot more respect for him if he had spent several years working with and learning from experienced outdoors people before embarking on his trip. I think a good contrast to this story is a show I watched on PBS about a man who seemed very much like Chris. Richard Proenneke moved to Alaska after he retired in the late 60's to essentially do the same thing Chris did. The difference is that he had extensive knowledge of how to live off the land and was able to live out there for many years.
As I said, I am all for self discovery, enlightenment and love of Nature and I would never tell somebody to not try to test themselves. At the same time I'm not going to try to kayak across lake Ontario if my only real experience is kayaking on a relatively small and quiet lake. I don't think that makes me a coward or less adventurous.

[Skiddin]

well, i dunno about that--your later statement I mean. At what point do we push our selves past our experiences so that we expand them? And I think there's a hug difference btw being a coward and being less adventurous than "the other guy/gal." Let's face it, some people are more adventurous/crazy/couragous/daring/impulsive than others. They are willing to get out there and try w/out a life jacket. Many of our heroes are just these types--from presidents to pilots. They get out there and they fly, sometimes fall, sometimes even die. Those of us that play it a bit more safely don't have to try to compete with them b/c when all is said and done we are the ones (usually) who put pen to paper and memoralized them. My feeling is that I am not a Chris McCandless. I am not an adventurer in that sense but I read his story and road his journey w/him a while and at the end of it felt more enriched for havin read/shared it.

[Marv]

Skiddin-
I understand what you are saying about my later statement. My point in bringing up the Kayaking wasn't to say that I was never going to try to cross Lake Ontario, but rather that I wouldn't attempt it now. I only started kayaking about a year ago and I realize that I am not ready physically or skill-wise to make such an attempt. I don't see this as not being adventurous, I see it as realizing that I need more knowledge before I try to do that. If I went out today and tried to do it I think that would be considered reckless, which is how I view McCandless. I think it's great that he wanted to test himself, I fault him for not doing the required "studying" before he embarked on it. The argument that he felt like he was ready doesn't hold water because there were numerous people who told him he wasn't ready, and these were people who had the experience understand that he wasn't ready. He just didn't want to listen to them.
Yes, we have to push ourselves and yes not everyone is as adventurous as "the next guy", but you don't become president without doing some time in local,state and sometimes federal government and you don't become a pilot without a lot of supervised instruction and training. In trying to escape from society, McCandless gave up everything in society including the knowledge that could have kept him alive.

[Skiddin]

Marv,

I think we are alike and both a bit heady:-) Your comments are good, solid. I just one to agitate two pieces--1. everyone doesn't want to be president and 2. isn't there a fine line between reckless and adventurous? And looking over the book, the people he respected didnt tell him he wasn't ready. As a matter of fact almost all of them seem to admire and even envy him a bit. Its the people who didnt actually meet him that commented otherwise. And one final note (not sure about the final part,LOL). I just saw again after so many years Ron Howard's movie BACKDRAFT. It underscored for me that some ppl think first and then think act (Williams Baldwin--who by the way also survived:-)and Kurt Russell who learned and operated by instinct and experience.For KR's character its exactly those pieces--instinct and his own experience--that made his genius.

[Kins]

Haha, I dunno. I liked it because I always fantasied about dropping everything and roughing it out in the wild. It seemed kind of nice to just get away from society and experience "realness" or whatever Chris was trying to find. I mean-everyone has wanted to "get away" at some point or another, right?

Then I read the book and was like "No."

But the whole point to the story is that right before he died, he highlighted some quote from a book he was reading. From that quote, the author realizes that finally Chris came to terms with the fact that humans can never be truly happy in less we have other people in our lives. So even though he thought he could be happy living off the land, and isolating himself from society (which causes most of our problems), he was ultimaley doomed because he didn't understand that we need people and a sense of community to truly be fulfilled.

Your not suppose to be impressed or even like the guy. I think your just suppose to feel sad that this kid, who had everything going for him, couldn't find the happiness and fulfillment he was looking for- a problem that everyone faces eventually. The only difference is that he thought he could find it by leaving everything behind. But by leaving all his problems behind, he also ended up leaving the things that actually made him happy, like his family and friends. There's also cruel irony in the fact that he when he finally understood his mistake, it was too late to leave.

Just a sad story about a boy who got in over his head trying to find his own road to happiness.

[Tressa]

My gosh. I haven't thought about this thread in three years. What a discussion, lol.

Good insight, Carly.

[Firstname]

Laurie wrote: "This book made me sad for many reasons. The young man obviously was experiencing (to me at least) psychological issues and on the borderline of a psychotic break perhaps. He makes poor decisions b..."

Really "spiritual" people are mentally ill? Explains a lot, akshully.

[Firstname]

Laurie wrote: "No, Firstname, all spiritual people are not mentally ill. Sorry you missed the point, try reading again."

No thanks, you didn't write it well enough to bother.

[Firstname]

Laurie wrote: "I'm sorry you are lonely and friendless and have nothing better to do than behave as a puerile adolescent here."

Oh, I am just cut to the bone! *eyeroll* Try harder.

[Mathieu]

Into the Wild
The picture and the summary on the front side of the book made the book attractive to me. The theme of the story seemed to be interesting to me too. I like adventure stories. Some of my friends had seen the film based on the book ‘Into the wild’. According to them the film was very attractive. That was another reason why I decided to choose this book for my assignment.
By reading the comments of other people who had read the book, I agree with some of them that the book contained too much details. Also the way of describing was not easy at all. For example, at each chapter, there were letters mentioned that were sent to McCandless which I didn’t find very clear.
But while further reading in the book, I could more and more understand the context.
The first half of the book, I couldn’t really enjoy it.
Some scenes were not in a chronological order and therefore some dramatic moments were narrated too early and took away the tension in the book.
A good example was when McCandless died. At the beginning of the story, in chapter two or three I think, the author had already placed a flashback.
The flashback told us the death of the main character. This is an element which could have captivated the attention of the reader at the end of the story.
Nevertheless, there were many exciting moments that thrill the reader. One of these moments was when McCandless didn’t know whether he had eaten the correct plants. I was anxious if he would die or not.
Although I sometimes had some difficulties to understand everything, I can confirm that I enjoyed the story of these adventurer Christopher McCandless !