Into the Wild

[Worth Donaldson]

I am not sure if fishing would have made a difference. Subsisting on too lean of meat can result in rabbit starvation!

[Dwn Ptrl]

To repeat many here, read the book.

And for what it's worth, I found the soundtrack to be powerful. A few of Vedder's tracks hit me like a stun gun: " Guaranteed" especially.

I've read a lot about the McCandless story since reading the book last fall, and in considering the discussions his story has generated, I think it's foolish to say he died in vain.

Again, read the book. If anything, I'd encourage you to appreciate his passion and spirit…

[Joe Clement]

Everyone acts like people were ok in the wild before modern times. People may have known more about how to survive and live off the land, but the wild still exacted a major toll in terms of loss of life. People dying was the norm.

Having said that, I read the book, won't watch the movie. The most polite thing I could say about the whole situation is (as someone who has always had to fight and earn everything they had achieved) I can't relate. I can romanticize a lot of things, but not this.

[Brian UL]

Joe,
I completly agree with you. Not only did you need a lot of knowlege and experience to live off the land but, it was a lot of hard work! Sometimes in vain. And one would not want to do it alone! Its hard enough as a village.
It is easy to romaticize the hunter/gatherer but when he dreams he dreams of sleeping in a heated house with running water.
Lets not forget that backpacking is the ancestor not of the hunter/gatherer but of 18th century nature tourism and the picnic. And thats not a bad thing, we should appreciate our luck.
We just need to find that balance between civilization and living close to the land.

[Dylan Taylor]

mccandless follows in the steps of so many remarkable americans starting from thoreau, who retreated from society to embrace the wild (see walden), and emerson, to whitman who, like chris, sought authenticity in everyday people and simple life. (see leaves of grass).

his is like john muir who, by todays standards, did crazy things like walk into the sierras alone with only a loaf of bread and scaled peaks without protection (or a windshirt).

he is like, perhaps more than anyone else, jack kerouac who travelled across the country in search of authenticity and identity– leaving the east coast in search of the "wild" west coast. he is like him in that he too worked seasonal jobs to fund his experiences; he too hopped trains, stayed in shelters, slept outside in sandy washes, shrugged off permits, went hungry, made friends from all different ilks and backgrounds and who, when he moved on, left an indelible mark in the minds and lives of those he met.

what a great legacy, to have artists like krakauer, vedder, penn and many others, tell your story. i mean, there is no such thing as a true history– history is a retelling of facts from a certain perspective. part of that process is that the teller imbues the facts with some hue from their own life. is the movie, or the book for that matter, a completely accurate version of chris' life? no, but then no history, biography, or (especially) autobiography is.

chris made some serious errors because he was, after all, a rookie mountaineer. the most serious being his failure to cross the run-off laden river when he initally tried to leave. he didnt know that when you come to a river of that magnitude, you can spend an entire day trying to find a route across it. thats basic knowledge.

supertramp is someone to admire for the simple reason that he lived his life on his own terms and ultimately died for those deeply felt personal values. how many people can say that? too few, in my opinion, in our so-called "free" society. he lived the life of an artist who died for his artistic principles. he could of died in that sandy wash; in the sea of cortez by the sudden storm; on the PCT– his legacy would still be the same. on the other hand, he could of died jumping a train, being stabbed at a shelter over a couple of dollars, or suffocating in those grain silos from carbon dioxide in s dakota– would his legacy be the same? i dont think so.

at this point, the idea of chris is so much more than his life ever was (at least to people who didnt know him; not like his family or friends–to them, he is still their baby boy, their son, brother, friend, etc., in addition to being an icon). we see him now as another true american who has followed in the steps of so many great americans.

his life should be celebrated. whether it be in film or text. is the movie romanticized? of course! but is it good? yes! the movie focuses solely on the story of chris, rather than the hybrid chris/ krakauer story you get in the book. but they are both great.

salud, chris!

[John Carter]

Okay, so this thread convinced me to read Into the Wild, and I'm about half way through now. I've revised some of my thoughts:

First, Brian, well put. Living of the land was, and always has been, very hard work. You can choose to work hard in an office cubicle or choose to work hard foraging. In many ways the modern office worker has more freedoms; the forager must forage, must remain in peak physical shape, etc. The office worker gets money, which is infinitely more flexible; you can pay people to farm for you, to make your clothes, to pay for your healthcare and disability (aka to extend your life beyond your natural limit). If anything, Into the Wild has given me an appreciation for the value of civilization, kind of the opposite effect I was expecting from this book.

Sure, the subsistance forager is out in naure and answers to no boss, but I think one of the Alaskan hunters in the book put it well. He said something to the effect that many people come to Alaska looking to find something, solve heir problems, but mostly they just discover impassable rivers, clouds of mosquitos, and freezing cold. In the DVD Walking the West sold on this website, the narrator makes the statement that when you ask most thru-hikers what they think about on the trail, they think about food. Warm, fresh, civilization food. At each town rest area thru-hikers get to make up for their calorie losses. Those truly living off the land never get to escape the real world of foraging and hunting for long hours–sometimes starving–to find a meal.

The other thing I couldn't help think about was the obvious paradox between his philosophy and lifestyle. He despised American capitalism, yet still managed to survive off the backs of capitalist success. He hitchhiked all over the country–by people making an honest living in the capitalist society he lived in. He hitchhiked on trains–carrying cargo funded by a capitalist society. He occasionally landed a temporary job–and was paid by a free market employer. It's one thing to dislike certain aspects of capitalism, or to believe in a mixed government (free market + government intervention) or even a socialist governement, but to completely disavow capitalism and then survive off the backs of working Americans strikes me as a startling oxymoron, and makes his philosophies unsustainably self-centered.

That said, several people said that when he did work, he was a reliable, hard worker, so I don't think that was an issue. And he never liked receiving gifts from others, often returning items when people were not aware of it. So he was certainly aware that his philosophy required him to 'go it alone.' I was just struck by how often he still relied on modern civilization to pursue his wanderings.

[Chris Jones]

"I am not sure if fishing would have made a difference. Subsisting on too lean of meat can result in rabbit starvation!"

True. But fish can be pretty fatty, especially salmon. That's why the bears dig it so much…

[EndoftheTrail]

I saw the movie a month ago — flying British Airways to the Middle East. Some random thoughts:

1. Humans are not meant to live alone, esp. in the harshest environments. Even the hardiest Neanderthals banded together and survived together. Much more efficient that way (e.g. hunting and then curing and sharing big game, etc.). No matter how willing and hardy, the kid's chance of surviving alone is that much more diminished by virtue of growing up in modern 21st century.

2. The kid most likely avoided detailed maps wherever he went, viewing them as encumbrances of modern society — perhaps similar to his avoidance of carrying money "just in case".

3. Most all of us are part of a family or another, which expands outward to our neighborhood, our town, our society. Striking a balance between the individual and the family/community is always tricky. It's one thing to celebrate the kid's singular sense of purpose — but on the other hand, I just can't help feeling for his parents. I haven't read the book, but in the movie, they seemed to have aged 20 years — not knowing about their son's whereabouts, and worried sick over him! That part was painful to watch.

[steven rarey]

I read the book and saw most of the movie. I too disliked the character more after seeing the movie than the empathy and 'kimdred heart' I fealt for him from the book. I guess seeing the tangible interaction took the mystery and romance out of the character.

But am I am the only one who sees the hypocracy in foresaking a 6 dollar map in the name of living in the wild to then shack up in an abandoned bus a few miles off a road?

I can get more wild than that 30 minutes from my front door.

[stephen jennings]

I just saw the movie after hearing all the hype around it. The biggest impression I took away from it was that He was the most selfish S.O.B I've heard about in a long time.
Would it have affected his aimless wanderings that much to write to, at the very least, his sister that He was still alive every couple of months or so. That lack of caring for others feelings borders on the sociopathic.
I left home at 19 from a "fubar" home life, (the polite word would be dysfunctional,) hitchhiking around the world for a year and a half finally winding up in Australia. I still called home once and a while.
As for his prowess at survival, I'd attribute it more to dumb luck than any skill on his part. If he had read more Tom Brown and less Thoreau, He'd still be here. Cause of death; Grossly inflated ego.

[Martin Rye]

The deceased can not speak from the grave to answer their critics. Give Christopher Johnson McCandless memory a break. Yes discuss any lessons in survival and decisions he made, but why judge his character.

[mike walker]

If he was testing himself he found his match, the Alaskan bush.

[Ryan Teale]

I may be able to answer the question about fishing. I was just in Denali and was told that glacier fed rivers originating in the mountains do not contain fish because of the high silt levels. The rivers cannot support fish until much further downstream when the silt settles out and clear water tributaries join and mix. This was the explanation given for the smaller size of the Grizzly bears in Denali compared to the coastal Brown Bears. McCandell was just outside of the Denali NP boundary so the river near where McCandless died may not have contained many fish.

[Roman Ryder]

If you're a Pearl Jam fan, it's definitely worth checking out. Eddie Vedder did a great job!

[John S.]

An interesting documentary (The Call of the Wild) was being made at the same time that Penn was filming his movie.

http://www.tifilms.com/wild/call_intro.htm

[Greg Mihalik]

From a recent post on Roman Dial's Blog …

Apparently McCandless inadvertently paralyzed himself by eating toxic seeds –

– towards the end of the article:

"… the poison had rendered him too weak to move about, to hunt or forage, and, toward the end, “extremely weak,” “too weak to walk out,” and, having “much trouble just to stand up.” He wasn’t truly starving in the most technical sense of that condition. He’d simply become slowly paralyzed. And it wasn’t arrogance that had killed him, it was ignorance."

I appreciate this conclusion, as opposed to the endless conjecture.

[Tim Zen]

Another read is "Back to the wild". A collection of cards, letters and photos.

Not to mention the website.

[Miles Barger]

As someone who's spent a bit of time in Denali, this has always confused me.

I can understand not having a detailed understanding of the area. But not knowing that the Alaska Range is south, and there's a road north of that that runs through the park with continuous bus service to pick you up and quickly have you to the park entrance with all the civilization you'd need… Well, that confuses me.

Granted, it's not the easiest 20-ish miles going south from the bus to the road — there's some pretty decent brush and you've got to scoot over the little ridge north of the Tek — but not much of a trek in a life-or-death situation. Harder if you were chronically ill, but still possible long before total immobility. I'm inclined to believe he just had no idea.

I read that paper posted on Roman's blog. Very interesting and plausible.

[Bob Gross]

Miles, the phrase is lack of situational awareness.

–B.G.–

[M B]

McCandless thrived on the danger and uncertainty of having nothing to fallback on but himself.

This is why he had to give away his money first, break connections with family, take on a new identity, get rid of the car, etc.

Lack of knowledge of his surroundings was integral to his attempt to survive in the wild.

He succeeded very well on this point, not so much on many others.

Emboldened by some earlier success at self-sufficiency, he simply "bit off more than he could chew". His alaska escapade borders on ridiculous, a rendition that might be expected from a crack-head, not a college graduate.

[Desert Dweller]

As a parent I felt deeply for his family. As for "biting off more than he could chew" that sums it up very well. As a person who did nearly the same thing in my youth (selling all and leaving civilization), and being homeless for four years myself I'm glad I made better decisions on my walkabout. Like keeping in touch with family. I can remember a time when I was sick and had no money, I was lucky to get over it without a doctors help. I also got giardiasis during that time and recovered without medicine but nearly ended up a skeleton.
Many of us here by virtue of being adventurous have taken risks, but thankfully with age and responsibility to others we quit going so far out on limbs….there are much more fun things to do.

And yes I agree, his actions were very selfish. With a very sad result. A lesson for other youngsters who might be tempted to go "wild".

[Ian]

As mentioned a few years ago on this thread, it's certainly worth the time to read the book and watch the movie.

After watching the movie, I was left with the opinion that he was a spoiled trustafarian with daddy issues. I was more on board with what he was trying to do after reading the book. I'm pretty fortunate to have survived my youth so it'd be pretty out of line for me to criticize his decisions.

[Sara Marchetti]

"And I have a bone to pick with Guns,Germs and Steel
it gives a "Forest Gump" view of history."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with making science understandable to the masses. More science should do this. That is what Alan Alda is all about. I like how Diamond tells you when a view is controversial and goes on to state his interpretation of the data. Good stuff!

[David Thomas]

>"There is absolutely nothing wrong with making science understandable to the masses. "

+1

If you want a popular book with too many footnotes and references, read Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

If you want a book without many footnote or references, just rapid-fire, thought-provoking ideas on every other page, read his "The Third Chimpanzee" in which the seeds of his future books are introduced but not fleshed out in great detail.

Guns, Germs and Steel, for me, was in that sweet spot of being well argued and with sufficient but not a tedious amount of background for the general reader. Academics need more, sure, but they should be able to search out the relevant journal articles on their own.

[Sara Marchetti]

Collapse was a great read!

Two other books i've enjoyed that do a great job of explaining complex science are:

The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel by Michio Kaku

None of these are books I would normally read, but I cannot pass up a book that explains difficult concepts in lay yet interesting ways.

[Author]

Posts