How Chris McCandless Died: An Update

[BlackHatGuy]

From Krakauer

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/chris-mccandless-died-update

[Gary Dunckel]

Way to go, Doug.

[Bob Gross]

Very interesting. All of that tech-talk makes me giddy.

Remind me not to go foraging for wild plants at the next time that I'm up there on the Stampede Trail.

–B.G.–

[Bob Bankhead]

Persistence pays off ….. eventually.

[Buck Nelson]

Color me really, really skeptical.

This is AT LEAST Krakauer's FIFTH theory on what killed McCandless, all involving seeds of some kind. Every time one of his theories are debunked he comes up with another, which the New Yorker and others dutifully report as newly discovered facts.

Here's some history:

Evolving Theory: What Killed Chris McCandless?

1992 Fairbanks, Alaska, coroner’s report: Probable starvation

1993 Outside magazine: Mistakenly ate poisonous seeds of the wild sweet pea (Hedysarum mackenzii) [Krakauer]

1997 “Into the Wild,” 1997 edition: Ate seeds of the wild potato (H. alpinum); early tests suggest they contain poisonous alkaloid swainsonine [Krakauer]

Mid-2000s University of Alaska, Fairbanks, chemist Tom Clausen concludes H. alpinum seeds do not contain swainsonine

2007 “Into the Wild,” 2007 edition: Ate H. alpinum seeds contaminated with Rhizoctonia leguminicola, a mold that produces swainsonine [Krakauer]

Late 2000s Clausen’s student grows mold on H. alpinum but finds no swainsonine or related alkaloids

2013 The New Yorker post: Ate seeds of the wild potato (H. alpinum), which contain neurotoxin β-ODAP [Krakauer]

And now this latest theory. (Also Krakauer.)

The Alaska Dispatch News' take on the latest Krakauer theory: Krakauer offers new theory on how McCandless died

The theory that hasn''t been debunked? McCandless didn't eat enough and starved to death.

[Bob Moulder]

The theory that hasn't been debunked? McCandless didn't eat enough and starved to death.

Nothing is ever that simple when Krakauer gets hold of it.

[Greg Mihalik]

nm

[Buck Nelson]

Thanks. Changed my post to reflect that it was The New Yorker.

[Jack M]

What I find more intriguing is the accompanying outrage by many that results from the book and following articles.

A fitting excerpt from Ken Ilgunas's short book (kenilgunas.com) The McCandless Mecca:

"There is something telling about Alaskans’ disgust with McCandless. It’s true that, because of McCandless, Alaskans have had to pay for costly rescues (and their disgust, in this regard, seems justifiable), but there’s more to their disgust than the mere waste of taxpayer dollars and the annoyance of having to deal with all these so-called idiots. It’s a disgust that’s too angry, too bitter, too borderline violent. There is something about McCandless’s story that challenges the locals’ identity, their self-image, their very “Alaskanness.”

Despite the popular perception of Alaska as virgin country inhabited by flat-stomached Jeremiah Johnsons who hunt animals on foot and live in sod-roofed log cabins, the real Alaska and the real Alaskan are actually quite ordinary: airport-sized Walmarts, vast grids of suburban sprawl, appalling obesity and all.

They are a people plagued with paradox. Alaskans pride themselves for their independence, yet 93 percent of the labor force hold full-time 9-to-5 jobs. They have fierce relationships with nature, yet two-thirds of them live in urban environments. They’re expert outdoorsmen and women, yet on most of their outdoor excursions they’re straddling some smelly motorized machine. They’re anti-government, yet Alaska receives the most federal funding per capita than all other states ($20,351.13 per resident, which is more than twice the national average, according to a 2010 New York Times article). They’re radically self-sufficient, yet they pay the lowest state and local tax rates in the nation largely because of revenue from the oil industry. And because Alaska has the highest turnover rate, most Alaskans are hardly Alaskan (only 38 percent having actually been born in the state). Born in the state or not, they consider Alaska “their” land—ardently guarding it from the federal government and meddling environmentalists who try to curb the state’s exploitative policies. Yet their “possession” of the state and all of its resources is arguable since their family roots in the state run, at the very most, a couple of generations deep (excepting, of course, the Native and Inuit populations, who, as it turns out, do not seem to be at all bothered by the whole McCandless dilemma and aren’t incredibly enthusiastic about industrial development).

Into the Wild works as a book because it is, by all standards, a tragedy. McCandless’s death was so fraught with symbolism, significance, and – in an abstract sort of way – sacrifice, that it was a work of literature even before Krakauer put it to page. It works as a tragedy because there is great meaning in the protagonist’s misfortune, a bright glitter of beauty in the black gloom of death. McCandless, when he went to live in that bus at the age of 24, was the epitome of youthful spontaneity and adventurousness and idealism, almost to the point of allegory. He died before he could go to grad school, before he could get a job, before he could buy a home, marry a pretty wife, remodel his basement, subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, and question if his quest for money and things lent his life as much meaning as the adventures he’d lived out as a younger man. The best tragedies – like Into the Wild – are actually quite un-tragic. If Romeo and Juliet hadn’t died in the name of love, they surely would have been subjected to the unforeseen unpleasantries of matrimony: pubic hairs left on bars of soap, spiteful toilet lid policy infractions, insufferable in-laws, etc. Instead, they died in a moment of extreme devotion and passion and belief—at the very height of human existence. Because they died before they could fall out of love, their death isn’t a tragedy; it’s a mercy.

When McCandless died, he, too, died with his idealism. His death was unfortunate – obviously – but it’s also a mercy that McCandless wouldn’t come back to civilization to be jaded by age, corrupted by money, and bothered by an enlarged prostate. And from his death, a symbol is born. As Romeo and Juliet are to love, Chris McCandless is to absolute freedom, to principled self-reliance, to uncompromised individuality, to chasing your dream with everything you’ve got, even at the risk of death.

Many people move to Alaska to reinvent themselves in a rugged landscape. Some might live in a dry cabin for a couple of years, but most will end up either leaving the state, seizing a well-paying job opportunity, or buying a home in Fairbanks or Anchorage so they can again savor the comforts and conveniences they’d momentarily done without. There’s nothing wrong with any of this, as comfort and security and domesticity seem to be human longings as natural as the desire to leave it all and take to the open road. Yet McCandless’s story pricks a sensitive nerve. Alaskans call McCandless stupid and suicidal and feel something close to hatred for him because he went into the wilderness unprepared. But they don’t really hate him because of his unpreparedness. (Who could hate anyone for being unprepared?) They hate him, rather, because he lived alone, off the grid, killed his moose, and almost made it out alive. They hate McCandless because his uncompromised nature reminds them of their compromised lives. Because he out-Alaskaned the Alaskans."

[M G]

Jack M…Nail hit on head with an enormously well written hammer. Great insight.

[Jerry Adams]

Yeah, upon further research the specific chemical was different, but Krakauer's basic story was the same, a poison that prevented metabolisis of food, not starvation.

I thought Krakauer's reaction was great – not defensiveness that someone was criticizing his theory but more research to find out what really happened.

Not that any of this makes any difference.

I like Krakauer's writing regardless.

[Ralph Burgess]

How did a poisonous chemical with an name so long end up in a NATURAL foodstuff?
All sounds suspicious to me.
I blame Monsanto.

Anyway, I'm off to make some hemlock tea, just like my paleolithic ancestors.

[Buck Nelson]

What anyone thinks about Alaskans, or McCandless, does nothing to change the cause of death. That's the subject of this thread I believe.

The Ilgunas quote paints with a very wide and cynical brush. Some Alaskans are environmentalists, some want to drill everything. Some families have lived here for generations, some just got here. Some think the State should run everything, some think the Feds should manage their own lands. Most Alaskans live in comfortable houses, some in remote villages, some in very remote cabins, largely living off the land. Some Alaskan's are fatsos, some are Olympians. Some Alaskans think McCandless was a fool, some think his adventure was admirable, likely most don't even know who he is.

There is a very widespread human need, not restricted to Alaskans, for people to want to feel superior to others. There's also a common human need to see things as we want to see them, regardless of facts to the contrary.

[Monte Masterson]

Very good post Jack M. I agree with M G, you're a top-notch writer. You totally captured the essence of the McCandless phenomenon. And you did it in a way that only an Alaskan could.

[Ralph Burgess]

"There is a very widespread human need, not restricted to Alaskans, for people to want to feel superior to others."

Now who's being cynical, Buck.
Nobody at BPL is ever motivated by a desire to feel superior, we're just a community of like-minded people sharing our love of the wilderness.

[Jack M]

Guys, I would like to clarify that that was not written by me, but by Ken Ilgunas. I would be happy to write like that as well.

C'mon Buck, we aren't going to claim thread drift now after all these years. :)

I don't think it paints a very broad brush. The stats are pretty hard. Most Alaskans live in urban environments, the vast majority didn't grow up there etc. The point he's trying to make is that most Alaskans are pretty much like everyone else (lower 48) contrary to what they'd like to believe. The history of white people in Alaska is full of rugged men who ventured out into the wilderness and cracked out a living in the rough landscape. I think many still like to believe that's the case. Hell, just look at the use of the word Outside (referring to land/people outside Alaska)when it's used in media publications. The fact of the matter is that many do still get worked up by this, as you can see on the comment boards and Craig Medred's consistent rebuttals. There may be an underlying issue here.

And Buck I am by no means calling you out. I think you've clearly proved yourself as an exception with your latest trip.

[BlackHatGuy]

That was rather unnecessary of me.

[BlackHatGuy]

That's an interesting excerpt Jack, thanks for sharing. The guy can certainly write. But I agree with Buck – he's painting Alaskans with a pretty broad brush for someone who didn't grow up there and didn't live there for long. I'm also not so sure that McCandless' family would agree, or perhaps McCandless himself, that his death was a mercy so he didn't have to rejoin civilization. A bit of hubris, I'd say.

Still, the guy can definitely write.

[Monte Masterson]

Thanks for setting me straight on that Jack. I was going to say, if you're not a professional writer, you certainly should be.

[Luke Schmidt]

"They hate McCandless because his uncompromised nature reminds them of their compromised lives. Because he out-Alaskaned the Alaskans."

That almost sounds like he won a contest. Let's do remember that McCandless died and the critics are still alive, maybe because they were smart enough to understand their limitations.

[David Thomas]

I liked the Ilgunas excerpt. Thanks, Jack M.

Yes, he can write. No, he doesn't capture all Alaskans in his piece. But I think he identifies something in the contemporary Alaskan psyche that is at once expansive, myopic, and a bit goofy.

Yes, we are, on average, more capable, outdoorsy, multi-disciplinary, and, well, studly, than the average Iowan. But also not nearly as much as we imagine. Someone like McChandless comes along – far more ambitious and far more foolishness than most and we have to decry his foolishness because we resent how ambitious his stunt was.

Over the years, the venomous response by Alaskans to this tragedy struck me as out of proportion to McChandless' hubris. I've seen it in other rural areas (Maine, NM, MT) with influxes of newcomers. And yet, in AK, "us" and "them" are separated by only 1-2 PFD checks (that $1000 of free money from the State each year). The VERY first line in the voter's phamplet isn't age, profession, political experience or certifications of the candidate. And it certainly isn't years of education. It's years of State residency.

People don't hate others for their unique traits so much as we judge others for traits we share with them. Alaska is largely a state full of newbies, hating on the newer newbies.

[Jerry Adams]

but you got to admire him a little. He went in with a bag of rice. It was almost bad luck that he just happened to eat some bean that caused him to not metabolize. Otherwise he would probably have survived. And also bad luck that he didn't make it out of there.

[James Couch]

Yes he can. But Krakauer is not objective, he indeed paints with a broad brush, and he does not do extensive research or fact checking, but he can write. People eat up the stuff.

[Jack M]

James- Don't you think that's painting Krakauer with a broad brush?

If you look at just this instance, of examining what killed McCandless, you can see that Krakauer has been researching this extensively for over 20 years now. In the latest scenario, the scientist said his theory wouldn't have much credibility without being peer reviewed. He spent the past year or so working towards that.

Some things may be out of touch (he's human after all), but in general I'd say he does a pretty good job.

[Bob Moulder]

his theory wouldn't have much credibility without being peer reviewed. He spent the past year or so working towards that.

Krakauer's obsession over this one minor point – the definitive, proximate cause of McCandless' final demise – has taken on the aura of an albatross chained to his ego. He could simply step out of the chain but he has chosen to labor away at it all these years with a dull hacksaw, still clinging tenaciously to, and undertaking great efforts to prove, the theory that if not for the poisonous seeds McCandless coulda/woulda/shoulda survived.

Having read the original article many years ago in Outside magazine, it seemed to me that McCandless was simply a loopy, kooky guy who got in way over his head and ended up starving to death. I had read enough in that original article to convince me not to read the book.

Interestingly, I recently stumbled across this documentary on TV (Discovery channel? – now on YouTube) and learned a little about his rather bizarre family situation. It went a long way toward explaining why he might have emerged a bit further on the loopy/kooky end of the spectrum and why he would want to escape and to thoroughly dissociate himself from that environment. Maybe there's a lot of this in the book, but I didn't read it.

I ended up feeling a lot more empathy and sympathy for McCandless than previously, in large part because when growing up I witnessed a much smaller version of this scenario with a childhood friend of mine whose mother was a prime Munchausen-by-proxy, raging hypochondriac nut job. My friend and his sisters didn't go to the extremes of McCandless, but they all had an understandably strong urge to escape and got as far away as possible at the first opportunity.

[Author]

Posts