He went from being an intelligent student with a wealthy family and potential place in law school (heavily supported by $25,000 in savings) to a hitchhiker living a nomadic and bold lifestyle, attempting to live his ultimate dream of isolation from society, completely cut off from his family and strong relationships in general. His name is Chris McCandless, and he was a real man who hitchhiked to the frigid wilderness of Alaska in 1992 and survived a total of 120 something days in total isolation. The facts surrounding his eerie death as well as his journals and interactions with various people inspired the nation to become invested in his story– including John Krakauer, who writes about it in the book Into the Wild. As you read on, you might find that the story of Chris McCandless is a redundant and familiar one– the book offers up other events where explorers had a similar dream in mind and went to dangerous, unusual extremes to achieve that. Delving into the actions taken by McCandless and other idealistic individuals determined to live successfully isolated away from society, the reader is able to form their own conclusions about what extremes some people can go to. Are their experiences tragic, or did they get what they deserved? Are they brave and bold, or just plain stupid?
Anyone who gives their all of their savings to charity, burns the rest of the money in their pocket, and isolate themselves from their families for years obviously has a reason for doing so. From the books he kept in the bus where he lived for 120 days on the Stampede Trail in Alaska to the ideas he expressed in his journals to the conversations people recalled having with him, it was obvious that Chris sought more from life than what he felt society offered. He took inspiration from Thoreau and other Transcendentalist writers that advocated for living life to the rawest and barest terms– relying on nature and self-sufficiency to live a fulfilling life. He was idealistic and determined to assimilate these ideas into his lifestyle. There are also underlying reasons for wanting to be so independent that deal with Chris’s relationship with his father. Chris’s parents had divorced when he was young and his father remarried, but also kept seeing his former wife. When Chris found this out later in life, he was crushed and obviously very affected. Nonetheless his family still cared for him and he rejected any form of help or support they tried to get him. Before the Stampede Trail, he had lived a nomadic kind of lifestyle for two years, working various jobs in different lo cations and never staying put. He hadn’t contacted them once in that entire time, and ironically, those he’d hitchhiked with or worked several months with would receive several postcards from him while his family remained in the dark about his location. Before Chris had left, they thought he was about to begin a new chapter of his life in law school. In two year’s time, they’ll be hearing about his dead body in an abandoned bus in the wilderness of Alaska. My anger towards the fact that Chris didn’t take his family’s emotions into consideration inhibits
Into the Wild mediamatters@WFHS
me from thinking that Chris didn’t get what he deserved. It wasn’t tragic. It was sad and unfortunate, but it was the result of ignorance to logic (for example, he didn’t bring any maps of Alaska with him and this helped contribute to his death), and ignorance to other people’s feelings. Although I find the ideas that Chris holds so adamantly appealing are things worth thinking about, the extent to which Chris expresses them gets annoying after a while– especially since there are examples of other adventurers Krakauer gives that follow the same pattern as him. Chris was young and intelligent and seemed to be wiser than many others of his age, but that didn’t conceal the fact that I found him many times over-dramatic, arrogant, and pretentious. Which brings me to the question that I still can’t answer for myself. Were his actions, or the actions of these bold explorers in general, as heroic and honorable as we make them out to be? For Chris, I’m split. I hate the fact that he cut himself off from his parents and relationships in general, and I hate the pretentious air that rose off of him through Krakauer’s depiction of him. At the same time, I respect his wholehearted dedication and initiation to live out the life he wanted.
Aside from what I feel about McCandless and what he did, I do have a more definite view on the book as a whole. Although Krakauer was a very informative and unbiased narrator, I feel that he spat out so many details that each chapter was a struggle to get through. Overall, I found a good portion of it dry and slow and long. I still think it’s worthwhile to read, however, because I liked that it made me think differently. If you can appreciate the overall theme, I would give it a shot. Bear in mind though, that you might find yourself frustrated with McCandless and ready for the story to pick up.
Media Matters @ WFHS 