dropzone, if you’re really this passionate about hating him, you should just read the book.
What you call romantic horseshit is part of what some of us like about the myths of America. . .individuals, sometimes foolish, following crazy dreams.
Krakauer draws parallels between McCandless and people like John Muir and Thoreau without stretching credulity at all. If you read the book agenda-free, I doubt you’d come away with such a hateful sounding opinion.
I did not expect your opinion to change, but I appreciate the fact that you went back and did a bit of research before making another blind assertion.
The curiousity and/or admiration for an individual who colors outside the lines is a common phenomenon. Many of us are drawn to stories of those who choose a road less traveled.
An irony that should not be lost on one who bucks popular trends and disparages a story nominated by the experts to be of artistic and social value.
So there, you cranky old man.
That’s about the third theory that Krakauer has put forth about why McCandless died due to a mistake anyone could have made. He is an apologist. Occam’s razor decided this a long time ago.
Have you read it?
He doesn’t come across like an apologist at all.
He made mistakes in his initial theory, sought out expert advice, and revised his earlier thoughts. His original Outside Magazine article was rather critical of McCandless (again, IIRC).
Read the article when it came out. Had no agenda at the time and McCandless came across as a moron. Have an agenda now because so many other people, most of whom wouldn’t last even as long as him, hold him up as some sort of hero.
Krakauer’s comparisons would probably fall flat for me. Thoreau both planned scrupulously and was “roughing it” in Emerson’s back yard. Muir was a country boy and very much knew what he was doing. And most of those “individuals, sometimes foolish, following crazy dreams,” either died in the process or came to their senses before they died. It is rightly called a myth because, for the most part, it didn’t turn out well.
As for Beaucarnea’s Ad Populum reference to the opinions of moviegoers and critics, I’ll just say that Mother Nature is a better judge of McCandless than they are, and she found him lacking.
A good, because it graphically describes and supports my contention that McCandless was starving to death from the moment he went into the woods, article can be found here.
I’ve read it, and read the Outside article when it came out, seen the movie. Krakauer keeps modifying his theory of why McCandless was “poisoned” when his previous theory gets proven false. Everything that McCandless wrote is consistent with a person starving to death, but Krakauer keeps insisting that he wa poisoned.
For every educated guess made about McCandless’ death, there are at least two other valid and foolish mistakes that contributed to his end: he discarded a map showing the river crossing, he failed to learn about the melting snow/swollen river in Fall, he possibly ingested the wrong food, he definitely took in too little nutrition as evidenced by his photo, he had inadequate clothing and supplies, etc. The fact that McCandless was soley responsible for his own demise has never been in contention. Both the armchair hiker and the die hard outdoorsman (and Boy Scout) are completely aware that if you venture outside of your comfort zone, myriad hazards can take you out regardless of the meticulousness of your preparation. There may be a few people who identify strongly with McCandless and would like to find that an honest mistake caused his death, but the investigation and speculation as to the nature of his death is no different than any inquest or autopsy of a suspicious death.
Those of us who find his story interesting have not disputed that McCandless caused his own end, and due to naive and careless decisions. Having recognized your complaints, are some of you purposely missing the point of examining McCandless’ life and unconventional choices?
What we are questioning is the morality and the motivation that drove McCandless’ quest: What caused Chris to reject a privileged upbringing? What caused Chris to divorce himself from a loving family?What attributes did Chris possess that moved his family to profess profound loyalty to his memory despite his rejection of their love? What caused Chris to find such immorality in the choices of his father when he clearly had no issue with the alternative lifestyle of the wandering tramps, the nudists, the hitchhikers, and the aimless campers that he shared space with? What caused Chris to scrap an elite education? What turn of personality caused a diverse collection of strangers to profess loyalty and affection for him even though Chris largely rejected human companionship? What was the nature of his quest, and what inspired him?
Some suggest that he was schizophrenic.
ETA: I’m not one of them. I’ve known too many perfectly sane but hopelessly naive and idealistic people to go for it.
A very high functioning and charismatic schizophrenic- I’ll buy that. That was my first guess from Krakauer’s initial article, and reinforced by the book.
If that could be proven true, one might say that McCandless’ experiences demonstrate that mental and emotional illness can handicap some relationships while enhancing others. There are a few illnesses that have beneficial symptoms: male pseudohermaphroditism (physical beauty), synesthesia (creativity), several in the savant category… it would be a bonus if we found a connection between McCandless’ peculiar habits and his intelligence or in his ability to foster affection and trust in strangers.
ETA: missed your ETA. I’m not convinced that McCandless had some version of schizophrenia either, but I have encountered a handful of gifted people who reject norms for reasons of either handicap or choice. Would be nice to find a positive message in McCandless’ sad end- though not entirely necessary for me to find his journey worth examining.
Yes, you make an interesting point.
Hippocritical?
John Zerzan, a well-known primitivist, has a website and flies around on airplanes to give talks.
Among other things, he thinks language was a bad idea, let alone agriculture, writing, and technology.
He has a point. Look at how the world has gone to pot since those things were invented. Back in the day when all we had for physical culture were rocks with a couple chips taken out and (presumably) things that biodegraded while we used them and we only communicated with grunts we were prey. Now we have everything we need to be top predator and look at how we screwed up the world.
Okay, it’s not a good point, but it is a point.
See, what I don’t understand is this:
If we take out the obviously bullshit “miracles”, what exactly did Jesus do that was so much different than this kid, besides actually surviving his trip into the desert? ('course Alex made actual trips into the desert that he did survive before his fatal metaphorical one). He went around preaching the power of poverty and altruism. He inspired some people along the way.
Now, no doubt, Jesus and say Buddha were more successful, but what Alex did is what high strung intelligent and spiritual people have been doing since the dawn of history. Testing, battering and denying yourself to achieve an enlightened mental state.
And yeah I know Buddha rejected the battering, he’s still supposed to have tried it.