book "into the wild"

Did anyone of you guys read it? What did you think of it? I'm interested how you perceive the main character (Alex/Chris). I've been kind of thorn and can't really decide if the guy was a total ignorant fool or just romantic adventurer. I'm leaning more towards the fool since he was totally unprepared and ignorant of surroundings. But than again it's easy to criticize people after the fact and deeds are done.

Matt

It's been a while since I read the book so bear with me if some of my recollections are a tad off.

Initially I was tempted to call him a romantic but the more I think about it the more I'm leaning towards fool.

He was a young man from a fairly well off family, out to make his mark on the world. He gave away most of his worldly goods and lived a lifestyle from which he'd been sheltered most of his life. He was a good worker when he needed cash, avoided substance abuse and had several halfway decent adventures.

He had "planned" his Alaska trip for several years but for all of his forethought outfitted himself with only marginal quality, discount store equipment and refused to accept any advise from those who had experience that might benefit him. With his education and obvious intelligence and all of the reading he had done on the subject I would have thought that he would better appreciate the neccessity of better quality gear for a solo expedition into the Alaskan interior. I got the impression that he never really thought that he couldn't procure more if things went badly for him. Same as when he abandoned his perfectly workable car in the desert.

I'm voting fool because everyone seemed to agree that he was very intelligent and well read and he should have been aware enough of what he was facing to make some smarter choices.

That's my $.02

Ed

Good points, and they highlight the fact that just because you're smart, doesn't necessarily make you intelligent. I have worked with a number of PhDs, all brilliant in their respective fields, but as far as basic common sense or street smarts, not one of them was capable of pouring [censored] out of a boot unless the instructions were printed on the heel.

I don't entirely agree with your assessment. To a certain extent, his decision to go into the Alaskan bush with only minimal, inexpensive equipment was apparently a conscious decision, not an oversight. I might disagree with it, but I can't really call it a "mistake" any more than Reinhold Meissner made a "mistake" climbing Mt. Everest without oxygen. I would be careful about labelling something a "mistake" just because I personally wouldn't do it.

However, having said that, I felt that McCandless was arrogant and hubristic - i.e. he thought he knew it all, and he had mostly contempt for local knowledge. He also didn't seem to act with a great deal of common sense.

For example, I can understand - maybe even sympathise - with his decision not to bring a map of the area. I think Krakauer hit the nail on the head here; the only way to simulate exploring an uncharted wilderness in this day and age is to leave the map at home. Others have explored uncharted territory before; why shouldn't he be able to do the same? But having left the map at home, the next logical step would be to develop your own - spend part of each day, at least, exploring the area to see what resources it had to offer. McCandless, as far as anyone can tell, was completely unaware of the cable-car crossing the river only 5 miles from his camp - even in his weakened condition, he could probably have crossed the river and hiked to safety. But in the several months he spent in the area, he apparently never attempted to do this.

If he learned from his mistakes at all, then he seems to have done so one mistake at a time. For example, if you camp in a flood plain and get washed out by a flash flood, one lesson you can learn is not to camp in a flood plain. Another lesson you can learn is to familiarise yourself with local hazards before you go adventuring there. McCandless seems the type who would have learned the former lesson but not the latter; ie he couldn't generalise his lessons learned to other, seemingly dissimilar, situations.

Another aspect of his character seemed to be that, every time he survived one of his foolhardy stunts, he interpreted that as proof of his superiority, rather than a warning signal. It's like someone who plays Russian Roulette once a month and, having survived three times, concludes that he's exceptionally skilled at Russian Roulette (or else that it's not as dangerous as most people make it out to be). For many people, such experiences would tell them they were living on borrowed time; for McCandless, it seems to have reinforced his conviction that he could improvise his way out of any situation.

I almost get a bit scared and worried when i read your thoughts on the life of McCandless, have you read the book at all?

First of all he was not a well adapded person, i meen he had problems mainly mental problems. i'm not exactly saying that he was mentaly ill but in a way i think he probably wasn't mentaly well. He was in a huge life crisis, a long one aswell several years.

I am sympathic to the story of his life, i can relate to what he was thinking or looking for. And in the end he did find something only it was too late, he realised he was in a dead end, what he really wanted was not solitude but friendship and love, a woman. Basicaly the one thing he was looking for the whole time was the love of a woman but he dident understand that untill he was dying.

We are all searching for something. Some of us give it up, some of us put our search on back burner, rest actively pursue our dream. People who pursue their dreams do it in two ways: safe or reckless. This guy was just reckless and he didn't know what he was looking for. I think that if he walked a globe around and not once get hurt, lost or put in danger he wouldn't be satisfied because it wouldn't be an adventure... On the other hand if he walked from NJ to NY and got hit by a truck, mauled by a bear and robbed than it would be a big accomplishment. I think he is what my psych professor referred to as narcissistic romantic... Craving for adventure that involves him as a main actor on the center stage, searching for something with dramatic accents such as pointless suffering by being unprepared. And I do understand him...

Matt