After reading Into the Wild I noticed that while I thought that the books story had been compelling and read-worthy, I discovered myself becoming less and less sympathetic to the Supertramp himself as the book went on. In fact, I had to remind myself multiple times throughout the reading that this was a true story and not just some imagined plot to make a book interesting. While perhaps fault can be attributed to the book for not making it more documentary like and for telling to story like a "story", I think my perception of McCandless' journey being like a fantasy lies in the fact that I think Chris was trying to live out a fantasy to begin with. (I actually really loved the book itself and I really enjoyed it).
Overall I had hard time relating to Chris, thoughat the same time I did understand his disposition. As a teenager (given Chris is a bit older than a teenager) I have also spent countless hours contemplating what the world is, what it should be, and my own place in it. I have often dreamed that an answer does exist out there and that my role merely lies in finding it. McCandless was clearly looking a "certain something" in life when he decided to go out into the wild, and while I can understand this, his complete rejection of society baffles me. I too disagree with many aspect of humanity, yet you cannot make the world better if you just run off by yourself into the woods. Chris seems really selfish when you look at it from this perspective. He didn't like his world and life so he merely ran away so he could enjoy himself. While he did donate his money to a good cause, he made no efforts to try and improve the faults he saw in the world. As for his journey, I honestly hold no opinion. He made his choice and while I would not have done the same as him, I believe that people are allowed to make their own choices about what they do (given that they make these decisions with a clear head).
There are many variations of response to the story of Chris McCandless both positive and negative. In a video by abc news they interview his family and Krakauer, review his life, and discuss. The video aired in 1997 only a few years after the whole story. Overall I felt as if the reporters were passing off McCandless' journey as some unfortunate accident done by some foolish young kid. And while I agree that he was being foolish, at the same time they write him off without trying to discuss or understand his journey. While most of this is just a documentary, the briefness of their talk revolving around the story really illustrates how this just exists as an "exciting" news opportunity.
I also came across a vlog of a man talking about his experience reading the book, since he found himself relating to McCandless' journey and desire for travel and the wild. He clearly states that Chris is in no way a hero or someone to look up to, even while he understands the longing for nature. I think that this kind of illustrates just how not-unique Chris' story actually is. Even Krakauer the author of Into the Wild had his own journey into nature. Chris just happened to be the one who received the most "buzz" about such journeys.
The third video I found and watched was a video on Chris' when he was younger. While the book does talk about his childhood, it emphasizes how Chris was a solitary but sociable person who impressed many people he met. This video on the other hand, portrays Chris as a person afraid of socializing with others and immature. His roommate in Emory describes him with much less enthusiasm and overall changed my views of McCandless as a person. While McCandless does often appear as a young and intelligent soul going out into the wild the challenge himself, the new more negative perspective of him really lessens the hype of his adventure.
There is a variety of opinions revolving around the actions that Chris took, yet for me, I continue to find myself neutral. People have the right to do what they wish even if we don't agree with them, but I suppose that my only qualm would be with his negative outlook on society and how he looked down on those who cling to our society. As a "privileged" human he has the opportunity to look at the faults that his lifestyle holds yet there are so many others striving to attain what he rejects. He hurts his family and those around them while still arrogantly believing that he is in the right, and he ultimately fails in his journey. (Assuming he was going to return and rejoin civilization). As I said before, I think he was looking for something. Whether he found that something or not, we won't know, but whats done is done and the world must go on.
You seem ultimately ambivalent around Chris' story, avoiding judgment especially in your 'what's done is done' conclusion. Krakauer both marks him as unique and perhaps damaged, but also notes he's simply one of many young men who have done similar risky things. As you've expressed in class, the rejection of family/society seems senseless and hurtful, and those are good grounds for the judgments you suggest here. Nicely written and linked to outside works.
ReplyDelete