Krakauer's haunting tale detailing Chris McCandless's odyssey across the continental United States and ultimately to Alaska is not only a great story, but it also a wonderful exemplar of narrative technique.Rife with historical, literary, and cultural allusions, as well as Krakauer's anecdotes chronicling the investigation into McCandless's life and death and the self reflection it inspired, Into the Wild is an evocative look at the adventurous, ambitious, and idealistic spirit that is unique to the American identity.
Krakauer notes in the Author's Note preceding the novel that reader response to the the initial article, published in Outside Magazine, was "sharply divergent": "Some readers admired the boy immensely for his courage and noble ideals; others fulminated that he was a reckless idiot, a wacko, a narcissist who perished out of arrogance and stupidity [...]."
Your task: What do you think? As a group, create a threaded discussion evaluating Chris McCandless as an iconic figure, or John Krakauer--his storyteller-- as a writer.
Rather than post isolated responses, react to your classmates' observations, questions, and conclusions with your own. Feel free to expand the current discussion or change its direction.
Each student should post twice (not consecutively, please).
-2 posts per student
-50-75 words per post (yes, that's all you get)
-Make reference to specific scenes from the text
-OK to support and expand -or- respectfully refute classmate's points
-Is the discussion getting redundant? Change its direction!
88 comments:
Chris McCandless was many things - determined, smart, and philosophical, but also overconfident and arrogant in his own way. Most importantly Chris was addicted to an idealism that was wrong from the ground up. This idealism was one of supposed freedom from society and living out on the road; of course, society built the roads and supports the people that he uses as a crutch while trying to survive on the road. His death ends up invalidating his entire philosophy - he can’t actually live on his own.
I agree with Skywalker’s comment that Chris McCandless cannot live on his own, as was evidenced by his death. Additionally, John Krakauer, through his writing, indirectly exposes his admiration of Chris within the novel. Krakauer reveals his theory that a distinct mold killed McCandless. If Krakauer were not so deeply fascinated and inspired by Chris, he would not have attempted to decipher the cause of his death. Ergo, Krakauer epitomizes McCandless as an iconic figure.
I agree with the points made by both Jason and Skywalker. My initial reaction from the story was that Chris McCandless was so overcome by cynicism for society that he showed arrogance which lead to his death. However I also feel that Krakaur revealed this idea through the point of view that society is what lead to the death of McCandless.
I agree with Sophie’s comment that McCandless was arrogant towards society's cynicism. Jon Krakauer’s method of telling Chris McCandless’s ambitious journey depicts him as someone worthy of praise, not as someone who was plainly ignorant and failed. Even though McCandless did end up dying due to his own actions, his confidence and unique mindset are clearly what Krakauer meant to highlight about McCandless, therefore portraying him as an iconic figure.
I agree with Jason that the book reveals Krakauer's view of McCandless as an iconic figure. This point of view stemmed from an understanding of how McCandless thought. McCandless was fully aware of the danger posed by his "Alaskan Odyssey" but, as was evidenced by his final postcards, was unconcerned by the prospect of death. McCandless' adventure was the ultimate test and he was fully aware it had the possibility to fail. Krakauer's apparent understanding of Chris' acceptance of this fact is what resulted in his positive literary portrayal of him.
I agree with Jason that in the novel, McCandless is portrayed as an iconic figure. He was determined and stubborn to achieve his dream of living in the wild and he wasn’t fazed by what society thought of him. He was willing to go against the odds even though he knew it could lead to his death. Some people would call this ignorance, but I think it reveals how strong-willed of a character McCandless was, and therefore is an iconic figure.
McCandless was not an iconic figure. McCandless was reckless, selfish, and he did not think about the future. Iconic figures think about others before themselves, and they plan ahead, neither of which McCandless did. When heading to Alaska, he did not tell his family where he was going; he threw out his map and brought limited supplies. He did not think of the dangers of being in the wild, which ultimately led to his death.
Though Christina’s argument has merit, it is important to remember that Krakauer’s purpose in writing the novel is not to make the reader fall in love with Chris. Contrarily, Krakauer’s goal is to clarify that Chris, a well-educated Emory dropout, chose to embark on his Alaskan journey. Krakauer’s key message to the reader is that life is full of options. McCandless chose to live life to its utmost potential; thus, Chris exemplifies an iconic figure.
I agree with Caitlin's comment that Chris McCandless was portrayed as an iconic figure to John Krakauer. If John didn't feel this way, he wouldn't have written a novel, newspaper articles and gone to Alaska himself to experience the way Chris felt. Personally, I admire McCandless's complusion for freedom and his overbearing confidence to think he could survive on his own. I also agree with Sophie when she says that Chris was trying to escape society and civilization. He was yearning to be a part of the wild and felt he never belonged with people.
It could be debated as to whether or not McCandless was an iconic figure or not. Yes, I agree with Christina in the sense that he was reckless and to a degree, selfish. McCandless' pursuit and desire to accomplish his Alaskan journey is something that is truly remarkable and his dedication should not be forgotten due to his death in the wild.
I agree with both Caitlin and Jenna’s comment that Chris McCandless was portrayed as an iconic figure to John Krakauer. This is shown beyond doubt throughout Krakauer’s novel when he connects his own thoughts and family life with McCandless’. Although Chris wanted to break free from the skepticism of civilization, I praise him for living in the wild and for wanting and creating his own refuge in the outside world without modern technology. I agree with Christina to a certain extent, Chris was reckless by failing to have enough supplies to survive and telling his family his whereabouts. Chris was depicted as an iconic figure in my eyes because of his determination and aspiration.
I agree that Chris McCandles was depicted as an iconic figure by Krakauer. Chris made a variety of vital mistakes during his travels but he persisted and was determined to do anything to live life to the fullest. Chris’ intermittent contact with society gave him multiple opportunities to turn back and give up on his journey but Chris was stubborn and always would turn back to the wild as his only friend. This is exemplified when Ronald Franz offered to adopt Chris, this offer was denied as expected. This mindset alone allows Chris McCandles to be viewed as an iconic figure.
In agreeing with Jason, I don’t think Krakauer wrote Into the Wild to make the reader fall in love with McCandless, but I think Krakauer himself saw McCandless as an iconic figure. Throughout the novel, one can tell that Krakauer looked up to McCandless when he relates his past experiences in climbing with McCandless' journey into the wild. This leads me to think that the way Krakauer wrote this novel influenced me into perceiving McCandless as an iconic figure.
I agree with Noemie that Kraukauer attempted to persuade his readers that McCandless was an iconic figure. Despite Kraukauer's depiction, I do not personally view McCandless as an iconic figure. I believe McCandless' confidence and will were admirable, but his lack of consideration of those who loved him throughout his life displayed his recklessness and inability to realize the repercussions his disappearance had for his family. This carelessness is why I do not view McCandless as an iconic figure.
After reading the novel I researched other readers thoughts and many of the readers were deeply inspired by McCandless' actions and followed through by making a journey of their own. Why would these people ignore the fact that he died due to starvation at the end? Because to them, McCandless' actions make him an iconic figure. Even though I don't believe he is one.
I agree with James’s first comment that McCandless was reckless, but his determination to achieve his goal is admirable. Krakauer relays the idea of not judging according to final results, but on McCandless’s efforts and dedication. Though I recognize that McCandless abandoned his past life almost completely and was inadequately supplied, I disagree with Cate, because McCandless knew very well that he would leave his family and that it would be hard on them. He just had abstract values in life.
I could not agree more with the latter comment Jason made. Krakauer makes his point through his epic writing that McCandless was not so much a "wacko" as expressed in some readers opinions, however that he was a bright man on a mission. To say he is iconic, however, is an extreme extension of Krakauer's depiction. Krakauer's keen opinion on Chris is evident through his storytelling. Yet ultimately,it was McCandless' hubris that lead to his own demise
I agree with Jason that Krakauer's motive in writing the novel was not to pressure the reader into falling in love with Chris. Furthermore Krakauer related back to Chris' lifestyle and perhaps did not agree with some of Chris' choices, but admired him for his outlook on life. Although Chris made a few impulsive decisions and did not think about the supplies he will need to survive, he did know what he was doing when he essentially abandoned his family and education for the wild. Regardless of his imprudent notions, he is commendable.
I agree with Mackenzie and Veronica in the sense that McCandless's actions were iconic. Whether they were honorable or not is debatable, but the point is that he set out on an endeavor that set him apart from everyone else because he felt suffocated by society. I think although Krakaur obviously was fascinated by McCandless and portrayed the story well, his writing was not the reason that Chris came off as iconic.
I agree with Sophie and James when they say that Chris McCandeless' actions were iconic. When I further thought about how John Krakauer portrayed Chris, I now believe that Chris was not supposed to be looked as iconic. Some of his actions like being able to live on his own and provide himself food for as long as he did, to me, are admirable. But, the fact that he completley isolated himself from not only society, but his own family that loved him, is not iconic or honorable. I think John just wanted to share Chris's integrity and show how much he clashed with society.
I agree with Christina and James. Although Krakauer portrays McCandless as an iconic character, I do not think he should be idolized. His actions were relentless and thoughtless such refusing to prepare proper supplies for his journey in the wild. Even when McCandless was offered free supplies from a truck driver, he was reluctant to taking the supplies. These actions resulted in his death. McCandless should not be viewed as an iconic figure because his actions were rash and in the end he failed and was not able to make it out of the wild alive.
I disagree with Lauren, though her point is valid. I understand how some take McCandles to be an irresponsible and stubborn individual because he is. These qualities being revealed further when McCandles is reluctant to take the materials offered to him by the generous truck driver. I believe these qualities were given to McCandles by Krakauer in order to form the idea that McCandles was self sufficient. Being self sufficient is a feature looked up to in a person, at least in my point of view; thus, proving that McCandles is an iconic figure and should be idolized for his brave attempt to conquer the wild.
By the end of the novel, the reader feels sorrow,even sympathy for McCandless and his untimely death. However, it is debatable whether this emotion was provoked by McCandless himself, or Krakauer's writing and portrayal. In my opinion, Krakauer did an expert job at informing the reader of the hypothesis of Chris's cause of death. However he also provides his own insight on he mold theory, thus leaving the reader intrigued by Krakauer's writing more than McCandless as an iconic character.
I believe that Chris McCandless is an iconic character because of what he stands for. His journey portrays his determination and indpendence which are good traits to have in any person. I agree with the early comments though that his death disproves his theory that man can live on his own, but the more important part is his journey and what it stands for.
I agree with Aaron that Chris McCandless is in fact an iconic figure because of what he symbolizes. Chris, along with his journey, symbolizes what so many people in the world do not get to experience, to be free. Yes, in the USA we are all considered to be free, however not many of us are free from modern technology or the stresses of everyday life. Chris had the courage to be independent from the unnecessary aspects of modern life and in fact be free. I believe this makes him an iconic figure.
I feel that John Krakauer did an amazing job with this book. He not only told the story but he did it with great amounts of feeling. I agree wit Jason that through his writing he was able to show his admiration of Chris. Krakauer understood what Chris was feeling throughout his life and through this book Krakauer was able to show his emapthy for Chris McCandless.
I agree with Noemie's comment that Chris McCandless was an iconic figure. Although he made poor choices he continued to do what he needed to do. McCandless was aware of the things that could go wrong during his journey into the wild, but despite these dangers he persisted to live his life the way he wanted to live it, no matter the consequences.
I disagree with Lauren because even though McCandless was extremely unprepared, he was very determined in what he had to do and that is something that people should look up to in a person. Although he was hesitant to take the supplies from the truck driver, he wanted to prove to himself that he could do this on his own, and that is very admirable.
After reading the comments, I see that some of the actions completed by McCandless can make him seem like an iconic figure. I agree that Krakauer’s writing was biased because he was fascinated with McCandless’ story and that McCandless was a hero to him. I still feel that if McCandless treated his family with more care before he left for Alaska, he would be admired much more than he is to some people.
I agree with Lea that Chris McCandless is an iconic figure because, along with his journey, he symbolizes what so many people in the world do not get to experience, to be free. McCandless was viewed by some people as an ignorant, unprepared man who was way over his head. I agree that he was not properly prepared or educated for the journey but he was just going after his dreams and following his instincts to fulfill his meaning to life.
I disagree with Christina’s statement that, “Iconic figures think about others before themselves, and they plan ahead...” I do not believe that the definition of iconic figure is so one-dimensional. In my opinion, an iconic figure is someone who stands for an ideal that he/she truly believes in and is a symbol to others who share that belief. As reinforced by James’s post, in this regard McCandless is certainly an iconic figure.
I agree with Jason that John Krakauer reveals his admiration for Chris through his writing. Krakauer takes great interest in discovering what actually happened to Chris and the journey he embarked on. As a writer, he tried connecting with McCandless to understand his intentions. I also agree with Jason that one of Krakauer’s messages was that life is full of options and that you should live your life the way you want. Chris wanted to break free of society and rules by going into the wild and surviving on his own.
I agree with Lea when she said that Chris McCandless symbolizes many people in the world that want to be free. Throughout the journey, many people thought McCandless was crazy for doing this but he showed that perseverance and the desire to be free can take someone far .Like Renee said, McCandless was going after his dream and wanted to obtain the meaning of life. He went through many obstacles and made many new friends through his journey that he wrote to whenever he had a chance.He is aniconic figure.
I agree with Noemi that in the novel McCandless was portrayed as an iconic figure. In the novel Krakauer talks about all other individuals with a similar dream as McCandless but always compares all other as lesser than McCandless, hence idolizing him. Due to the publicity of McCandless’s journey he has become an icon of this type of outdoor adventure into the unknown. I do agree with Aaron that McCandless is an iconic figure.
I agree with Renee's comment that John Krakauer took great interest in portraying Chris's desire to exile himself from society. I don't think that Krakauer's point was to iconilize Chris, but to help outsiders understand his journey to escape civilization. There was a lot of rumors and talk about McCandeless's decisions, some said he was reckless and immature. In a way, I agree with that, but I strongly believe that it's his own life and he can live it as he chooses. He was bold enough to endure his decision through a dangerous journey.
I believe that Anna is right when talking about Chris Mccandless in stating that he was bold. I also believe that Krakauer did encourage the readers to view Chris as an icon. Not because Krakauer agrees that everyone should separate themselves from society but because he believes a person should be able to do what they please and not care about what the rest of society thinks of their decisions.
I agree with Anna that, regardless of whether one agrees that McCandless's endeavor was reckless or irresponsible, it is admirable that he wholeheartedly did what he believed in. This is evidenced in the book when he writes in his journal, near the beginning of his time in the bus, that although he is desperately hungry, he has reached true happiness that he couldn't have achieved otherwise.
I feel that Chris McCandless’s arrogance was profound and I therefore disagree with Alexa’s assertion that Chris is admirable. His decision to live out his version of the ‘American dream’—roadtripping across the American continent on his parents’ dime—was irresponsible and lacking in reflection (burning his parents’ money; abandoning his car in the desert). Despite the extensive research he did into ‘living off the land,’ his decision to no properly prepare and attempt to make it on his own proved fatal: despite his thorough investigation, he ate the wrong seeds. This account proves that no matter what degree of instinct and ability to survive in the harsh environment of the wilderness the human animal has, he is bound to fall to ruin unless he has companions: the human being is a social animal, and ‘roughing it’ on his own is the wrong decision.
I disagree with Lauren’s thoughts. Chris knew of the dangers of his travels and he knew that he could have prepared more by going to someone for help in his quest to survive the wilderness. I don’t think that Chris was arrogant but I believe that he chose to go unprepared on his trip because he wasn’t afraid of death. He knew that it would be very easy for him to die on his journey but decided to go on because it was the way he wanted to live.
I agree with Kevin that McCandless wasn’t afraid of death; hence he decided to go somewhat unprepared. He constantly acknowledged the fact the he might die on his Alaskan adventure. But the fact that he was unprepared such as not having a map leads me think that he was a little arrogant. If he had a map he could of saved his life because he would have been able to pass over the river. Arrogance I believe was his tragic flaw.
I agree with Alexa that Chris was bold because he truly put his life on the line for the sake of adventure many times and the fact that most of the people that McCandless met said that they liked him (some of them going so far as to want to adopt him) speaks well for his personality. However in a way that is eerily like a Shakespearean tragic hero, Chris has a very distinct flaw which is that he hates all authority and this flaw ends up overwhelming all of McCandless's other strengths and leads to Chris's eventual demise.
Krakauer presents McCandless as an iconic figure, and I absolutely agree with him. In these posts, people are often writing about what he represented to Krakauer. I think the real importance of McCandless as an icon is in the readers eyes. Out of curiosity, I looked up the pictures he took, and in every one I saw, he looks undoubtably happy. I see him as an icon because he followed his dream without any hesitation.
I find it ridiculous that everyone honors Chris so much for following his dream. I think it should be a no-brainer to do what you want in life. The thing that is remarkable about this story to me is that Chris wanted to go spend his life living in the wilderness in Alaska. I can't speak for other people, but I want to remain in society, and that's why I am. If I didn't it would be a no-brainer for me to go live on my own or do whatever I wanted to do.
I agree with Alexa S. and Anna that McCandless’ arrogance, stubbornness, and selfishness are irrelevant when compared to his overall journey. Even though his “odyssey” resulted in his death, it was worth it because he achieved true happiness. Although he may be criticized for many unintelligent decisions, I believe that McCandless is portrayed as an iconic figure throughout the story because his journey demonstrates his passion and persistence.
I agree with Caitlin's comment that the reason for Jon Krakauer writing Into the Wild was to express that Chris McCandless was not a failure but infact a hero. Even though McCandless didn't complete his journey his strong will pushed him forward resulting in his death yes but more so highlighted his relentlessness. These important details remind us of how ones characteristics shouldn't be viewed in one light.
I agree with Lauren with the idea that Chris was not admirable for following his dream, due to the fact that it led to his death. Chris thought he was prepared just for doing some research and decided to go straight into living in the Alaskan wilderness, but he did not have the experience to survive on his own and ultimately, his lack of experience caused his death.
I agree that Chris' dream was unrealistic, given the amount of preparation and experience he had. But I do believe he was fully invested in his dream. After months of being on the road, Chris decided to get a job in Las Vegas. After a very brief stay, he itched to return to the wilderness. To me, this proves that he was changed; he could never go back to living in a society.
I also want to reinforce what Aaron stated above about Jon Krakauer. Krakauer dedicated so much time to research McCandless’ life. What is also remarkable about Krakauer is that he tried his hardest to disprove people’s negative opinions of McCandless. For example, when people thought McCandless died from mistaking poisonous plants for edible ones, Krakauer did extensive research and came to the conclusion that McCandless ate plants with poisonous mold on them, revealing that McCandless was not as arrogant as people assumed.
I completely agree with Alexa P. Krakauer represented Chris in such a way that Chris' ambitions were undoubtedly admirable. Whether one agrees with Chris' decisions to stay in touch with the people he met, or disagrees with the fact that Chris relied on a book as a source for his food decisions, his entire story is both inspiring and cautionary.
Reid
I agree with James L. that McCandless could or could not be precieved as an ironic figure. Although McCandless was selfish and didn't consider what might happen in the future, he was strong. McCandless went to Alaska with no shelter or food. After arriving he burned all of the money in his wallet because he wanted to survive only on the resources around him. He wanted to live on his own with no help from others.
To add on to what Noemie and Jason stated, i also believe Chris McCandless was an ionic figure. I think to some extent, Chris McCandless can be seen as a hero in the eyes of so many readers who have dreams and don't have the determination to go against society such as Chris did venturing on his "Alaskan Odyssey." Although the ultimate response to his actions caused him to die of starvation, he died an accomplished man, he followed his dreams and heart which was going into the wild. I agree with Christina when she portrays Chris as "reckless" and i think ignorant as well because so many people he met along the way of his journey to Alaska offered him supplies/money and he should not have been so strubborn and accepted more than he actually took.
I agree with Jason that Chris McCandless was portrayed as an iconic figure by John Krakauer. Even though Chris made many mistakes throughout his journey, he was still a very determined person. I also agree with Julie that despite Chris' mistakes, he still continued to live his life the way he wanted to live it. I believe that Krakauer wanted to depict McCandless as a heroic character, even though he did die at the end.
I completely agree with Lauren, Chris McCandless was irresponsible and naive for going "into the wild" without a plan. McCandless was overconfident and because of this trait, he was unprepared. Walt, a friend of Chris, states that "'Chris was fearless even when he was little,'...'He didn't think the odds applied to him. We were always trying to pull him back from the edge'" (109). Although going into the wild was his dream, he behaved like a teenager who thought he was invisible. Eventhough Chris only wanted to live off the land, he could have achieved his goal in a much smarter way.
I agree with Kate, Jason, and others who have stated Chris McCandless was portrayed as an iconic figure by John Krakauer. However, I disagree that he actually was an iconic figure. The many chapters detailing stories of others who did the same thing as McCandless makes his story seem lackluster to me and leaves me wondering why his story gained so much notoriety. Is it because his family is well to do? (Why you guys think it is?)
I agree with Jaime completely. Even though McCandless is a teenager, he still should have had a plan because he was going into an unknown place where anything can happen. When Jaime quoted that he was fearless from a young age, it really portrayed him as adventurous and shows that at a young age, he was ready to take on the world. If McCandless hadn’t acted like every other teenager, he would have come out of the wild alive.
After reading Irene’s comment I deem her theory correct. Into the Wild is constructed around Chris McCandless’s journals in order for the reader to feel as though they are connected. Once the reader is connected to the character sympathy has built up. In this case McCandless is portrayed as a hero since the author sympathizes for him. McCandless’s story is no different from any other over ambitious boy who lacks rationality.
I disagree with Olivia and Irenes previously stated comments. I believe that Irene validates a good point when she states "Chris McCandless was portrayed as an iconic figure by John Krakauer," because after reading the book, Krakauer does make the reader fall in love with McCandless and feel a strong connection. However, in my opinion Chris McCandless was absolutley an ionic figure and different from any other character. From reading Chris' journals i truely admire him. Although he lacked many resources due to his own ignorance, he never depended on anyone else but himself. He didn't need anyone to believe in him because he was convinced he could make it to Alaska. The independence McCandless withheld throughout the novel made him such an ionic figure.
I agree with Ryan when she said that Chris McCandless's independence is what made him such an iconic figure in this novel. He made it to Alaska by just believing in himself, and having determination to push forward. He overcame his mistakes, and even though he didn't survive in the end, he was still portrayed as an iconic figure.
I completely agree with Irene when she says that Chris is portrayed as an iconic character, but he really isn't. Many other people ventured on journeys similar to Chris, and they survived which makes Chris' story even less iconic. There are also other people following their dreams every day who aren’t viewed as iconic, but if simply following your dream makes you iconic, then half of America must be iconic.
I agree with Irene and Olivia's comment about how Chris McCandless is portrayed by Krakauer as an iconic figure. However, his personality is similar to the men in the other stories. They are all determinded and want to achieve their goals. To answer Irenes question though, what makes Chris McCandless an iconic figure is that he was a noncomformist and attempted an adventure that many would never think about doing. This made his story gain so much popularity. He represents all the men described in the book. McCandless is not the only one, but they are all iconic for being rebels. What makes us question if McCandless is iconic, is the fact that he failed. Therefore, I am conflicted because I do believed that he was unprepared and overconfident, which is why some people believe he is not an iconic figure. However, because his adventure, to most people, is unthinkable, others think McCandless is an iconic figure.
I really appreciate Ryan's response to my comment, because while I don't agree, her points are entirely valid (McCandless's independence is admirable). However, I identify more with Jaime that it is not necessarily easy to look up to him. Jaime and Dan both proposed that this may be because he "failed." Yet, everyone dies, and McCandless's goal was to make it to Alaska. I do not think he failed. What makes me struggle to understand his fame is his seeming lack of uniqueness (also acknowledged by Dan). It is hard for me to appreciate McCandless as original when the book gradually began describing more people who took adventures just like his.
I agree with Irene in that
Jon Krakauer glorifies McCandless' journey, but I believe he was an iconic figure. Regardless of all the others who adopted such extreme lifestyles, it takes extraordinary character to give up so much opportunity and potential. In addition to giving up such wealth, he is still able to appreciate and adore nature in its most pure form. This requires a certain personality, that is extremely respectable in such a technologically absorbed society.
I believe that Chris McCandless was rightfully portrayed as an iconic figure by John Krauker. Chris’s journey to Alaska, which ultimately led to his death, can both be seen by different viewers as heroic or irresponsible. But it is McCandlesse’s overall outlook on life that truly makes an impression throughout the novel Into The Wild. That is why I believe that John Krauker was so inspired by Chris McCandless, because he had such respect for him and his beliefs. McCandless believed that the so called “ corrupt society” he was living in would not satisfy his needs as a human being. It was the wild, nature at its purest form, which would truly fulfill Chris. I believe that John Krauker told Chris’s story in a way that made the reader reevaluate their lives so they themselves could think, “What truly makes me happy?” Even though Chris did it to the extreme he definitely lived his life by what made him happy, which in this case was his trek to Alaska.
I agree with Irene's statement that Chris was an iconic figure. He was willing to give up everything in order to fulfill his deepest desire, which was to survive by himself out on his own. the fact that he was unable to do this is unimportant, because to someone who feels as passionately about living on his own as Chris does, dying out on his own would be much more fulfilling to him than being forced to live in the society that he has come to loathe.
In response to those who believe McCandless was reckless and irrational: In a sense yes, he was. That does not however, refute the fact that he was an iconic figure. Some people are naturally born with higher levels of Epinephrine (the adrenaline hormone) and need to take part in high risk activities to relieve stress and to fulfill the human spirit. Krakauer quotes rock climber John Menlove Edwards who says rockclimbing is a "psycho-neurotic tendancy" and that he finds "refuge from the inner torment that framed his existence," (135).
I believe Krakauer viewed McCandless as an iconic figure because he put so much time and effort into learning and understanding McCandless's story before he could write the book. The fact that he was brave enough to visit McCandless's family and ask for Chris's papers, letters, and pictures from his journeys, with the possibility of upsetting them, really shows how highly he thought of Chris because he was so dedicated into finding out more facts about McCandless's life and experiences just so he could tell the rest of the world.
I view Chris McCandless as an iconic figure as well. I agree that he is over dramatic, impulsive, and careless, but I also think he's not selfish, he doesn't take anything for granted, hes independent, and just as Jackie said, hes self sufficient and that's a beneficial quality to have. He doesn't want anything he doesn't need, and that's one point he's trying to prove to his family about material "things". I agree with Aaron as well about his death, but the way he died was also the way he was trying to survive, and in the end he did what he wanted to and weather he would regret it if he were alive or not, he influenced and changed the way a lot of people look at life, including myself and his family, which was one thing he really wanted in the end.
I also agree with Ryan's comment when she says that Chris McCandless did not depend on anyone else but himself. I truly admire this mannerism in Chris, and that's why I now believe that he is definitely depicted as an iconic figure not only to the readers, but to John Krakauer. I also agree with Shannon when she says that she thinks Chris is conclusively independent. He needed to possess this trait in order to venture out on his own, and learn not to require anyone else. I easily commend Chris for all that he did because he did it all on his own.
Chris McCandless was neither heroic nor iconic. Krakauer seems mystified at the foolhardy and egocentric nature of Chris McCandless and his adventure. Krakauer focuses on an antisocial and suicidal young man who gives away all of his possessions and who fully understands that he is walking away from civilization and safety. Carrying an inadequate weapon into the wild was McCandless’s feeble attempt to prevent his untimely demise. McCandless wants to chose the time and place of his death. It is interesting that McCandless’s personal notes portray a person who has thoughts of maintaining survival but refuses to walk out of the wild to save himself. McCandless personifies today’s reckless behavior of many of today’s young people.
I agree with Kate W. that McCandless's determination is what made him succeed in his journey to Alaska. That same determination ultimately led to his death. McCandless was far too young to be on his own without resources. His stubborn mindset overwhelmed any sense of reason that may have saved him. McCandless's fatal flaw was one of ignorance in which he poisoned himself.
I agree with Phoebe that Chris McCandless is portrayed as an iconic figure in the novel Into The Wild. Although McCandless is not the only person who embarks on a journey he is given the most emphasis and seems to be admired by the author. McCandless is also given a great deal of publicity in the outdoor world. The author also goes to visit the site of Chris’ death and is so fascinated with him that he writes a novel about him. Due to these reasons, I feel that McCandless is portrayed as an iconic figure and is admired and almost idolized.
I also agree with Alexa S. that although Chris McCandless was irresponsible, ill prepared and reckless, he is still iconic and admirable. He is still iconic and admirable because of his dedication to his dream of true happiness, away from the constraints of society and in wild of Alaska. Throughout his journey Chris is often extremely hungry, cold and tired, yet he remains dedicated to his dream. He refuses to let the physical pain and exhaustion prevent him from achieving it. As a result I feel that McCandless is admirable and iconic due to his dedication to his dream.
I agree with everything Wade said. I think Chris McCandless was admirable in his persistence and enthusiasm. While being ill prepared seems to be a weakness and a setback, Chris viewed it as a challenge and a reason for even greater excitement. McCandless was an icon not because of what he did, but how he thought. His philosophy was encouraging, optimistic, and inspiring. His thinking alone had the ability to change the world.
Also, this is my third post but I wanted to point out that his lack of a plan was like a plan in itself. His philosophy was that plans ruin the general pleasure in the miracle of life and nature. He believed that life was always best without a plan.
I disagree with Lauren's statement that Chris was arrogant. Although he may have been extremely stubborn and wouldn't consider others thoughts on his adventure, I believe that he was truly following his dream. Yes, he could have prepared better by packing more equipment and learning the proper food to eat. However, I feel as if the reason he burned his parents money and abandoned his beloved car was to truly cut all ties with his past life. it was symbolic of 'burning the bridge' which could have connected him to society. I respect Chris McCandless, and believe what he did was honorable.
After reading the novel, I think that Chris McCandless is an ionic figure. Even though some of his choices were reckless, he proved that following your dreams can be very rewarding. Yes he died in the end, but he met wonderful people and accomplished his dream of going to Alaska. I agree with Wade that he is ionic and admirable because he followed his dream, not because he died while doing it.
I agree with Aaron that Chris did have a chance to be really free. Free from the everyday drama and life that can cloud his judgment and perspective. He was able to live his dream and met incredible people. He was able to try different things and learn from his mistakes that he made along the way. His journey inspired Krakauer to write this book because he lived his dream despite roadblocks and that is why I think he is an ionic figure.
I agree with Lea's statement that Chris was not arrogant. he was doing the one thing he had always wanted to do. Having a passion for something is very different than being arrogant. He understood that there were risks involved but that did not bother him because he would be happier dying doing something he loved than living in the monotony of society.
Chris McCandless was a selfish egoist who foolishly believed he could “handle anything.” Incredibly, he marches into the North Woods without any means. The publicity surrounding his death is only due to the popularity of Outside Magazine where his story first appeared and Krakauer is a contributing author. McCandless is an example of how people really need a community to survive. When people separate themselves from their community they are incapable of surviving alone in the wilderness. Only people who spend a lot of time in the woods have the experience to survive. McCandless was short sighted - as shown by his failure to bring enough food to survive. What is incredible about McCandless’ story is that he was smart enough to get himself into the wilderness but not smart enough to get himself out.
I believe that Chris McCandless should not be viewed as an iconic figure because his spontaneity and recklessness got him killed. If Chris were an iconic figure, than others should be prompted to follow their dreams, no matter the risk like he did, which as supported by this story could lead to the death of that person.
Post a Comment