ŷ������

Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer is our June 2023 New School Classic Group Read.

This is the Spoiler Thread

I am going to begin this book shortly . Looking forward to this read .

As you are reading, you might consider this question, "To what extent should we pursue our personal happiness at any cost?"

Katy wrote: "As you are reading, you might consider this question, "To what extent should we pursue our personal happiness at any cost?""

Hmm ... yes , good question , Katy .

From the blurb , I have got the impression that the protagonist was searching for transcendental knowledge - spiritual significance of life , salvation ? He seems to resemble Larry ( of The Razor's Edge ) in this . Only thing , though Larry gave up dependence on materialistic things , he never moved away from the job of living in the midst of life . I think that was important - we've got to continue giving the examination of life in this whole lifetime .
Curious to know this protagonist 's story and views of life .

I finished this earlier today. It can be a difficult one to review.

I absolutely ABHOR privileged young men with a “bite the hand that feeds you�� mentality. And this person is just that. Privileged, arrogant, intelligent but ignorant, full of hubris, lacking much common sense, unwilling to take direction or coaching of any kind�� the picture painted here is not pretty. But the book is very well written. The author did his best to be non-judgmental and state simply the facts as he knew them - throwing in both negative and positive aspects. I tried to choke down my�� what’s the word?�� extreme aversion to this person and rate the book based on what the author wrote instead of how much I wanted to smack this young man upside the head with the largest book I own

Many readers find it hard to have sympathy for young McCandless: his stubborn idealism and lack of preparedness, as someone has pointed out, amount to arrogance. Yet to a one, critics point to Krakauer's power as a writer to evoke sympathy for the young man. Where do you stand?

Katy wrote: "Many readers find it hard to have sympathy for young McCandless: his stubborn idealism and lack of preparedness, as someone has pointed out, amount to arrogance. Yet to a one, critics point to Krak..."

The author was able to evoke a bit of sympathy in me. Yet I am quite sure I would never want to know nor be friends with someone like McCandless. I ended up giving the book 4 stars.

Paula W wrote: "I finished this earlier today. It can be a difficult one to review.

I absolutely ABHOR privileged young men with a “bite the hand that feeds you�� mentality. And this person is just that. Privileg..."

I read this years ago, and I think that that is where I stand as well. I thought the author handles this with just writing and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. I thought the book overall was pretty fascinating, albeit somewhat depressing knowing what happens, but it is a very compelling man vs. nature story. I've read a few from this author and have enjoyed his writing and how he presents everything.

I disliked this book. No, dislike is too mild, I detested this book. I still regret giving it two stars when it deserves only 1, if that. Jon Krakauer does an excellent job of making the reader feel sympathy for a kid too stupid to get out of a shower of rain. Katy, I agree that the author does evoke sympathy for young McCandless, but to what point. To glorify ignorance and arrogance? To romanticize stupidity?

I agree with Paula’s comment (#6). This kid disregarded all helpful information given to him by people that knew the dangers, letting his arrogant superiority rule his decision. No one as young as McCandless deserves to die for being and acting stupid. But you can’t argue that death or serious permanent injury is the most likely outcome when one goes into a seriously dangerous situation disregarding the known common sense and wisdom of people who firsthand know the dangers.

McCandless willingly walked into the mouth of the dragon with no more protection than a lamb’s fleece would provide. It is sad that he paid for his foolishness with his life, but hardly surprising.

I decided not to read this. I saw the movie and it both disgusted and horrified me. I checked into this spoiler thread to see what readers thought, but I can see there aren’t any or many defenders here. I think I made the right choice.

Henry David Thoreau wrote, “rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth�� . Chris highlighted this passage and wrote “truth�� above it. What do you think Thoreau meant by “truth��? Why do you think McCandless identified with this quote?

I'm surprised by all the comments about how much people "hate" Chris McCandless. He was an ignorant youth searching for more meaning in the world. He didn't intentionally hurt anyone although obviously his actions and his death caused pain to his family and others who knew him. But he obviously touched a lot of lives as well, based on the numerous people whose testimony is documented meticulously by Krakauer. I'm puzzled as to why he generates so much hate.

Katy wrote: "Henry David Thoreau wrote, “rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth�� . Chris highlighted this passage and wrote “truth�� above it. What do you think Thoreau meant by “truth��? Why do y..."

I wonder whether by truth he mostly meant the spiritual meaning of life .... transcendental knowledge about life and its aftermath ? I think this is what McCandless was searching for .

I appreciate all the above comments , but also including RJ's . McCandless was just 18 years old . I have finished the author's note and chapter 1 . The boy came from an affluent , loving family. He excelled in academics and sports . He must have had an enquiring mind . But he was totally against heeding to sound advices from mature and well informed well wishers .... including wise , kind and paternal Gallien . This didn't arouse contempt and hatred in me .... just grave concern and alarm for this ignorant and misguided youth of 18 years . Even Buddha left his palace and royal life behind , to search for the meaning of life . But Buddha never went off into the wilds .... he stayed in touch with life and human beings. Likewise , Larry in The Razor's Edge . Could McCandless have had some mental aberration , which would have resolved with psychiatric or psychological care? I feel pity and a shock that a young life was lost in this horrible fashion . I am curious to know more about what the author has related further 🤔.

it's been a long time since I read this but I recall having thoughts similar to Savita's 'mental aberration' remark. I recall wondering what's wrong with that boy. I didn’t find it disgusting, just pointless.

Savita wrote: "I appreciate all the above comments , but also including RJ's . McCandless was just 18 years old . I have finished the author's note and chapter 1 . The boy came from an affluent , loving family. H..."

If I’m not mistaken, he was much older than 18. He was 24 when he died. He had already graduated university from Emory and spent a year or more on the road after that before taking his final trip.

Savita wrote: "Even Buddha left his palace and royal life behind , to search for the meaning of life . But Buddha never went off into the wilds .... he stayed in touch with life and human beings."

There are several religious or spiritual traditions based on isolation though. As an extreme example, the anchoresses and anchorites of medieval times chose to isolate themselves in individual cells for quiet lives of isolated prayer and contemplation, where they were actually walled in to cells on purpose and could not even get out.

When I was younger, I knew a woman who chose to became a nun, and her parents were extremely upset by it. I know they felt that she was biting the hand that fed them, that she was betraying their wishes, but that was not her goal of course; she was just seeking a life that felt authentic and whole to her. Her parents were upset because she was seeking that in a way they couldn't understand at all. She loved them very much, but what she wanted didn't make any sense to them; they saw it as completely impractical.

I haven't read this book yet; so I will see how I feel after I've read the story. I only know of it what my friends have told me, and based on that limited view, I have a lot of sympathy for RJ's perspective on this.

We'll see how that holds up once I've read it.

Katy wrote: "Henry David Thoreau wrote, “rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth�� . Chris highlighted this passage and wrote “truth�� above it. What do you think Thoreau meant by “truth��? Why do y..."

Oh Lord, I am about to be cancelled for this but it needs to be said.

I think for Chris/Alex, he was thinking of his father. His father had a happy second marriage, money, and fame, but was dishonest about being a bigamist for a while. Chris would have rather had the truth. But instead of asking for or demanding the truth from his parents, he became sullen and more self-absorbed, never telling his parents what he discovered but punishing them for it anyway.

For Thoreau, who knows? There are tons of young men who make Emerson, Nietzsche, and Thoreau their entire personality. And they do this without realizing that Thoreau was such an egotistical hypocrite and a fraud. His “secluded cabin in the woods�� was actually in walking distance to his mother’s house in the city, where he went once a week with his dirty clothes so she could do his laundry for him. Their writings aren’t profound; they are full of unearned confidence marketed to an ignorant readership. Anyone who says Thoreau is a hero of theirs is an immediate red flag for me. 🚩

"Alaska has long bee a magnet for dreamers and misfits, people who think the unsullied enormity of the last frontier will patch all of the holes in their lives."

What are the holes people are trying to fill? Why do they believe the frontier will save them?

Savita wrote: "I wonder whether by truth he mostly meant the spiritual meaning of life .... transcendental knowledge about life and its aftermath ? I think this is what McCandless was searching for

This sounds right to me Savita!

Tom wrote: "it's been a long time since I read this but I recall having thoughts similar to Savita's 'mental aberration' remark. I recall wondering what's wrong with that boy. I didn’t find it disgusting, just..."

Yes , pointless . And too dangerous .... a suicidal mission.

Greg wrote: "Savita wrote: "I wonder whether by truth he mostly meant the spiritual meaning of life .... transcendental knowledge about life and its aftermath ? I think this is what McCandless was searching for..."

Thank you , Greg !

Paula W wrote: "Savita wrote: "I appreciate all the above comments , but also including RJ's . McCandless was just 18 years old . I have finished the author's note and chapter 1 . The boy came from an affluent , l..."

Paula , in chapter 1 , Gallien 's impression of McCandless ' age is mentioned as ? 18 or 19 . But you are right .... in the author's note it is mentioned that McCandless had graduated from Emory University , so he couldn't be only 18 years old .

Greg wrote: "Savita wrote: "Even Buddha left his palace and royal life behind , to search for the meaning of life . But Buddha never went off into the wilds .... he stayed in touch with life and human beings."
..."

Oh my God , were the anchorites released at a later date or did they just die inside the cells ?
Actually , after ? 8 years of meditation , Buddha concluded that the Middle Path was the best way forward - shunning severe asceticism on one hand and over indulgence on the other .

Paula W wrote: "Katy wrote: "Henry David Thoreau wrote, “rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth�� . Chris highlighted this passage and wrote “truth�� above it. What do you think Thoreau meant by “tru..."

I see , so his father was a bigamist ! How sickening for McCandless to stumble upon this knowledge !

Katy wrote: ""Alaska has long bee a magnet for dreamers and misfits, people who think the unsullied enormity of the last frontier will patch all of the holes in their lives."

What are the holes people are try..."

I think the holes in people's lives refers to the deficiencies and frustrations in their lives , made more unbearable by an apparently indifferent , racing world . The unsullied , vast frontier perhaps takes people closer to Heaven .... brings spiritual enlightenment .... spiritual solace into their painful , struggling and lonely lives .

Savita wrote: "Oh my God , were the anchorites released at a later date or did they just die inside the cells ?
Actually , after ? 8 years of meditation , Buddha concluded that the Middle Path was the best way forward - shunning severe asceticism on one hand and over indulgence on the other"

I'm not sure Savita. By modern standards, that stuff is all pretty crazy, but some anchorites and anchoresses produced art and wrote down religious visions they experienced during their isolated lives that are still studied today, such as Julian of Norwich.

I definitely am more inclined toward the middle path myself! I don't think extreme paths are wise, and I certainly don't encourage it. I just meant that there seems to be a deep human drive toward solitary spiritual experiences like this within human nature that has been felt by certain people throughout history. I think it's too easy to consider the boy crazy. If he had lived in a culture that was less materialistic and blinkered, he might have been driven in different healthier ways.

From my limited second-hand understanding, he was seeking something that many others also historically sought. If I were his parents, I would want to lock him up to protect him for sure! But there is something beautiful and pure in the utter impracticality of a person that feels the urge to that kind of seeking too, even though I'd wish for it to be expressed in safer and less destructive ways.

By the way, I have started the book now and will post more as I get further.

Paula W wrote: "Oh Lord, I am about to be cancelled for this but it needs to be said...."

I wouldn't dream of it. Thanks for sharing your honest opinion. Whether I agree with it or not is a different matter.

Greg wrote: "Savita wrote: "Oh my God , were the anchorites released at a later date or did they just die inside the cells ?
Actually , after ? 8 years of meditation , Buddha concluded that the Middle Path was ..."

Thanks for the interesting information and your thoughts , Greg ! Looking forward to your comments as you read this controversial book . Although I have already started the book , my reading progress will be a little slow because I am reading White Nights by Dostoevsky alongside .

I am glad this was selected and I read it, because I, otherwise, would not have done so. I think it is important to look at the story's origins because IMO, there isn't much of interest here. An individual attempted something and succumbed to cicumstances beyond what he could handle. This could be the story of many an individual whether it be a person starving in the wild, or a driver not gauging their driving ability on a treacherous road, to an addict, overestimating their ability to handle an opiate addiction. So why is this special? why did it go viral? and why is it polarizing? I haven't the answers but I think McCandless seems charismatic; I think the number of media outlets pushing the story, including book and film drove our attention; and I think that McCandless was romanticized in such a way that encouraged polarizing views.
But looking at just the book, my first thought was am I reading about McCandless or Krakauer or a pastiche character/persona made up by Krakauer? There is way too much assumption in this to accept the story as told and some very legitimate criticisms on what Krakauer has written, like journalist Craig Medred pointed out in the article below.

I don't think you need to read the article to see that in the book since assumptions are scattered all throughout and some quite elaborate like the highly dramatic telling of the cable crossing down the river that had nothing to do with the McCandless story other than in speculation by Krakauer. So why did I like that the book was selected?
I think the value here is the is the story of this story, It is in a way a keyhole to view how we are manipulated through communication and though it is nothing new, (see for example Jack the Ripper) it all seems faster, more sophisticated, and more commercially driven now. But even with my caveats about the book, I think it is entertaining and were it written as a novel, I would have thought the same.
But I do suggest you view the diary and journal to note some of the liberties taken in the interpretation of the entries.

Sam wrote: "I am glad this was selected and I read it, because I, otherwise, would not have done so. I think it is important to look at the story's origins because IMO, there isn't much of interest here. An in..."

Sam, I think you make some really great points! I don't know if I agree or not, and I won't know until I finish reading.

As far as your first point, why is this story of interest:

my knee-jerk reaction is that those other examples of unprepared people you cite are completely different since it is not a philosophy of life driving them. But who knows how I will feel when I'm done. I can't say how I will feel. What I can say is that IF the book is interesting, it might be interesting because the protagonist is acting out of a deeply held philosophy and out of an ascetic impulse at odds with modern society, what Krakauer in the foreward calls "Tolstoyan renunciation". That's different than just forgetting to pack or not stopping for the correct number of minutes at the right depth to avoid the bends in diving. Without the philosophical component, the story really has little interest for me other than as a curiosity. Once I finish reading, I'll know whether I find a philosophical component there or not.

The second thing you bring up is also massively important and a totally separate question, that is the accuracy of the account. That's an important moral question because someone writing what they say is a non-fiction account should not misrepresent the facts.

Krakauer does say in his foreward:

"I won't claim to be an impartial biographer. McCandless's strange tale struck a personal note that made a dispassionate rendering of the tragedy impossible."

Presumably, he had to fill in quite a few gaps in the account, and it might be so speculative that it is akin to fiction. If so, that is a moral problem in that it's misrepresenting itself as non-fiction.

But as to my personal interest, I don't know McCandless or his family, and whether this story is fictional or non-fictional, it has pretty much the same impact on me either way. I am reading it out of interest in the human condition, and from that perspective, it doesn't matter if the events in the book really happened as he says they did. I'm not interested in the real events; I am interested in this book or piece of art inspired by those events.

However, I do completely agree that for an author to misrepresent their work as non-fiction when it is very speculative is a bad thing and not morally right.

Good points to keep in mind while reading this book - msgs 31 and 32 .

Katy wrote: ""Alaska has long bee a magnet for dreamers and misfits, people who think the unsullied enormity of the last frontier will patch all of the holes in their lives."

What are the holes people are try..."

About dreamers and misfits : this group should be given a little insight into general human nature . When people see a person simply moaning and groaning, they tend to move away , whereas , when they see a struggling human being going forward with perseverance and fortitude , they stop to take inspiration and to help . They say that even Heaven helps those that help themselves . . 🤔 . Yes , we have to stay in the midst of life and tackle its problems . Then , help does start trickling in .

Krakauer said that when he was young, "personal mortality - the idea of (his) own death - was still largely outside of (his) conceptual grasp". What do you think he meant by this exactly? Do you think personal mortality was outside of Chris' grasp?

Katy wrote: "Krakauer said that when he was young, "personal mortality - the idea of (his) own death - was still largely outside of (his) conceptual grasp". What do you think he meant by this exactly? Do you th..."

Oh yes, absolutely! There's a difference between understanding the idea that people die and actually knowing it.

That whole name he chooses for himself "Alexander Supertramp" says a lot - he might be reading Gogol and Tolstoy, but there's something very juvenile in him too.

Sam wrote: "...There is way too much assumption in this to accept the story as told and some very legitimate criticisms on what Krakauer has written, like journalist Craig Medred pointed out in the article below...."

I read the article. It was very interesting and raises a number of good points, many of which jive with my opinions of this book and its subject.

When I first read Into the Wild a few years ago, I was excited to read it because I had thoroughly enjoyed Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mount Everest Disaster by the same author, but I was also puzzled by why Chris McCandless's life was considered to be a worthy subject for a bestseller. Nothing against the kid, but - like I said above - he was an ignorant youth searching for more meaning in the world. Is that so unusual that it requires someone to write a book about him?

Looking up Krakauer online at the time, I learned that Into the Wild was his first book (not including Eiger Dreams which is really just a collection of his columns). As Krakauer himself points out in the Introduction, Into the Wild is an expansion of Krakauer's original article published in Outdoor Magazine. As I read it, it felt like the author had "struck gold" in finding a topic that generated interest and debate, and therefore decided to cash in by expanding his subject into a book. Nothing wrong with that. Give the people what they want! But that's when I started wondering if he wasn't making just a bit too much of a fuss about it and attempting to find more meaning in this small tragedy than there really was. So I wasn't surprised that the Anchorage Daily News article you posted makes the same assertion, but with some research that I don't think I could have conducted myself.

Another thing that the article points out, that I have always noticed about Krakauer's books (I have read them all except Missoula and the "Classic" collection of columns) is his tendency to write himself into the story much more than he needs to. A chunk of Into the Wild concerns itself with Krakauer's youthful expedition to solo climb The Devil's Thumb, and he also writes of his own exploits in visiting Bus 142 twice later in the book (once without and then once with McCandless's parents). Most journalists would have more humbly let the story take center stage but Krakauer always seems to want to photobomb it.

I feel bad for the tragic death of Chris McCandless and I am glad that I was able to gleam something however insignificant from his life. Likewise, I enjoyed reading this book - like many of Krakauer's other books - which still knowing that he may have stretched the facts to fit a conclusion that might not be true.

Back to what Bob said about this needlessly romanticizing ignorance and stupidity, I found some stuff online that proves this. The original article and subsequent book appears to have inspired other young men who were also ill-equipped to attempt the same journey. Whether to prove they could do better than McCandless or to do a sort of Mecca journey, who knows? But the end result was that for a while Alaskan search and rescue resources were being overwhelmed by non-native Alaskans who ended up needing to be rescued; some lived and some died.

I feel the same way about this as I feel about those people who call emergency services because their McDonald’s order is wrong, or call because someone parked in their parking spot, or call because a harmless unarmed person of color is walking through the neighborhood where they live. It is irresponsible and dangerous, and engages resources that others need for legitimate reasons. This book was well-written and fairly well-researched, but the consequences of romanticizing someone like this turned out to be a bad thing for quite a while.

Paula W wrote: "The original article and subsequent book appears to have inspired other young men who were also ill-equipped to attempt the same journey. Whether to prove they could do better than McCandless or to do a sort of Mecca journey, who knows? But the end result was that for a while Alaskan search and rescue resources were being overwhelmed by non-native Alaskans who ended up needing to be rescued; some lived and some died."

I can see why that would make Alaskans angry.

Why reading a book about someone who died doing something would make others want to do the same thing is a little bizarre, but I suppose people can be weird.

Even prepared people die climbing mountains, but there are still plenty of free climbers. Human beings are strange.

I'm about 1/3 finished now, and the description of events seems fairly matter of fact to me. The quotes at the beginning of the chapters might have some glamour (London, Tolstoy, etc), but nothing about the way Krakauer describes Chris's life in the rest of the text seems particularly appealing. I'm a little puzzled because it's not at all what I expected given what some of my friends had told me about this book prior to the group read.

I hate to say it, but I'm starting to agree with everyone else that I don't see too much of a point yet. And I'm also a little puzzled as to what is supposed to be appealing or enticing? I do like that he's not materialistic, but other than that, there's not much to go on. I don't dislike Chris. But I don't get what the draw is either.

Maybe later on in the book I'll get to the romanticized parts where his way of life is described in an enticing or appealing way? I haven't gotten to any of the parts where Krakauer talks about his own life yet either, though I know from the introduction and from the chat posts here that some of that will be coming.

It's interesting in chapter 8 when the story expands in scope to other young men over the years who have engaged in solitary excursions in the wilds . . . John Waterman, Gene Rosellini ("Mayor of Hippie Cove"), Carl McCunn, Everett Ruess, etc.

It seems like the point of this book for Krakauer might be to try to understand why young men do this thing, what it is in the human animal that produces the urge? Whether he'll produce satisfying answers or not in figuring that out, I can't tell yet. But the story has expanded way beyond just McCandless.

Greg wrote: "...It seems like the point of this book for Krakauer might be to try to understand why young men do this thing, what it is in the human animal that produces the urge? Whether he'll produce satisfying answers or not in figuring that out, I can't tell yet. But the story has expanded way beyond just McCandless..."

Possibly, because there really isn't enough to write a book on just McCandless.

In a letter to Ronald Franz, McCandless wrote, " nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit within a man than a secure future. The very basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion for adventure". What do you think Chris meant by this? Do you think he was correct in his thinking?

I finally posted a review. I had to wait until my son finished the book to add his thoughts.

/review/show...

Katy wrote: "In a letter to Ronald Franz, McCandless wrote, " nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit within a man than a secure future. The very basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion fo..."

Well, I think it's true that sometimes people don't live up to everything they're capable of because they choose a safer route that has fewer risks and fewer rewards. They feel too secure in where they're at. So, I agree with the first half of the quote to some extent. Weighing up risks and rewards is important - the riskiest route is almost never best. But the safest one is often not the best choice either.

So although I think it's quixotic and frankly pretty silly for McCandless to try to convince everyone to sell their possessions and go on the road, I do think there's a kernel of truth in what he says that people often get stuck in what they're familiar with and that they can be too afraid to risk changes, even when those changes are very positive ones. Sometimes people will keep working a job they hate rather than trying another, just because they're so used to the rut they're in.

I definitely don't agree with the second part of the quote, that the basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion for adventure. Or at least that was never true for me. I think adventures are important for some people, but it's really a personality thing. Everyone has different things that they're drawn to.

I am reading chapter 4 . It's sad that McCandless didn't tell any of his family members about his plans . He flouted road and traffic laws . Called himself Alex Supertramp !! He felt unencumbered, emancipated from the stifling world of his parents and peers .... . He buried his car and burned his money . I think he needed psychological counseling or psychiatric assessment . At least this painful , suicidal course may have been averted 🤔 .

Savita wrote: "I am reading chapter 4 . It's sad that McCandless didn't tell any of his family members about his plans . He flouted road and traffic laws . Called himself Alex Supertramp !! He felt unencumbered, ..."

I do feel sad that he cut out his family like that. His family must have gone through hell!

Greg wrote: "Savita wrote: "I am reading chapter 4 . It's sad that McCandless didn't tell any of his family members about his plans . He flouted road and traffic laws . Called himself Alex Supertramp !! He felt..."

Yes , absolutely .... His family must have gone through hell !

Greg wrote: ". I definitely don't agree with the second part of the quote, that the basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion for adventure. Or at least that was never true for me. I think adventures are important for some people, but it's really a personality thing. Everyone has different things that they're drawn to."

I saw a funny thing the other day. “You will win $2 million dollars if you can stay in your home for 3 months, never leaving for anything or any reason.�� *Someone knocks on my door*. THEM: “You’ve won the contest!!!�� ME: “What contest?��

Paula W wrote: "I saw a funny thing the other day. “You will win $2 million dollars if you can stay in your home for 3 months, never leaving for anything or any reason.�� *Someone knocks on my door*. THEM: “You’ve won the contest!!!�� ME: “What contest?��"

😆