Into the Wild Chapters 6-9

You explained it better than I could explain to myself in my head let alone put into words, very well spoken nnguyen24! Your words resonated with me very closely, I wrote a paper along the same lines and ideas recently, such a hard to grasp concept, so large you can never explain it enough. I imagine Mcandless felt this described feeling many times, strong and weak, throughout his life. Makes you wonder if it is possible to live this truly free feeling in today's reality.

I agree! Though some of the choices Chris makes are questionable, Krakauer does a great job of not making fun of him! I love how you added that quote at the end. His saying "I now walk into the wild", maybe could imply that he knows he may not come back. It makes me feel glad in a way, knowing that he was fine with dying and that he wasn't just cocky, and ended up dying from his own mistakes. 

How do you feel about him not saying goodbye to the people he loved, like his mom and dad? If he knew he was probably going to die in the wilderness, its sad he never said bye.

The word "nuance" perfectly describes Krakauer's attempt at portraying McCandless. An author's most crucial job is making his character three-dimensional. Since this book is a biographical account of McCandless' journey, developing a nuanced character would make him seem more realistic. I questioned McCandless' choice of going into the Alaskan wilderness unprepared within the first few pages of the book. But as we delve deeper into his backstory, his reasoning made sense. There's a sense of freedom that comes with being untethered from society. It was dangerous, but as you said, that danger "was worth it as long as he experienced raw nature". These multifaceted outlook we get of McCandless reflects Krakauer's attempt at trying to make the reader understand McCandless' thoughts and actions.

It makes me wonder, though, would our responses to these questions be different if we see McCandless through the lense of a different author?

The word "nuance" perfectly describes Krakauer's attempt at portraying McCandless. An author's most crucial job is making his character three-dimensional. Since this book is a biographical account of McCandless' journey, developing a nuanced character would make him seem more realistic. I questioned McCandless' choice of going into the Alaskan wilderness unprepared within the first few pages of the book. But as we delve deeper into his backstory, his reasoning makes sense. There's a sense of freedom that comes with being untethered from society. It was dangerous, but as you said, that danger "was worth it as long as he experienced raw nature". This multifaceted outlook we get of McCandless reflects Krakauer's attempt at trying to make the reader understand McCandless' thoughts and actions.

It makes me wonder, though, would our responses to these questions be different if we see McCandless through the lens of a different author?

Haha, as you put it, I do agree he is running away from his problems, and that's why he wants to be alone all the time. That makes complete sense! I guess I never looked at it that way. I like how you showed a reason for his wilderness journeys. And your quote makes a stronger case for what you are saying. It is his choice, but what if he liked his life, and wanted to not run from it?  I wonder if he would still want to go on these journeys. 

I agree with Krakauer not being too hard on McCandless. I do believe that he had a bias towards him though. I think that he showed on occasion him actually supporting him. Krakauer has made comments that shows that he does not necessarily have any disrespect towards McCandless. Overall I wonder what would have happened if McCandless was packed more ready for the trip. Why was everyone else so mad at McCandless?

This is a great response and several great points! Your quote exemplified your point well and you were able to back up your argument very well. I wonder where his journey will bring him through the rest of the book and how the adventures in the future will show his growth. 

I love this explanation because it reminds me of one of my relatives. He always talks about packing up his stuff and going off to do something fun, but it always ends the same way. He never puts in the effort to plan out what he will need whether that is food, clothes, utilities, etc. What makes Chris similar and different is how he actually follows through with the original thought, but has zero pre-planning. It's like going boating only to forget everything but the boat.

This book as been a thrill of a ride so far with McCandles story being so unique in a way that this type of a story could very well be a fiction story if it wasn't about a real person. I do agree that Krakauer does a great job of learning has much of McCandles story as possible so he can try to make his story alive with anyone who may read this book. 

I do believe his decision to take a trek to Alaska was not thought out to a great extent and that caused his problem of not being prepared. I also believe this all happened due to a lack of support from the people around him back at home and with feeling made him not trust the people he was around while preparing for his Alaska trip. 

That is a good point, McCandless didn't put in an effort. If I have learned anything from backpacking, being prepared is the top priority. Living off of rice, books, a sleeping bag and clothes is idiotic. No matter how good of an outdoorsman you are that isn't even close to enough gear, especially in Alaska. Krakauer does a great job showing this by sharing the stories of other yahoos that tried their hand in the Alaska wilderness. All of them were underprepared and learned the hard way just like Chris did.

I also believe that Krakauer tells the story as is. It is a biographers job to stay neutral but still able to have a few opinions in the narrative which I think Krakauer does a good job with. I 100% agree with your statement about McCandless biting off more than he can chew. I think that McCandless knew that what he was doing was going to take lots of guts and be a big change, but he decided to just dive into it headfirst. I wonder if he planned out any details before he took off on his trips and pit stops or if he was just going where the wind was taking him? Or if instead he was tired living the way he was and just randomly woke up one day and decided to travel to Alaska.  

I can definitely agree that Krakauer sometimes points out the unpleasant thing said about McCandeless. He definitely did the unexpected and didn't always make the best decisions but always had a vision in his mind on what he wanted to conquer. He made some very hard and tough decisions, including leaving his family without really saying anything. I can also agree he made these decisions for the best and was willing to take that risk.

I agree with this point of view! Yes, he knew the possible outcomes of what he wanted, but part of me feels like he is doing it out of spite since he doesn't accept help from others. I wonder if that has anything to do with his upbringing: maybe he was tired of feeling like his life was handed to him because his parents are wealthy. Either way, it only goes to show that McCandless, like most people, was a very nuanced person who only tried to do what was right. 

It is quite a shame that there is no possible way to interview him and get insight into his thought process, but Krakauer does an amazing job of portraying the man that Christopher appeared to be so that we can reflect on the mystery of his story. 

You have a really good argument with Krakauer's point of view of McCandless. I do think that in some parts of "Into the Wild", Krakauer does seem to point out McCandless's flaws and un-preparedness. I think that this is an essential part of writing a "character" in a story (even though McCandless is real, he's the main character of "Into the Wild"), to be able to show the goals and flaws, which Krakauer is able to do well. I wonder if Krakauer's point of view of McCandless would change if he was able to meet him and hear more of his story before heading to Alaska. 

In your second paragraph when you mention how he almost believes that if, "he has his own back....he will be rewarded with hard-earned luck," it made me reconsider why he was working in the first place. I agree with your statement after thinking back to all of the jobs he had. He did work really hard and learned a lot along the way, but just not enough to survive.

Very good description of how you feel. You really have a nice vocabulary and are good and proving your point. I too agree that there were many flaws in his approach, and that McCandeless was acting very naive. 

throughout your response you mention some interactions McCandeless had, and It made me wonder if McCandeless was a little mentally deficient. 

Your conslusion was great about Krakauer! You go on to say that McCandeless is naive and under prepared. I couldn´t agree more. 

I stand by my previous statements. The only thing that's changed is my knowledge of McCandless's situation and thus the reasoning behind his end. In Into the Wild, Krakauer tackles the intricate exploration of Chris McCandless's life, aiming to illuminate themes of adventure, freedom, and the charm of the wilderness. This presents a challenging and unconventional format. The primary subjective seems to be the deep dive into McCandless's inner world, motivations, and journey, unveiling risk dynamics and remodeling oneself. In essence, McCandless sought the unbinding of familial judgments while concomitantly yearning to discover the world and what he was capable of. Krakauer has a mixed, differentiating, and complicated perspective on McCandless throughout the book, showing both admiration and criticism towards his decisions. He recognizes his flaws, specifically his under-preparedness and later on, the flaws of his resources such as his survival book that contained inaccurate information on the plant that ended up being the last straw within his body, while also understanding the environment he grew up in that led him to a path of self-remodeling. This is heavily apparent in chapter six and a few other areas.

Throughout a few of these sections, Krakaeur showcases the different jobs McCandless has had, highlighting his hard work, his beliefs, and one of his flaws. This solidifies when McCandless refuses hospitality and advice from other characters, such as Franz because it showcases that McCandless is stubborn and believes he only needs himself and his hard work to make it in life and the wilderness. I believe this comes from the environment he grew up in, meaning that he had to support himself when his parents somewhat lacked in that category, and because of this, he developed an "I don't need anyone but myself" mindset. 

Thus, Krakaeur's unconventional format empathizes with McCandless's life which led him to his path of self-remodeling that quickly turned into self-demise while also recognizing his lack of introspection and his stubbornness. In short, Krakaeur is neither too hard nor too forgiving of McCandless. He has a balanced perspective that explains McCandless's decisions and intentions but also highlights the importance of support and McCandless's possible fear or frustration with the unfamiliarity of a supportive environment where he can break down his walls and allow himself to trust the intentions of someone else. 

I think your first paragraph really exemplifies your point of view with smart vocabulary, and well organized quotes.Your quote that compares McCandeless to Waterman was a really good comparison and helps your argument a lot in my opinion. 

I really like your second paragraph and how you mention both sides of the argument. I also agree with you that McCandeless was very under prepared for this trip. Do you think if he prepared more he would have survived?

Overall I agree with your point when you mention Krakauer isn´t all that nice. 

I really like how you used the quotes from your first paragraph to help explain your own opinion of Chris McCandless. I fully agree when you said Chris was a competent person and he suffered from being underprepared. And the fact that he never told anyone where he want was an even worse idea. He clearly was and wasn't prepared for his excursion.

I agree with how this story of Chris McCandless is very intriguing. Deciding to take up this story of some guy who decided to seclude himself from reality and take a trip to Alaska, was a very interesting choice made by Krakauer. The author was able to stay very neutral but still kind of hint at his opinions a bit throughout the novel so far. It is different to hear from someone who decided to change his name and drop everything to travel to Alaska to get away. I believe that McCandless wanted something more with life but wasn't able to get it 

I also agree that McCandles story is interesting with the way he goes around to doing it. He does not want to do anything the conventional way, he does everything on his own with very little help accept for what people persuaded him to take. The author in my opinion has done a great job to explain his story with great detail from every part of the adventure so far. The story has been fun to read and I am intrigued for the rest of the book. I do agree McCandles is a strange person but I do think it is because of the lack of support from the people around him. They caused him to fend for himself and to me I think that's why he wanted to go as far away as possible. 

I somewhat agree with you. I am a little bit on both of the sides of him being a weirdo but also admire his dedication to being different from society. McCandless understood what he was getting himself into and knew the consequences going into this life style, but he chose to look at it in a more positive way then just taking peoples opinions on his situation. 

I can agree that Chris has made some intriguing decisions. It's great how the author didn't have a bias and stayed neutral in the story. I also thought that Chris made some crappy decisions including leaving his family without really saying anything. Also, it is crazy how spontaneous he was going to different places far from home.

I can understand why you have this viewpoint! I think if anything, McCandless knows that he might die but he doesn't care because he believes he is chasing his passions and happiness. Although his wishes don't line up with common societal wants, I personally admire that he chooses to suffer in order to feel free. He could have been a little less selfish, but don't you think that sometimes you have to be selfish in order to do what is best for yourself?

I agree with your point and I think that I am a bit conflicted on how i feel with his situation. Although you made a great point about McCandless, not caring about people it is a valid point but at the same time he has shown many times where he does care about certain people it just is difficult to express that for him. He also understands what he is getting himself into when he led himself into the jounrey. I admire the effort to seperate himself from society to be able to express himself the way he feels is easiest . 

Your response made me laugh, especially with the "idiot" part! Your point on McCandless having potential "mental issues" is an interesting take that I haven't considered before. While the book doesn't explicitly say that McCandless had mental problems, the reader definitely gets a sense that his situation isn't normal. Whether it was a parental or societal conflict, McCandless had internal battles—or "demons"—he was running away from. It would explain his peripatetic lifestyle. Upon first impression, I got a sense that McCandless was overconfident in his abilities. But as I read more of the book and learned his outlook on life, he appeared less overconfident and more acquiescent to the nature of life. Krakauer deliberately chose to incorporate stories of other "survivalists" (none of them actually survived), and the particular quote you brought up contrasts McCandless' situation with Carl McCunn. McCunn was actually the overconfident one, who ventured into the Alaskan woods unprepared and eventually perished for his lack of foresight. The inclusion of this story highlights that, yes, McCandless was an unprepared idealist. But he also knew full well the possible outcomes of his Alaskan Odyssey and accepted it.

Then again, maybe that does make him an idiot.

I wonder, though, without the additional stories Krakauer added in, would our opinions on McCandless change?

I do agree with the idea that Christopher Mccandles had some “mental issues” like you stated, however maybe because of hardship and his mindset. Mccandless overall character is definitely conflicting, he seems as though he is well educated though he was not prepared to take on his journey. Your post brought a new perspective to hand, your idea that he was overconfident until his life was starting to end also could be more than true. I think that he impulsively took on the journey because he wanted to get away and knew that he was prepared but took forth in doing so anyway. His reconnection with nature and a break from society was his intention in my eyes but, I can see how Mccandles is itiotic. I know at times I can be like this way as well, tired of norms therefore I impulsively make a decision that I think will solve the problem even though I know that there are consequences. Do you ever feel like this?  

Hmm, I like how you mentioned his parents, and how he viewed them, or any for that matter. You did a nice job explaining his view as unbiased, which is hard to do when talking about a subject like that. How could he not like his parents or want them in his life, they seemed caring. I wonder if his parents are who we think they are, or if they weren't great to him, and that is why he has no problem leaving them in the dust. 

I understand what you are saying, there really is no argument against what he did to his parents and how he made them feel. However his entire psychological state was based around being selfish and his life and writings revolved around him journeying under his own impulses and without a worry or care for what anyone else has to say. But I understand feeling as if there was more details into Mcandless family life to further develop the family dynamic to see really how harshly Mcandless impacted his family. Is there a desire for more details around Mcandless's family life in the novel or is what is allotted enough?

 I 100% agree with you that Mccandles was not in the right state of mind. Now that you mentioned the idea that he never rethought his decision it is dumbfounding to me because I was completely inconspicuous about that. Going off of what you said about Mccandles not having a great relationship with his parents, maybe this is why he impulsively decided to venture through the outdoors alone. Because he felt alone and thought that he couldn’t rely on family, making him want to be distant from people in general so he sought to find peace or happiness within nature. If this is true, I realized how in ways I relate to Mccandles, feeling disconnected from people and society that causes me to do actions that are not thought through thinking that i'll find more comfort and happiness away from people and society. 

I think it is definitely interesting that McCandless's upbringing so drastically shifted his goals and motivations. It is fairly sad that he left behind his family but I can empathize with the feeling of not being understood by family. His coping mechanisms clearly weren't the safest, but hopefully, he was fulfilled by his time out in the wilderness. I do wish he had eventually gotten to heal, not just his relationship with his family, but his relationship with mankind. Then he wouldn't have had to live and die so alone. If the afterlife is real, do you think he might be at peace with his decisions?

I agree that McCandless is not in a right state of mind. He has clearly been shown a lack of empathy overall and didn't have a lot of people in his life from the beginning. He is a man for himself and likes to stay on his own.

I agree with you that McCandles has acted in his own manner and has a big aspirations for what he wants to do. McCandles beliefs has carried him all of the way to Alaska and he now has to see what he is in for and how prepared he is. McCandles has gone through a lot in his life and his actions of running away from home was contributed with not being wanted from his parents. McCandles did a lot from leaving home and making his way to Alaska; meeting loads of new people and getting opportunities that some he took up on. The thing he lacks though is the experience of living in the wilderness. 

Krakauer pledged in the foreword of the book that his recount of McCandless' story isn't without some bias. That could've definitely come across in a "positive manner" as he tried to make the readers more understanding of McCandless' situation. You pointing out that McCandless "acted in his own ignorance and not his own arrogance" is a very valid point. I also personally didn't see McCandless acting arrogantly. He could've been mad at the world and abandoned the ties of society, but he didn't have an exaggerated sense of importance that usually comes with arrogance.

I see your argument, you explain it thoroughly and smoothly. You helped me look at the bias towards Mcandless argument in a different way than I have viewing the different posts. I also felt at different points in the story Krakauer was certainly being bias toward Mcandless and shows unfairness, however in the grand scheme of the entire book I see him being indifferent, using other peoples accounts and opinions of Chris to refute the bias. Begs the question, if Krakauer only showed negativity and mostly positive bias through other's accounts, was it truly Krakauers bias or others?