Into the Wild Chapters 6-9

Your opinion on how you think Chris is simply romanticizing his life and can't seem to be realistic in any part of his journey seems very true, based on the evidence the book gives us not only is he not prepared for whats ahead he also doesn't seem to care about the people he's leaving, Like you said. Krauker is too forgiving of Chris and many different parts of the book shows that. 

Personally I agree with your view of McCandless, I view him as irresponsible and sometimes even a bit selfish, with the way he not only leaves his family but the friends he made along the way. 

Krauker tries to acknowledge Chris's faults but I think feels too connected to him to do it truly, he sees a version of himself in Chris and I think tries to have others be able to view themselves as Chris in different ways. 

do you agree with this thought? why or why not? 

I agree with you that Krauker has a soft spot for Chris because of how he relates to him. I also agree that adding Waynes' perspective lets Krauker show his softness for Chris. 

personally, I don't exactly feel sympathy for Chris but I do feel sympathy for his family, because of how Chris just left his family with no warning and didn't write while he was on the road at all, while he also wasn't prepared for the adventure that was ahead of him. 

The way Chris lived his life after he left home is something many people dream of but never quit do, the story of chris is almost a warning of what not to turn into but the sympathy that Krauker shows and how he tells his own story doesn't fully scare people off of the adventure and so in part, I support Kraukers sympathy.

Id like to know your opinion on if you think having the family's opinion would change how you feel about Chris?

That's very insightful in what you said about Krakauer's view in that he goes soft on Chris because there's a piece of understanding he's trying to convey to audiences reading the book, yet he doesn't make him out as a deity but an individual doing something that is dream for a lot of us, but never go out there and do it. I think it's very interesting because when talking about Chris ,it is always the notion that Kraukauer is personifying one side, whereas Kraukauer in your belief goes to fuse two ideas that his spiritual journey should be praised (soft-ish) but not exactly the person to glorify (Hard-ish) because he is just trying finding a sense of happiness. 

Although I reiterated in what you said about understanding Chris, however, when is Krakauer at times not as understanding and more critical of his journey? 

I agree with you that Krakauer does highlight McCandless’ faults throughout the story, but still paints him in a positive light. As you mentioned, he tries to understand McCandless’ motivations and point of view which is important when creating a biography. I agree with your opinion, that it seems Chris is unprepared, however, Krakauer never seems to judge this aspect of his character. I find that interesting because it is hard not to judge anything. Krakauer is quite forgiving in his narrative as he tries to justify his actions through people’s portrayals of him.

Krakauer is forgiving to McCandless because it seems he can relate to him in some way. Maybe, Krakauer experienced similarities in his own life and wants to give a fully covered story of McCandless’ life. It makes me wonder why Krakauer took on the challenge of writing about McCandless. Do you think it will be mentioned later in the book? In a sense, Krakauer is trying to do justice to McCandless’ story by playing into his mindset, whether the qualities are good or bad. 

Do you have any guesses as to why Krakauer wrote Into the Wild? Did he intend to write it this way, or was it an unconventional by-product of his story-telling? 

I agree with you, he is forgiving but highlights his faults. Krakauer is highlighting why he thinks McCandles is going on this adventure because it aligns with why he attempted the same. 

I think he is unprepared but he didn't intent to be prepared. He did throw himself into this with no plan, to simply find himself. I can also applaud him for that, because I couldn't imagine being not scared of death. He had a huge passion for adventure and that was all McCandles focused on, where he was going next. 

I think that is very interesting that you dislike McCandless, but I understand the reasoning behind it. He does seem to discard the people that cared about him, (especially Franz), which could certainly be acknowledged as manipulative behavior. I agree that Krauker does lean towards using stories of people with positive affinities with Chris, which can make him a more biased author, limiting the amount of faults revealed. 

This makes me wonder where the line is for a "suicide mission" (like Alaska) versus some of his other adventures where he was jumping trains and vagabonding with strangers. I think all of his adventures could be considered suicide missions and crazy endeavors, so the fact that Alaska stands out to you is interesting to me.

Although Alaska is mainly unknown, there are cities and towns that Chris would've been able to travel to and still see Alaska. Though this isn't what he wanted. He wanted to go stay in the forest and do whatever he wanted, unconfined by society. Viewing maps of Alaska and reading information about climate, game, and plants would give you a better understanding of what Chris was thinking when planning this trip, though it seemed he was underprepared, perhaps he wasn't.

Have you ever used anyone to get what you wanted? How did that make you feel/ how did it make them feel? Does Chris's actions upset you? What would you differently?

From your post, I agree that McCandless was definitely unprepared, but I don't necessarily think that it makes him stupid. In the first few chapters of the book, we learn that McCandless intentionally abandoned his car, his money, and several other materials that could have been useful. I think that he went into his journey strategically underprepared to give him the full experience. Similar to how some people prefer to go camping in tents sometimes, even if they have campers, because tents expose you more directly to nature while campers are often seen as "glamping." 

My first reaction to your post though is that I definitely agree with your statement that McCandless uses people for his own benefit. While Krakauer shows some of the more touching moments between McCandless and other characters like Franz, he doesn't directly highlight the fact that McCandless doesn't really bother to visit or talk to people unless he needs something from them.

One question that I thought of while reading these chapters is this: if McCandless were older, do you think things would have gone differently? I think that McCandless's journey is very reflective of his young adulthood. A lot of teenagers and young adults find liberation in going against the grain and having a sense of independence, but if Chris were older, would he maybe have decided to opt out of the trip? Does maturity change this sort of thing or is it purely based on someone's character as a whole?

I agree with you disliking McCandless and I agree with your explanation of it. I see what you mean about him ignoring people and I see how you can take it all in from the book. I think the author takes his stories and uses them too much and sometimes can twist it, In that conclusion I think he is a biased author.

I think that he was on a death wish because he knew what he was getting into with the elements and everything else he knew that it was going to be tough and he didn't repair. 

Chris wanted to only stay in the the woods he isn't like all about seeing people and meeting new people you can just tell that he doesn't wanna stay in the cites and things like that. 

Have you ever wanted to take a trip to alaska? or not wanted to be in the city and take a trip into the woods?

Although I disagree with your opinion, that he is impartial, I can see where you are coming from when you make that statement. He sets up interviews that will benefit the narrative he is trying to portray for the audience, however, he does not misinterpret their statements. He is fair and does not have an unreasonable line of questioning that elicits a forced response. However, I do agree that Krakauer portrays McCandless’ character through those who have met with him. 

Bias is inevitable no matter how hard we try, so anyone who tries to be unbiased is set up for failure. Krakauer knew this as in the beginning of “Into the Wild” he mentioned that he would be a biased author. This sounds like a bad quality, but bias is an unintended by-product of being human. We are bound to have opinions. I appreciate that he is self-aware enough to understand he is going to give a biased telling. Nonetheless, he wrote a quality story, and so far, with each chapter I read, I am more inclined to be more forgiving of McCandless. 

I do view McCandless as reckless, but I am the opposite of him, so I am not a fair judge. His journey and actions would have never crossed my mind once, by no means am I condemning his lifestyle choices, I am saying we are two different people. Nonetheless, the shared notion of you and McCandless, the desire to travel is something I can agree with. Quite often, I find myself yearning to leave everything behind and to travel. Although that is unfeasible now, I most assuredly travel across the globe when I have the opportunity. I am envious of McCandless in that aspect. However, I will be traveling by conventional means and I will not cut contact with my loved ones.  

McCandless is set on going to Alaska, his friends mention it often, and so does he. My question to you is, where do you want to go? What is your Alaska? How will you get there? Are you going to follow in McCandless’ footsteps?

That's a great point on how Krakauer could've been discerning with his choices of interviewing people that lean towards the softness of the book, bringing up other chances that Chris McCandless was no more than relatable than detestable. But I find it hard that there was a point to put softness inside the thoughts of others, when in fact when you give a response to people like Krakauer, it don't think there's in mind that it was a controlled theme, i will say it leverages McCandless by a big deal, however it wouldn't be easy for a journalist like him, who relies on first source accounts to try to belittle the evidence of the truth that people made his evidence more clear that softness is the idea. 

 Maybe we see the authors objectives completely differently, and maybe after all Krakauer did just lead us into thinking unwittingly that he is soft on him, but moving forward I think it's a good idea to look into your traveling mishaps and opportunities in the long run, because going out alone is no easy job, good luck out there when you do. 

I feel sometimes humans, especially now as teenagers, just look for something different to do with our lives and desire to see life fully for what it is instead of what television and teachers say, building up a conchieved motion in our heads. Therefore it proves naturally, humans are very defiant and yet divert apart of ourselves that is wanted not necessarily, but something we can't remove in ourselves because our ego and confidence is prevalent. Like of Chris, who really wanted to let those thoughts he could've had before college that was supposed to help his already -bound life, but finally let his dream run free into uncharted territory instead of running in cage all his life. 

Could the history and accounts of Chris McCandless earn him a saint like title, or could he remain muddy for a while since there is more debate?

I think that's quite a good answer that you have about Krakauer as being the type of writer that often blurs the line on Chris between the good and bad. Because what he's trying to accomplish is a relatable stance on Chris due to the pains of being a troubled youth as well as his ambitions to better himself spiritually, but not forgetting that his positive ambition was looked as over-complacent . But I think sometimes we get wrong that McCandless was not prepared, but let's say coincidentally that he  "didn't see the forest through the trees". I would think it would've been usefull for McCandless to do a safety check on what he needed to prepare, but I can relate even if the situation was precarious, that McCandless didn't realize at that point and time to look at the more bigger things to come than of what small items he had to secure himself throughout the trip. I believed he would have done it on his own for a whole year (after all, he did own a rifle,jacket,a tent and a wardrobe with pounds rice he  never fussed about), but the issues at be became a cruel irony and poisons his overall being as an individual, as you never see people like Henry David Thoreau die like of being a hermit and he's considered the greatest man of all time (regarding the common idea, his image is getting newly detested) and creating transcendentalism, but Chris doing the same way of life and possibly after a collection of his writings (as he could've put Walden to be labeled antiquated), dies bittersweet and it leaves the taste in our mouths.

If Chris didn't die and lived to tell the tale? would he be famous or would he become apart of the silent crowd of regular tramps because he didn't gain posthumous notoriety? 

Also, people should check out Julia "Butterfly" Hill, she's much like McCandless because lived in recluse on top of a tree for 2 years, there more to her story if anyone wants to check it out.  It's the same vibe in a way. 

https://juliabutterflyhill.com/julia/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julia-Butterfly-Hill

It bewilders me, how I almost agree with everything you stated in your post. I believe it is because we are so similar in various ways such as classes, extracurriculars, etc. Nonetheless, I appreciate how eloquently you highlight Krakauers forgiving tendency, but still is critical of McCandless’ shortcomings. When you mentioned Krakauer’s admiration for McCandless I feel that perfectly explains Krakauer’s point of view when he wrote “Into the Wild”. 

Specifically, I love how you mention Krakauer’s point of view, about how he can be over-forgiving but also critical of McCandless’ actions. However, I believe that Krakauer is too forgiving when talking about McCandless and that there is an imbalance. It feels like he is trying to justify all the actions he took even if they are conventionally bad. On the opposite side of the coin, I appreciate that he is trying to justify his actions because I want to understand his motivations. I want to feel sympathetic towards him and I think “Into the Wild” would be unreadable if he was against McCandless. However, it is hard to understand and justify his actions with the looming thought of his death becasue he is ill-equipped, as you said. 

It is often overlooked how unprepared McCandless was to take on such a drastic change. He did not have proper clothes, food, or a plan of how he was going to survive. His lifestyle before the radical change was completely different than the one he created for himself. It seemed as if he had no preparation for this, and jumped into it prematurely. Without the kindness of a plethora of strangers, he would not have been able to succeed to the degree he had. I am not knocking his survival skills, as he has demonstrated multiple times that he is more than capable of surviving on his own. Nonetheless, the people he met along the way made his travel easier. Did he plan to get helped by strangers? Did he even plan?

Why do you think he is so nonchalant? Throughout the story he never seems to be scared of death, why is that? Do you like the way Krakauer portrays McCandless’ story? Why or why not?

I agree with you that Krakauer supports McCandless and is very forgiving. I definitely understand your view on McCandless and how he's selfish and unprepared.

 You mentioned how he shouldn't be going alone, in your opinion would a companion change the outcome or do you think the both of them would just end up in danger?

Do you think if he had someone to confide in earlier, he would have avoided the trip all together? 

I agree that Krakauer is decently forgiving of McCandless. He does show him as free-spirited and an idealist, but I understand your view instead of him being selfish and unprepared, though he does clearly act this way at times. 

This makes me think about how even though he just wanted to achieve his big dreams, he did hurt people along the way, people who only wanted to help him and cared for him so much. This makes me wonder how his dreams of wilderness could thwart the desire for human connection, which seems like a necessary component of life. 

It can be hard to tell the time of day without a watch, and Chris had basically nothing. The fact that he assumed it was August would mean that the days in interior Alaska last about 18 hours, and temperatures are above freezing. He should have been able to find a good game in order to feed himself, but apparently not. 

What would you bring to be better prepared in Alaska?

boots...?

I agree with you. I agree that Krakauer is decently forgiving. I also agree about his tone. It's as if he's admired but is learning from how McCandles went about his adventure. 

I understand what your saying that he is selfish and unprepared. People/friends along the way tried to warn McCandles and when he didn't listen, they tried to give him items; food, clothing, money, even a job. It's unsettling how he went out with nothing and wasn't oblivious to the fact he could die. 

Do you think he should have listened to the warning? Should he have taken the hand-outs people tried giving him?

Overall, I agree with you that Krakauer inserted himself into the story in an inappropriate way. I like that you mentioned that it felt like you were reading a book on Krakauer because that is very true. Even if Krakauer's interjection was imperative to the story, it didn't really need to be that long.

I also think that you made an interesting point about Krakauer's narrative being insensitive to McCandless's family members. Krakauer is almost fangirling over McCandless and their similarities around this part of the book, and considering that McCandless was a real person who died during his journey, this style of narrative is unfitting. It may also be insensitive for Krakauer to discuss his own story because Krakauer lived and McCandless didn't, which is like salt in the wound for the family.

Still, if Krakauer left all personal thoughts, opinions, and stories about other characters out of Into the Wild, the book would basically be just another news story. In a way, Krakauer's personal touches are what makes the book an actual book. Although his narrative didn't fit into the book well, his biases may add to it. 

Circling back to the comment about his family members, I think that it's interesting to wonder how this book affected them. More than likely, Into the Wild, brought a lot more attention to their family, even almost 30 years later. Krakauer published the book only 4 years after McCandless's death. If Krakauer had written the book a decade after McCandless's death, would it change the way it affects them? Does Krakauer owe McCandless and his family privacy, or is it up to the media to discuss issues like these as they please?

I think that I agree with everything you say especially that he had his own journey was kinda close to McCandless and that shows the depth of the situation. I also think they are both willy nilly when it comes to being prepared and knowing what he is getting himself into. 

I think if Chris was fully prepared and willing to accept help he would be well off, but he came into the situation with knowing and that's not a good way to a accomplish one of your dreams. If I have a dream I'm gonna make sure I have everything I need to accomplish it and get it done the right way. 

Do you believe that he should have let people help him? do you think that would change the ending of the story? 

Although Krakauer is forgiving of McCandless, up until this section we do not know it is because of his personal experiences and own willingness to explore and leave behind what one knows. McCandless was a dreamer, and he is bold and brave for attempting this new life for himself, with the ever-looming possibility that he might now make it back.

I agree that Krakauer views McCandless in a positive light and that he is filled with courage and strength. I also view McCandless positively, whereas some of our classmates view him negatively, as reckless and underprepared. This makes me wonder if perhaps someone can be both... reckless, and ambitious?

There are many ways that you can discover yourself, and I believe that young adulthood is the perfect time to go through the journey of better understanding yourself and becoming that person you might want to be one day. McCandless' adventure entailed Alaska, and you have to decide where your place is, and what way your path points.

What are your plans for after highschool? Do you know who you are/ how might you find that person?

I strongly agree that Krakauer is very forgiving of Chris McCandless. Krakauer definitely integrated his own opinions about McCandless into the book, and Krakauer could easily be described as an unreliable narrator in some aspects. While his narrative provides a good comparison between his own story and McCandless's, it's hard to tell if the story is being influenced by his biases since he has such a personal connection to McCandless's story. 

Personally, I agree with the statement that McCandless was a dreamer, and I think that it was courageous of him to go out into the wilderness with no supplies, but his strategy needed refining. I think it's important to look at his goal in order to make judgments on his intelligence. If his goal was to live comfortably in the woods and come out the other side completely unscathed, then he was severely underprepared and possibly more ignorant than brave. Still, I doubt that was his goal. More likely, McCandless probably intended to live away from society and face the harshness (and beauty) of the wilderness. In this sense, getting rid of some of his supplies positively benefited his journey because he got to have the full experience. Obviously his death was unfortunate, but having fewer resources actually helped him experience a lack of society the way that he intended to (think camping v. "glamping")

It raises interesting questions about people's motives in general. Can you judge someone without knowing their intentions? How does understanding someone's goals change how you view them as a person?- (if it does at all).