Chapters 6-9

I think that Krakauer's description of McCandless is too forgiving of McCandless faults, and if this is intentional, it's done well. The way that McCandless's life is romanticized until his death is one I didn't understand, even from the beginning of the book and it comes off as a fan-fiction of McCandless life and his inspiration, but I think this plays a role in the story. The way it's written, with barely any time spent describing things that are subjectively wrong with McCandless and instead, by focusing on the idealistic almost fanatic obsession with untouchable beauty and isolation, using this sense of wonder to toy with the reader's emotions throughout the story. The hard comparison between the theatrical description of McCandless's wayward life vs the mysterious and abrupt descriptions of the boy's death jostles even the most skeptical reader's perspective. You are sat in McCandless's shoes, almost horrified with the way this world is idealized and the way the author writes with a pair of glasses tinted past rose and then contrasting this sense of comfort and uncomfortableness with abrupt fact. I think that's where the creative nonfiction get's creative, when the use of mystery and emotion is used to manipulate how the reader is meant to feel and what they're meant to understand about the character of Chris McCandless.

I think the choice to begin each chapter with a picturesque description of the wilderness and small towns or native flowers is an intentional set up. Descriptions like "the travelers through this hard, dry country have for centuries relied on the oasis" (88) or "in late spring [the bear-paw poppy] produces a delicate golden bloom" (25) or "sleepy little cluster[s] of clapboard houses" (15) are meant to dull your senses and submerse you in a feeling of comfort and familiarity, as McCandless would have felt as he traveled the US and embarked to Alaska. Each description of his close friends familiar faces or giddy postcards make you feel connected to the story and to McCandless's perspective in a special way, and when the description quickly becomes blocky and loses it's mystical air when describing his death, you feel as if he has died in the story. Slowly, as the circumstances of his death are revealed, so are the hard truths behind his personality and perspective, and as the story progresses I hope to see this use of emotion and description continue to connect you to the story beyond that of, lets say, Everett Ruess or Carl McCunn. 

I think McCandless is naive, overly-idealistic and slightly unstable, but I also empathize with his determination and spirit, and I think the book sets out to harshly contrast those two ideas and make you feel the discomfort that comes from it.

I think that Krakauer is way too easy on McCandles, it almost seems like to me that he idealizes his stupid decisions (for lack of better words). He always speaks so far he has spoken very highly of him. It seems as though as Amalie said above, he idealizes him. To me, it seems like everyone else idealizes him in this book, which doesn't make sense to me. He was an overconfident, underprepared man.

An example of this is, "Worried he would be denied entry because he was carrying no identification, he sneaked into Mexico by paddling through the dam's open floodgates and shooting the spillway below. (34)". I totally understand that he wants to have his freedom away from his family, but the fact that he got rid of all proof of ID, hardly brought any food/supplies, and is sneaking into a different country illegally shows what kind of person he was.

As mentioned above he made multiple connections, and they tried helping them but he would refuse. People went above and beyond to make themselves readily available to help him, offering money, shoes, a place to stay, etc. and he always found a way to deny it even when he needed it. The idea of him following his dreams is great, I just think he would have been able to live a long happy life if he had even been a little wiser with his decision-making, such as taking help when people tried or packing more supplies.

I feel that Krakauer is too forgiving when describing the radical actions that McCandless had taken before his mysterious death. Krakauer seems to almost idealize McCandless’ extreme lifestyle choices, even though they were quite strange and unrealistic for the time period. Krakauer seems to dismiss the idea that McCandless’ actions were unrealistic and dangerous by narrating the story as if his life was a mere fictional story instead of a real life event that led to his untimely death.

I view McCandless as someone who was unprepared and overconfident in his abilities to successfully carry out his journey. I feel that the message and goal he was trying to gain from his trip was that he did not need the restraints of society in order to live life but it was not realistic. In order to successfully carry out his journey, he needed to rely somewhat on using resources such as money and transportation even though he tried to just rely on just himself. He decided to travel on foot instead of waiting for his Datsun to dry out after it was flooded because he was impatient. After the sheriff found the car, it ran fine since it had been drying out. McCandless also decided that he did not need any money to survive either, even though he barely had any food or supplies to survive. He could have used the money to buy supplies to prepare him for the walking journey ahead of him but he decided to just burn all of his money instead of being resourceful with it. I understand that he was trying to get away from the restraints of society but he could have used the money and the car to travel to his destination faster and begin his journey sooner along with buying more supplies to better prepare himself. He was not rationally thinking about the consequences of his actions or trying to use the resources he did have to prepare himself for the long journey ahead.

Chris McCandless is selfish. He continuously used the people around him to get where he wanted to go. When he worked at McDonald's he used one of his coworkers for a ride and never spoke to them again. Another perhaps worse instance, was when McCandless used an elderly man that cared about him so deeply he wanted to adopt him. His name was Ronald Franz. He drove Chris from California to Colorado to help bring him to where he wanted to be. Franz later was inspired by McCandless to live off the grid. When the newspapers and magazines started writing about McCandless' death, Franz contacted them and tried to find out more information. Krakauer absolutely portrays McCandless in a much better light than he should. He doesn't make it seem like Chris is very selfish, and he should highlight that more. Chris used these people for himself and then died, making their efforts in vain. I think Chris went into this adventure without thinking it all the way through, and that ended in his demise. 

I don’t believe Krakauer is being too hard on Chris because you can tell he can understand and relate. He is able to understand Chris’s mind but also the minds of those in society because he two has been on both sides of the spectrum. Krakauer talks about how “figures of male authority aroused in me a confusing medley of corked fury and hunger to please.”(Krakauer, 134) He understands how McCandless’s seemingly possessive father could’ve driven him to be defiant in search of an escape. Krakauer’s escape was also very dangerous as he climbed the “Devil’s Thumb.” Did he know he would survive? No. But he knew that if he did, he, “didn’t doubt that climbing the devil’s thumb would change my life.”(Krakauer, 135) Krakauer understands that McCandless was probably thinking similar things, and didn’t really plan much for what could go wrong. He was so driven and determined to make it through. 

Much like Krakauer, I don’t entirely fault Chris for making the decision he made. I do believe partly that his choice was a selfish act. Leaving his parents the way he did with no communication, no explanation, and no answers wasn’t right. His mom now, “breaks down from time to time, weeping as only a mother who has outlived a child can weep,”(Krakauer 132) because of it. But I don’t believe his plan and what he actually set out to do was a stupid choice. He may have been a little ignorant, and underprepared. But he definitely got on the right foot and was figuring it out. He was getting better at hunting and providing for himself, as he was killing grouse, squirrels, and even a moose! He was creating sources of warmth and insulation with hides and skin. It was just that one inopportune bump in the road, where the river was to flooded and the current was too strong for him to cross back. And unfortunately is left many to judge him for his ignorance and stupidity.

Krakauer constantly overlooks McCandless's mistakes and hardships. Especially in the beginning of the book, with how unprepared we see McCandless is, and it's shrugged off as 'oh he was so driven!', 'he is so good at adapting' when in actuality we as readers can see that with this much lack of preparation and knowledge of how to live without these physical resources, there was no probable way for him to last as long as someone who did everything right. Throughout the chapters, McCandless's resourcefulness did seem to improve since was given a manual of wilderness food from the man who gave him a ride, but it seemed as if Krakauer wrote to almost boost his ego and play up his skills. I see the ideal life and experience McCandless was trying to achieve due to Krakauer's writing displaying how peaceful a desolate life could be, but I still believe that going into the foreign wilderness so unbelievably unprepared really set him up for failure. In most cases, you can't just believe you can do something if you have never even attempted it. 

I would describe Krakauer as a bad influence. Some of the actions detailed in this novel about McCandless seem shameless, or radical. Almost never is he perceived badly within this book, as Krakauer tried to sway us in his direction. Most of the inserts and interviews with other people paint McCandless in a good light, even if what they're saying may not seem as such. Krakauer is too forgiving. It feels like he sings McCandless praise for easily dangerous decisions. Almost like he admired him for his actions that were clearly dangerous. “-and on me, as well, the author of the story, for glorifying what some thought was a foolish, pointless death.” (71) It seemed like McCandless intentions were good for himself. But its clear with the refusal of items offered to him, and cutting down the weight of his load by getting rid of food it seems he made plenty of bad decisions. “ I agree that he was an “idealist” with the “courage to pursue his own dream,” but that doesn't change the fact that he did not seem very smart in certain terms. He was too overconfident and proud, and those things failed him. ‘“Why would anyone intending to ‘live off the land for a few months’ forget Boy Scout rule number one: Be Prepared?…” (71) “Much of the negative mail was sent in by Alaskans.” (71) I think this only further proves the point that McCandless was overconfident. He died in Alaska, and residents of it are even saying how much of a bad idea it was. They know the weather, the culture, environment, so it'd be easy for them to say the same thing for McCandless. On how going there not very prepared was pretty much a stupid idea.