Throughout Into the Wild, Krakauer goes back often to the fact that a lot of people think McCandless was crazy, or had a death wish–basically, they don’t understand him at all. While for many reasons I would not do what McCandless did, I do feel like I have a pretty good understanding of the urge that drove him “into the wild.” I share his desire to appreciate unadulterated nature and to sometimes do things the hard way for the sake of the experience. My guess from the enthusiasm the NOBC membership has shown for this book, that most of you feel the same way. Am I right?
Now, to offer a counterpoint to my own statement, could it be that I/we understand McCandless more because of the careful way Krakauer has painted him?
December 1, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Krakauer’s own hard-won and nearly fatal experiences, his reading of the same or similar authors, and his relationship with his father gave him a unique vantage point when it came to researching and writing this book. I think his portrayal of McCandless is much more sympathetic than that which would have been written by almost anyone else.
I also think that what appears to have been purposefully spread “misinformation” (about the moose – something Krakauer, ironically, helped to spread), as well as the “potato seed” question (though to a lesser extent) contributed greatly to the scorn heaped upon McCandless, especially by Alaskans.
Personally, perhaps because I’m in my 40s now and have achieved a somewhat better level of self-awareness with respect to my limitations than I had in my youth – and probably also because of my basic personality – I don’t relate that well to McCandless with respect to his wanting to live in the wild, off of the land, etc.
December 2, 2007 at 2:21 pm
[The sound of crickets.]
What happened to that enthusiasm?
December 2, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Maybe enthusiasm took the weekend off?
I think the reason I wouldn’t try to live off the land like McCandless is that I just don’t have that kind of pride, to assume that I could make it (or even have a good chance of making it). But it is nonetheless very appealing.
December 2, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Work is crazy right now so I haven’t had much time to think about it. I can definitely say that this book makes me want to live an “outside the box” lifestyle. Not necessarily tramping or living off the land — but if that’s possible and tenable, then living a moderated back-to-nature lifestyle should be easy if you can figure out how to work it.
December 3, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Sorry, I haven’t had a chance to post yet… I was at camp all weekend long.
I think my enthusiasm comes from a deep sense of adventure that I wish I had the guts to embark on. I think there is something inside that makes me wish I could take some greater risks. But, then again not showering or eating for a few days doesn’t sound appealing.
Also, I resonate with the inability to make and form strong relationships (which I will post on in greater length).
December 5, 2007 at 5:30 pm
This Book = Good.
Sorry, I am still learning how to form sentences and am scared to jump into this conversation (like the feeling of double dutch jump rope) because of all the big words and deep thoughts that go into it. As soon as I buy a thesaurus I should be good.
December 5, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Justin – jump in! The water is fine
(I’ll confess that I sometimes have to look up stuff to make sure I’m using the right word, and I’ll bet others do, too. If you really want to use different words, try Thesaurus.com.)
December 6, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I noticed that we are getting a lot of search engine traffic with this book discussion… kind of interesting.
December 6, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Yes – probably due to the movie…
December 6, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I did a quick Google search on “into the wild” just to see what would pop up. That led to the Wikipedia entry on the film, which led to this Men’s Journal article: The Cult of Chris McCandless. I’m sure you can guess where the article is coming from, but it’s worth a quick read for some intriguing info on the potato seeds, details on the filming of the movie, and the note Krakauer left in the bus (that should have gotten your interest!) The Wikipedia page on the book also discusses the potato seed issue, and mentions a revision by Krakauer in the most recent edition of the book. I bought my copy 10+ years ago – does anyone’s copy mention moldy potato seeds as the possible culprit rather than toxins found in the seeds/seed pods?
December 6, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Yeah, mine had a section on the mold. It was more up to date than wikipedia, actually. It is the “movie-themed” edition, so it must have come out this year.
December 6, 2007 at 3:35 pm
So did your version mention the toxin analysis at all?
December 6, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Yeah, kind of like this …
Krakauer: Look, toxins!
Scientists: Nope, no toxins here.
Krakauer: Ok, forget the toxins. Mold!
He had a story about a native Alaskan woman who had contracted a similar condition through eating mold that grew on the potato seeds. She survived, because she had medical care and was not already undernourished.
December 6, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Mine is the older edition and it talked about the potato seed issue… that it wasn’t the “wrong” seed, but the pods. The movie neglects to mention any of this though and makes you assume that he was mistaken and careless.
Krakauer is definitely tying to make up for any sort of portrayal of McCandless as a moron… since a lot of folks automatically assumed that.
December 6, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Ben – I see. He mentioned the medical care and general health issue with respect to the original toxin premise, as well…
Tato – the movie doesn’t mention what? Either the toxin or the mold?
December 7, 2007 at 9:52 am
The movie doesn’t mention either. The way it appears in the movie is that he mistakes an edible plant for a poisonous one. I think, if I remember right, that one of the side effects was losing the ability to eat, or swallow, or you always throw up…something like that. So basically he died of starvation.
Tato is that right?
December 7, 2007 at 9:52 am
But either way, it never specifically calls it out as a toxin or mold.
December 7, 2007 at 10:10 am
It inhibited his digestion… so he could eat, but wouldn’t get any caloric advantage from the stuff… both plants had the same side effect, but the point from Krakauer is that he didn’t make a mistake, it just wasn’t documented that you couldn’t eat the seed pods.
December 7, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I seem to remember him not being able to eat at all. Like he would try, but it would just come back up…(I’m talking about the movie of course)
December 7, 2007 at 2:50 pm
That would certainly convey a reduction in caloric benefit in a graphic, movie-friendly way!
December 7, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I found a site that basically says there are A LOT of discrepancies in the book and the move. I don’t know how legit it is, but it’s interesting to read. I especially like where they analyze the iconic picture of Supertramp in front of the bus. It looks like his right arm is not in the sleeve. Interesting. Here is the site…
http://www.terraincognitafilms.com/cw-sub/debunked.htm
There is also a big old section about his death.
December 7, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Very interesting, Justin! Thanks for that link. I must say that I don’t see anything suspicious about the right sleeve in that picture myself… Does anyone else?
I’m also very interested in the BMI discussion. Actually, a similar experiment was conducted by a very meticulous and passionate naturalist author whom I was going to nominate at some point – Farley Mowat (I’m not sure which of his many great books to nominate!) In Never Cry Wolf, Mowat describes his effort to determine how large, top-of-the-food chain predators like wolves subsisted for several months out fo the year eating X (I won’t spoil it for you). He knew that his findings would be viewed with extreme skepticism by his employer (the equivalent to the Department of the Interior for Canada, which was intent on confirming that wolves were a plague and a nuisance and should basically be exterminated), so he decided to conduct an experiment: he would also only eat X and chart the effects on his health. After about a week, he noticed that he felt a lack in his diet, though he managed to eat enough to become full – so he changed his preparation method (I’ll reveal that this means he ate more — in the sense of more parts — of X), and the cravings went away. He spent the entire summer just eating X, and noticed no adverse effects… McCandless may have made the same mistake as Mowat did early on in his (Mowat’s) experiment with respect to what he chose to not eat from the animals he killed…
December 9, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Here’s another interesting article on the movie – in particular, it gets into Penn’s approach to telling the story (as well as to getting the movie made in the first place).
December 10, 2007 at 10:35 am
The discrepancies are natural in trying to reconstruct a story without all that much data. However, it is interesting and probably more “logical” to assume he died of “simple” starvation.
It is interesting to see how easy it is to get caught up in all of this – Krakauer is right to assume there is this natural appeal to McCandless… I wonder if it is because deep down most of us would be willing/interested in trying something like this (I would of course remove all the adverse side affects, like the cold, lack of shower, days without food etc.)
At camp a few weekends ago one of the staff members was telling a story of him and his college buddies buying an old RV (and reselling it later) to road trip to Alaska to see the northern lights… I was a little jealous. Backing up to the original topic of the thread – McCandless was a mixture of idealism, rebellion/(recluse), and adventure. It is apparent that all of those things appeal to the human heart and the interest of the mind.