Into the Wild

Krakauer does a great job at remaining pretty objective when discussing the life and death of McCandless. Do I believe that a whole book needed to be written when Krakauer's original article would have sufficed? No, I do not. The book was interesting and I enjoyed the commentary from those who knew McCandless, however, the chapters that had nothing to do with McCandless and his story made me want to skim or stop reading altogether. Wonderfully written, but ultimately not one that I would recommend to others.

I enjoyed the first half of the book and was intrigued by McCandless's story, but had a hard time getting through the second half, which mostly speculates on McCandless's state of mind. Krakauer devotes several chapters to his own wilderness sojourn to try to relate to McCandless, but I was ultimately bored by this and found it unnecessary.

I read the book after everyone else has read it or seen the film adaptation. It is well written and a pleasure to read. It bogged down a little when Krakauer detoured from McCandless's story to go into his own story. It was written well enough that while reading it I developed some empathy for McCandless that I did not have before. After soaking it all in I have returned to my original opinions of the character, which means Krakauer did a good job with his writing, but in the end McCandless was still a squatter, a poacher, a trespasser, and anarchist with little or no respect for private property or the people who work and contribute to society. I did find myself envying McCanless freedom and adventures which I credit to Krakauer's writing.

I thought that this book was well-written and well-researched. However, I had real trouble connecting with the plight of McCandless, which kind of took me out of the story and led to me struggling to finish the book. Reading other reviews, it seems like people are polarized about McCandless and either really connect with him or not – but I don't think that had anything to do with Krakauer or his writing.

In this world of expectation, structure, busy-ness, and bills, it has always interested me to come across people who abhor these tangles of everyday life and live like nomads. I recently came across some YouTubers who travel the United States, living out of their RVs or vans full-time and loving it. When I thought of this kind of lifestyle in the past I thought of the sad Matt Foley character from SNL “living in a van down by the river”. I am not convinced their life isn't without its hardships... nor bills... nor eliminating “THE MAN” from their lives completely, but these people do their best to make their cramped quarters and vagabond lifestyle look very attractive. I know myself very well, and can adapt to living without the finer things like a flushing toilet for a few months in the summer. But, living this way as a lifestyle forever? Nope. I likes my heated home with running water.

For many, though, this way of life is a philosophy, a mantra, a necessity. It's quite curious and intriguing to see the world through their lens. So when I recently reactivated my library membership after a long drought, a virtual trip to the eBook portal landed Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild onto my tablet, and next thing you know, I found myself immersed in one of the more recent stories of an infamous American vagabond, Chris McCandless, a young man who took the concept of nomadic living to extremes.

Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild tells the true story of McCandless, a headstrong, fiercely independent guy who felt more at peace alone in nature than anywhere. Raised by strict parents, he always went against the grain, never thinking a career was important, and that schooling was a waste of time. Following parental expectations was difficult for Chris, but he managed to tow the line, eventually making it through college with honours, with plans for law school. However, he had enough of the litanies of life the day after he graduated, packing up his things and leaving his life behind forever. He gave his life savings to OxFam, burned his Social Security card and embarked on a journey that saw him tramping his way around the U.S., with the eventual goal to live in the Alaskan wilderness in complete solitude. He even assumed a new name: Alexander Supertramp. His family never heard from him again...until his body was found in a remote forest in Alaska by a Moose hunter.



McCandless in Alaska

Jon Krakauer gives some context and understanding to Chris's thought process by recounting his life, childhood and relationship with his family. To round out the book, he interviews other folks Chris met on the road, living a similar nomadic life. In telling these stories, it shows the many layers to Chris McCandless. He wasn't simply a naive guy with big dreams; he was a guy determined to live out his philosophy at any price. And what one could gather from the book, he touched many lives in profound ways.

I found Into the Wild to be incredibly immersive, balanced and very thoughtfully written.  Might I add, there is a reason why the book is on many “top books to read before you die” lists. It's good - very good. Get your hands on it and start reading. I highly recommend it!

4.5/5

Into the wild / Jon Krakauer (1996)

.

And while we are here...



[Movie] Into the Wild (2007)

Starring: Emile Hirsch, William Hurt, Marcia Gay Harden, Catherine Keener, Kristen Stewart

So, I thought, what the hey...let's watch the movie for comparison.

The film follows the book very closely. I'd hazard it was a visual representation of the book, but not a thorough one.

The one thing I noticed: Sean Penn, who wrote the screenplay and directed the film, stole A LOT of direct dialogue from Krakauer's book - seriously. If I hadn't just finished the book, I would not have noticed...but he does. If I were Krakauer, I'd be taking him to court. And yet, Krakauer only got a “based on the novel by...” credit, which I thought was also a little strange for the amount of the book Penn used.

I didn't overly enjoy Into the Wild: the movie. It wasn't terrible, but didn't do McCandless any favours. It missed the heart and soul of McCandless, showing him as a sort of untouchable, someone you could never get close to and who was completely ignorant and wonton. In fact, I remember when the movie was released, there was a lot of criticism from people saying McCandless' ways were glorified in the movie, and that no one should take his lead if they think they can survive in Alaska without being properly equiped. The book does well to give more context to McCandless, and to the people who knew him. Besides the fact, I found the book much more enjoyable (isn't that typical?). Do yourself a favor:  Get your hands on the book!

2.5/5

Into the Wild (the movie)
2007

I really like Krakauer's Into Thin Air so I thought that I would read this book. I enjoyed the writing style however I struggled with the book because I did not like the main character Chris McCandless. Perhaps if I give it another chance, or read the subsequent book that was written about Chris I would like it more.

~Full review on The Bent Bookworm!~“He read a lot. Used a lot of big words. I think maybe part of what got him into trouble was that he did too much thinking. Sometimes he tried too hard to make sense of the world, to figure out why people were bad to each other so often...he always had to know the absolute right answer before he could go on to the next thing.” – Wayne Westerberg, referring to Chris (Alex) McCandlessFirst of all, this is not just a biography of Chris McCandless. Yes, it tells his story, but then it goes off on several trails of OTHER wilderness-loving solitaries (some of which survived, and some didn't).More people have seen the movie than read the book, and from what I can tell the movie is more streamlined. My DH really enjoyed it and has been asking me to watch it with him for at least a couple of years, but I'm very resistant to watching a movie before the book that inspired it. (Don't even get me started on how I felt about going to see Fantastic Beasts in theatre.) When a friend mentioned he had a copy just lying around, I jumped on the chance. Surprised by how it small it was, I sat down and devoured it...in about 4 hours. Quite a long time for my usual reading speed.The first couple of chapters are a brief narrative of the events leading up to Chris' journey “into the wild,” and then the events surrounding the discovery of his body. I was really shocked that part was over so quickly! I was expecting more of a lead-up. But as soon as all the bare facts are out (maybe the result of the Outside article that originally ran on McCandless?), Krakauer goes back in time to dig through McCandless' early life, then his hobo life after college. I was eerily struck by how similar some of the descriptions of his known thoughts and behaviors were to my own. An introvert, a reader, a thinker – someone who lived inside his own head for long stretches of time – these were all things with which I can easily identify. It was creepy.McCandless was either a visionary or a reckless idiot. It's obvious that Krakauer feels he was the former, but I think the judgment could go either way. For someone SO intelligent, McCandless' intentional self-sabatoge (throwing away the maps, refusing to take advice from seasoned hunters and hikers) is just ABSURD. No matter how pretty his prose, there is no way to explain that part of his adventure away. On the other hand, he made it 113 days, and from the photos and journal he left behind, he was actually doing pretty well until some infected berries made his body turn on itself.Maybe he was both. The most intelligent people are often noted for their decided lack of common sense. He formed his views on wilderness at least partially from fiction – an extremely dangerous concept.McCandless read and reread [b:The Call of the Wild 1852 The Call of the Wild Jack London https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1452291694s/1852.jpg 3252320] and [b:White Fang 43035 White Fang Jack London https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1475878443s/43035.jpg 2949952]. He was so enthralled by these tales that he seemed to forget they were works of fiction, constructions of the imagination that had more to do with London's romantic sensibilities than with the actualities of life in the subartic wilderness.The middle portion of the book delves a lot into other wilderness personalities. I found them interesting, but while in some ways similar to McCandless they are all different enough to warrant their own tales. They feel a bit like filler. Interesting filler, but filler nonetheless.McCandless' backstory is filled with drama between himself and his family. He seemed to be more than capable of making friends, yet has a nonexistent relationship with his parents. While purportedly close to one sister...he leaves her without any sort of goodbye. Loner, indeed. Again, I can relate...but cutting off one's family entirely is almost never a good thing (cases of abuse and intolerance exempted of course). Like Ken Sleight, the biographer of another wilderness disappearing act, Everett Ruess, says:“Everett was a loner; but he liked people too damn much to stay down there and live in secret the rest of his life. A lot of us are like that...we like companionship, see, but we can't stand to be around people for very long. So we get ourselves lost, come back for a while, then get the hell out again.”Again, that quandary is one I feel and have felt very often. Unlike McCandless, I've never felt strongly enough about any of it to just chuck my entire life and go off into the woods. Perhaps that's a lack of backbone on my part. Or perhaps it just shows that I have one.One of McCandless' last journal entries:I have lived through much, and now I think I have found what is needed for happiness. A quiet secluded life in the country, with the possibility of being useful to people to whom it is easy to do good, and who are not accustomed to have it done to them; then work which one hopes may be of some use; then rest, nature, books , music, love for one's neighbor – such is my idea of happiness. And then, on top of all that, you for a mate, and children, perhaps – what more can the heart of a man desire?Still a bit on the melodramatic side. What, exactly, had he lived through? A spoiled white child from doting parents that GAVE AWAY his livelihood to wander like an outcast? At the same time...it rings a note of truth there that makes my heart ache. He seems to echo Oscar Wilde:With freedom, books, flowers, and the moon, who could not be happy?I'm giving 5/5 stars, based solely on how I felt immediately after finishing the book. Looking at it now I would probably say 4 because of all the extraneous information and meandering.Blog Twitter Bloglovin Instagram

This book, as are all Krakauer's books, is very well-written and very engrossing. The story of Christopher McCandless is one of an idealistic young twentysomething who leaves his life behind after graduating from college to become Alexander Supertramp, a wandering nomad on his way to Alaska for a great adventure.

Except he was stupid. Now, Krakauer makes a huge deal about how smart, how intellectual McCandless was. How big of a reader he was. How animated, how intelligent, how engaging he was. He touched a lot of lives on his adventures across America; he made friends.

But he didn't get it. The boy repeatedly picked up and left, leaving people and places behind without much of a care in the world as to what his departure meant to those he was leaving; what his absence meant to his ever-worrying family; what his not being there meant to the sister that he supposedly cared so deeply for, but didn't bother contacting even once during his travels. If anything he was naive and selfish, and blind to the effect he had on others, willfully or not.

But what gets me about this book is how determined Krakauer is to compare himself to McCandless. He devotes a few chapters to creating parallels to himself and McCandless, insisting that he was that same headstrong boy in his twenties. But he missed out on one big, huge detail: he survived his twenties, and he did it because he knew what he was doing. He took maps. He took gear. He didn't just look at a vast, open wilderness and start walking. He planned.

McCandless didn't, and it got him killed. It's said repeatedly, in the book, in the news articles, and in the movie – had McCandless simply taken a map with him, he'd have known about nearby cabins. He'd have known about a river crossing. He'd have known he wasn't nearly as far into the wilderness as he'd come to believe he was. He'd likely have survived the entire ordeal. And yet.

The book itself is fantastic. It's engrossing, it's well-written, and it gives you a pretty damn good look into McCandless's short life. It certainly tries to make him into a hero, an American rambling man – but for me it fell short in that regard, trying to make McCandless out to be a whale when really, he was simply a fish.

This was one of two or three books I actually read in high school. What makes this book so compelling is that it is based on a true story of a young man's life that abandons most of his belongings, leaves behind the life he once lived to be in the wild. Alex McCandless was intelligent and had everything he needed for a successful life lived in the traditional way. McCandless, however, was not traditional by any means. He had different ideologies than many, provoking him to live a life away from civilization, within the wilderness. Jon Krakauer flawlessly describes the timeline of events of McCandless' journey. Through the stories of others who encountered McCandless, Krakauer beautifully captures the mystery to his character, his thirst for adventure, and his need to abandon society in search for a better life. The story of Alex Supertramp is unlike anything you will probably ever read or see in a movie, and the fact that it is all true makes it that much more astounding. Everyone needs to give this book a read, and it will be difficult to put down. This is not just a simple re-telling of a story, it is much more than that. Krakauer undoubtedly does justice to the life of Alex Supertramp.