/lit/ - Literature

>some dumb fuck
He ignored the advice of experienced and knowledgeable guides then died because of it. Any idiot can get lost in the forest. Only some dumb fuck can intentionally plow into the most inhospitable parts of the forest without preparation after being told, "Don't do it, you'll die."

>>1680438

Pretty much this.

I'm all for reconnecting with nature. I've gotten really into bushcraft and camping over the past few years. It's not a joke. If you don't know what you're doing out there, you run the risk of injury or death.

Do some reading, take some bushcraft classes, FUCKING PLAN A LITTLE before you put yourself in a situation where your life depends on your skills.

>>1680438
Regardless of this fact, he survived 100+ days in Alaska.

>>1680445
(samefag) With little to no experience.

I really like reading about it in Into the Wild, but yeah. He was fucking naive and dumb as shit. You don't fuck around in the Alaskan wilderness

He was doing alright until he poisoned himself. He was unlucky more than anything else. It wasn't like he planned to spend the winter there.

Still, if you go into the wilderness alone like that, you deserve whatever happens to you.

so many peple who have done this shit properly but the one who dies gets the movie.

those who lived prepared.

>>1680455

>There is no indication whatsoever that he ate anything poisonous. The wild potato seeds branded as toxic in the book turned out not to be poisonous at all. The book was published before the full lab analysis was completed. Also, he did not mistake the potatoes for wild sweet peas. He knew what he was eating.

Pretty unlikable if you ask me, but then again I just couldn't take how the book was written so I can't really say.

>>1680458

Also:

>In an article Men's Journal, the magazine stated that extensive laboratory testing shows there was no toxin present in McCandless's food supplies. Dr. Thomas Clausen, the chair of the chemistry and biochemistry department at UAF said "I tore that plant apart. There were no toxins. No alkaloids. I'd eat it myself."[7] Despite these results, Krakauer's take has survived subsequent reprintings of the book.[3][7] Also, analysis of the wild sweet pea, given as the cause of Chris’s death in Sean Penn's film, has turned up no toxic compounds and there is not a single account in modern medical literature of anyone ever being poisoned by this species of plant.[3] Or, as one journalist put it: "He didn't find a way out of the bush, couldn't catch enough food to survive, and simply starved to death."[7]

>>1680438
>>1680443
missing the point. McCandless got rid of his map because he wanted the danger of exploring a new territory. In the 90's there was no new territory, however. So he did the next best thing and got rid of the map.

It seems so daft for people to suggest "derp he was unsafe and died". He was trying to get away from that false sense of security.

>>1680455
>He was doing alright until he poisoned himself. He was unlucky more than anything else. It wasn't like he planned to spend the winter there.

This. So many people say he was an idiot, but the way I understood it, he made a mistake that even someone much more experienced could have made when he poisoned himself.

And he didn't just hop into the trip not knowing what he was risking. The man knew that what he was doing could kill him and he died.

>>1680462

He didn't throw away the map. They found one with his possessions. He was just an idiot.

>>1680465
>experienced outdoorsman
>eating something poisonous

Yeah, no. People who are smart enough to survive in the wild are smart enough to know not to eat something unless you're 100% sure you know what it is you're putting in your mouth.

Also, see above. He wasn't poisoned.

>>1680461
I don't see how it follows that because the sweet pea didn't kill him he must have starved to death.

>>1680478

What else would have killed him?

It wasn't poisoning. The analysis on his food supply proves that.

It wasn't exposure. He had clothing and shelter.

The simplest explanation is that he was unable to harvest enough food to sustain himself.

>>1680472
> are you referring to the argument presented in The Call of The Wild that McCandless had a map? I don't remember the specifics but at the time it seems to me to be a very shaky argument.

>>1680488

>Interestingly, the language from the original Outside magazine article changed slightly when it was published in the book Into the Wild. In the original story, Krakauer writes that “he left the map in Gallien’s truck, along with his watch, his comb, and all his money, which amounted to 85 cents.” However, when the book was published, these lines were changed to the following: “Alex insisted on giving Gallien his watch, his comb, and what he said was all his money: eighty-five cents in loose change” (p. 7). What happened to the map? Why the nuance of “what he said” was all his money? Was the reason for the latter that Krakauer suspected Chris had more than eighty-five cents on him, which would make sense considering he writes in another chapter that Chris had left Carthage twelve days earlier with “approximately one thousand dollars tucked in his boot” (p. 68).

Continued...

>>1680492

>>Why was mention of the map removed? Well, perhaps because it is listed among the possessions returned to the McCandless family following Chris’s death. Curiously, however, Krakauer fails to mention this in either the original article or Into the Wild: “At the coroner’s office they were given the handful of possessions recovered with the body: Chris’s rifle, a pair of binoculars, the fishing rod Ronald Franz had given him, one of the Swiss Army knives Jan Burres had given him, the book of plant lore in which his journal was written, a Minolta camera, and five rolls of film—not much else” (p. 131). Not much else? Besides the notes, there’s only one other thing: the map. He’s chosen to list everything but the map. Later in the text, again never explicitly mentioning the map that McCandless did have, he writes: “Because he had no topographic map”; and in the next paragraph, “He simply got rid of the map. In his own mind, if nowhere else, the terra would thereby remain incognita”; and then followed by the line, “Because he lacked a good map…” (p. 174). Couching it this way, without a word on the map he actually did have, most readers come away believing McCandless had no map with him out at the bus.

>>1680482
> It wasn't poisoning. The analysis on his food supply proves that.

He was in the wild, surrounded by innumerable things he could have eaten that would kill him. Because something was not in his "food supply" does not mean he didn't eat it. Further, people can get sick and die from a lot of other things than poison, exposure or starvation.

>>1680502

Are you suggesting that he went through the trouble of gathering wild plants and storing them, only to eat something else?

>>1680472
This doesn't change the fact that he knew the dangers and accepted them.

I stand by that he was not an idiot.

>>1680413

I admire what he did. It took serious courage, and it demonstrates the sort of spirit of adventure that is so rare in our age of rehashed emotion and bourgeois complacency.

I respect him in the regard that he did what he wanted. And he was undoubtedly aware of the risks involved, but due to his personality he clearly valued the reward of experiencing nature hands-on over the potential risk involved.
He seemed to realize what turn he wanted his life to take towards the end, but it was too late by then since he'd already gotten poisoned by then (or whatever it was, he was clearly too weak to escape)

>>1680524

faggot

>>1680525

Immature child, back to /b/.

>>1680533

faggot

I prefer characters who don't do anything that involves being a good ole boy or extolling the dead virtues of a mythical "america".."nature" is a social construct

I have mixed feelings.

On one hand, I think it says something about our society. he was searching for freedom. He tried to detach from the material possessions weighing him down (hence, being a vagabond for a long time with little to no possessions)--it offers us some insight into how stifling consumerist, capitalist society can be.

On the other hand, he was a bit of a nutjob and very irresponsible and selfish. He didn't care about the pain and suffering his actions would cause his family. He was aware of the risks of his actions and just cut off communication completely from his close loved ones. Reading about him gave me the impression he was a bit of a spoiled, self-centered rich kid.

>>1680542
He wasn't a character, he was a real person...

every real person is a character or multiple characters..anyway, that's what i meant by it..

>>1680554
After I posted I realized I could have acknowledged that possibility. You're right, many people are of the opinion a real person in creative fiction becomes a character--but at first I thought it was just an error, not a (legitimate) stance on nonfictional figures in literature.

>>1680554
>every real person is a character
>real people
>characters
>flesh and blood and firing neurons
>functions of a text

stick to championing poor africans

>>1680547
>He tried to detach from the material possessions weighing him down (hence, being a vagabond for a long time with little to no possessions)--it offers us some insight into how stifling consumerist, capitalist society can be.

Oh please. He hiked into some of the most beautiful forest in the world, preserved by a nation that is so prosperous it can afford to cordon off huge sections of untouched landscape so that teenage suburbanites can play Davy Crockett once they realize how generic their lives have been.

"Detaching from material possessions" doesn't count when you have a loving family with money to fall back on. He took part in a cheasy gimmick to feel unique and he died for it.

>>1680563
>a real person in creative fiction
nice contradiction buddy

>>1680570
I meant "creative nonfiction"
That was a typo

>>1680510
> Are you suggesting that he went through the trouble of gathering wild plants and storing them, only to eat something else?

no, I'm suggesting he could have supplemented his diet with other things. I don't know how you can claim he starved, and then imply that he had enough food to be choosing to eat one thing over the other. Did that seem reasonable to you at the time?

Also, like I said, something else could have killed him.

>>1680563
>>1680565
>implying real people have "essential qualities" and are in any way more "real" than fictional characters

>>1680563
that greentext wasn't for you btw

>>1680570
Seriously? "Creative nonfiction" is a GENRE in literature. I think the typo is obvious.
Fiction, Poetry, Creative Nonfiction, Drama (plays)... These are the major genres in literature

I made a thread thirteen minutes before this one popped up about Chris McCandless, and I'm assuming somebody posted this to help me out considering all I got was a big "fuck off" in my thread.

Does anybody have opinions as to whether the movie or book was better? Some key differences in the two that were good/bad?
The only thing I've come up with is that Krakauer goes off on random tangents about himself and writers such as thoreau who inspired chris. This was omitted from the movie, and I'm glad it was.

>>1680567
Except nothing about his personality suggested he would ever dare to fall back on those things.

And if you really think he would, I think you're projecting.

>>1680582
/lit/ - your homework

Fuck off, go read the book.

>>1680583

Except for the fact that he was carrying $300 and several forms of ID on him when they found his body.

Why would you keep that if you didn't plan on going back to society.

>>1680574
>real people have "essential qualities"
If you have the quality (and it has nothing to do with essences) of retardedness it simply amounts to the physical neural configuration of your brain.

>any way more "real" than fictional characters
Fictional characters don't exist in the real world scout. They are by definition that which is not real.

>>1680579
Your mistake was assuming there is a real person to begin with in creative nonfiction. Strictly speaking there is only a character function in the text that accurately corresponds to the real-life equivalent.

>>1680567
If his intention was to "fall back" on his family, then why would he cut off all contact with them? It's not so easy for them to help him out if they have NO IDEA where he is.
Further, a lot of it WAS an attempt to escape society. He wanted to evade government control and moderation--it's part of the reason he abandoned his car (and its license plates) and was politically opposed to government control.

>>1680599
I did read the book, moron. If you payed attention to what I said, you would know that I didn't enjoy the tangents krakauer went on IN THE BOOK, that weren't in the movie. Fuck off.

>>1680583

Please respond to

>>1680601

>>1680603
I don't know what you're even arguing with me about. I made no assertions regarding real people or creative nonfiction (other than that it's a genre). I said scout's earlier assertions (that real people in creative nonfiction could be seen as characters) was a LEGITIMATE view, meaning, it could be DEFENDED, not that I necessarily hold that view. You're creating arguments out of nothing. Cut it out, I'm not trying to debate with you.

>>1680603
Yea, sure, but reading about someone fictional who is retarded isn't much different than reading about a "real person" who is retarded..
>>1680603
They exist in the real world, sure, but so do fictional characters..anyway we're arguing from very different outlooks

>>1680601
Ooh 300 dollars, lord knows that a gold mine, definitely enough to live in society!!! (if you want to be a homeless person, which is arguably hardly part of society).

Although, admittedly, the fact he had ID on him is interesting.

>>1680567
> He hiked into some of the most beautiful forest in the world, preserved by a nation that is so prosperous it can afford to cordon off huge sections of untouched landscape so that teenage suburbanites can play Davy Crockett once they realize how generic their lives have been.

America's wealth of natural landscape has a lot more to do with the size of the country than it does with material wealth. Actually I don't think it has anything to do with material wealth, and I'm not sure why anyone would think it does. McCandless wasn't even in a national forest, he was on land that was empty simply because no one had come around to live on it.

> "Detaching from material possessions" doesn't count when you have a loving family with money to fall back on.

"doesn't count"? Can you explain what you mean by this. Also, how do you know his family was loving? And what money did he have to fall back on? He gave his bank account to a charity.

>>1680628
*that's a gold mine

>>1680601
$300 is not the family fortune you mentioned in your first post, and I never said he didn't intend to return to society. In fact, it's plainly stated that he does intend to do so AFTER the Alaska trip.

There was nothing in either his possessions, his notes, or his known personality that suggests that he would return to his family asking for money to help him get back on his feet. Everything suggested that he intended to do it on his own. You know, the same way he did everything else.

>>1680628
Remember when he abandoned his car and burned his money? Why did he keep $300 for 16 weeks in the alaskan wilderness if he didn't have any intentions to return to society?

Then again, the book tells us he gave the trucker who dropped him off there his last $0.85, so I'm not completely sure what I believe.

>>1680601
> Except for the fact that he was carrying $300 and several forms of ID on him when they found his body.

That was found I think 2 weeks after they initially found the body. For some reason the people who first searched the bus managed to miss the back pack, which was then found by some guy named Will Forsberg, who apparently found it under the hood of the bus, if I recall correctly.

>>1680643
Read >>1680636
>I never said he didn't intend to return to society.
Although, I would argue that he wasn't part of ordinary consumerist society as most of us know it long before he went to Alaska, given that he had no possessions, no home and survived as a vagabond. I'm not sure if he intended to return to a life as a vagabond or an ordinary citizen.

>>1680651
He did mention wanting to have a wife and kids some day, so I'm under the impression Chris wanted to return as an ordinary citizen at some point. Maybe he saw conquering the Alaskan wilderness as his final frontier before being satisfied and returning to society.

this article suggests that McCandless was a schizophrenic or bi polar, but it doesn't have much other than fluff to back it up.

http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/10/13/media-watch/into-the-wild-the-false-being-within/#more-107
2

Also,
>>1680582
>>1680582
>>1680582
>>1680582
>>1680582
>>1680582
>>1680582
>>1680582

Oh c'mon, throw me a bone.

>>1680706
If you had been doing your work this whole instead of begging /lit/ for answers, you could be finished with your whole project by now.

Go away.

>>1680582
>>1680689
> The only thing I've come up with is that Krakauer goes off on random tangents about himself and writers such as thoreau who inspired chris. This was omitted from the movie, and I'm glad it was.

why are you glad? I think those parts are necessary in forming some sort of idea about why McCandless did what he did.

In my opinion the movie is good as a document of Hollywood and it's tropes, but it doesn't really do much justice to the actual story. I liked the movie, but in the same way that I like John Hughes films. Sappy, romantic Hollywood.

>>1680712
Implying I'm not well over halfway done, and only need another idea to write about before I'm done. Maybe stop being a raging douchebag and help somebody out for once.

>>1680716
Some of the stories he wrote were relevant, including the ones about the writers who inspired chris. However, I didn't feel it was necessary for Krakauer to give us his whole life story simply because he felt he could relate to Chris.

>>1680671
That article is interesting. Although, I agree with you. There isn't much to back it up, save that some experts seem to agree (but only one his quoted as saying as much). I certainly got the impression he wasn't "all there." However, when he said he wanted to kill his other self I got the impression he was reinventing himself (as Alex Supercamp)--not that he literally wanted to off himself. Chris McCandless was created by his parents, this society, and he seemed to want to escape that (then again, the fact early journal entries said "I am born again" in first person, while later ones were in third contradicts that idea.

However, I do find it annoying how people think schizophrenia means you have split personalities. That's multiple personality disorder, which is a COMPLETELY different disorder. So I'm not convinced his "multiple personalities" if you can call them that, reflect schizophrenia. Also, the possibility of him being bipolar was mentioned by never explored in greater detail. I wonder where that idea stems from?

>>1680723
I actually agree with you somewhat. I started losing interest after he was talking about his personal experiences at length.

>>1680746
Exactly. I think there was an entire chapter about his rock climbing excursion in Alaska, and it was awful. It had absolutely nothing to do with McCandless, and I completely forgot what was happening with Chris by the time he had finished.

Anyways, have you noticed any other discrepancies I could discuss in my paper?

>>1680716
me again.

I really liked Krakauer's book, but I should say that I really enjoy that sort of journalism. It is very different from the movie. Much less romantic, and I think it presents McCandless with a lot more mystery or ambiguity. Of the the documents I have seen about McCandless, which includes the documentary The Call of the Wild, I think Krakauer's book did the best at emphasizing the mysterious aspects of McCandless, which imo are a very important part of the story. And I think the focus on figures such as Thoreau that may have inspired McCandless is important. What he did is probably best understood through these means.

>>1680757
I completely agree, refer to this post:
>>1680723

A dumb fuck who thought he could survive without the proper training, equipment
pretentious as fuck
people who idolize him are homosexuals

>>1680769
I don't really see why homosexuals would idolize him particularly.

There's not enough sequins or gaudy make-up or Cher in this book...

>>1680723
>>1680746
>>1680756
I actually enjoyed those sections about the author's rock climbing experiences. Krakauer can relate to McCandless in very importan way which most people cannot. He is a mountaineer, and if you read his work on climbing mountains, you see that he does it because he gets something out of his own actions being the only thing between him and his safety. McCandles was probably motivated by much the same thing, and I think that's whats relevant about his story. He emphasized substance over absolute security. To me, among the many things McCandless was escaping, this is most interesting.

Into the Wild was a cautionary tale for all the college-age new age rugged individualist idiots who were popping up around the time of its publication.

But of course if we've learned anything it's that light readers are too thick to understand a warning and all the book spawned was a million more Kerouac wannabes.

>>1680804
> new age
eh, I understand your desire to use this rhetorically, but there really is nothing about this phenomenon that is new age.

total dumbass