“Actions speak louder than words” is a centuries-old idea that, in recent times, has been famously said by both Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain, and I think this idea should be the core of any look into the life and actions of Chris McCandless. However, I believe that this idea was hardly considered in Jon Krakauer’s interpretation of Chris McCandless in his book Into The Wild. Into The Wild is taken by many as the complete truth of Chris McCandless’ story, but many people seem to forget that Krakauer tells us in his author’s note at the beginning of the book that “[he] won’t claim to be an impartial biographer.” This means that any judgment of Chris that only uses this book is inherently flawed by Krakauer’s own views.
In “Into the Wild, ” Jon Krakauer explores the human compulsion with nature and the purpose of life. Throughout the book, Krakauer documents the intoxicating/galvanizing life and death of Christopher Jon McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp, a young hitchhiker that embarked on an Alaskan Odyssey to explore himself and the wilderness. Like many before him, McCandless thought that he could give is his life meaning by pursuing a relationship solely with nature. McCandless had “an impractical fascination with the harsh side of nature. (85)
Survival: “He had a book about plants with him, and was using it to pick berries... Said he’d been surviving on edible plants he identified from the book.” (Krakauer 30) McCandless successfully provided the necessity of a sufficient amount of nutrients to fulfill his dietary needs. It is acknowledged that McCandless survived by foraging from the wilderness, essentially allowing him to consume meals without distress.
In the novel Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, Chris McCandless travels from Vermont all the way to Alaska into Denali national park. The way he decided to go through with his travels is considered to be unjust by most. Although his actions were not ideal he was happy with them and this was how he decided to go through with his plans. He gave away all of his money and material items just so that he could get rid of the thought of his family and, in a way, start his own. Chris McCandless was in fact just in his actions because of his legal rights of freedom of speech and he never stayed with anyone long enough for them to persuade him to not go to Alaska.
An attribution to Jon Krakauer’s convincing overall argument is his thorough and plausible research formulated to create Christopher McCandless’s biography. Krakauer conducted a copious set of interviews with various people; he consulted specialists and scientists, and others in their respected professions. Krakauer also ventured in McCandless’s footsteps and studied into other adventurers cases. The “sources” Krakauer uses to devise his argument range from the people “close” to McCandless such as friends and family, people Alex (Christopher) met during his journey, professionals (police officers, rangers, scientists, professors, authors, etc.), those that found McCandless’s body, Alaskan locals, and letters from the readers of his Outside
The type of life McCandless lived is shared by few and understood by even less, inviting negative judgment for his lack of conventional life. Krakauer, however, illustrates McCandless’s journey as a monumental change, “At long last he was unencumbered, emancipated from the stifling world of his parents and peers, a world of abstraction and security and material excess, a world in which he felt grievously cut off from the raw throb of existence" (Krakauer 22). The tone in which Krakauer displays McCandless’s reasoning invokes a sense of understanding as to who McCandless was as a person and the disposition he presented throughout his life. While the statement is neither negative or positive, the descriptive language used implies an undercurrent of joy and the thrill of adventure, all of which McCandless had expressed to others and mentioned in his personal journal. However, the wording can be considered flowery, supporting the claim that Krakauer glamorizes “…the poacher Chris McCandless…into some sort of poor, admirable romantic soul lost in the wilds of Alaska” (Medred 1).
McCandless was a man who likes to be independent ever since he was a kid. “... He didn’t seem to need toys or friends. He could be alone without being lonely” (Krakauer 107) explains he was not like an average kid who relies on their family or friends but did almost everything by himself. His personality made choose certain decisions such as doing things on his own, “ He resisted any instruction of any kind” (Krakauer 111).
‘I’ll climb a tree’ is all he said. He had an answer for everything I threw at him” (Krakauer 6). McCandless would not let anyone change his ideals even though they propose reasonable opinions which puts him in all kinds of trouble, including his death, throughout his journey. If McCandless weren’t so protective and close-minded of his ideals and beliefs, he would’ve made less mistakes and his death would’ve been easily
Krakauer disagrees with those who think that McCandless did not know what he was doing. Krakouer definitely makes his opinion that he supports McCandless’s ideas known, but by including details opposing his opinion he successfully narrates an impartial
In Into The wild, Krakauer narrates the last couple of journeys Mccandless had on his adventure to Alaska where he ultimately died. Mccandless Touched many people's lives through all of his journeys. Mccandless went on these journeys because he was confused in life when he figured out his dad had cheated on his mom. This changed Mccandless to the point he began to hate his parents. Mccandless had a lot of confidence in himself so he left on an adventure to find his identity.
Realist: This means to have an understanding of what can be accomplished. By using this word, Krakauer was able to let the readers know that he viewed McCandless as more of a realist than an idealist. Being a realist is a noble trait, due to its denotation meaning of the word which implies that one knows their own limit and weakness and knows how to set forth and complete a goal. Ambivalent about killing animals: The meaning of the phrase is having mixed or contradictory feelings or ideas about killing animals.
Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, is a story and a film, about Chris McCandless, a 24 years old young man who wandered into the wilds of Alaska and spent more than 100 days in there, away from his family, friends and society. After observing Chris’s experiences and the decisions that he made throughout his life, I can conclude that Chris was a character who chose to be alienated and isolated by choice and not forced by others, because of his unwillingness to meet the expectations placed upon him by the society. Even from the beginning Chris’s judgements were always different from the normal. In the story, Chris shares, "I wished to acquire the simplicity, native feelings, and virtues of savage life; to divest myself of the factitious habits, prejudices and imperfections of civilization; ... and to find, amidst the solitude and grandeur of the western wilds, more correct views of human nature and of the true interests of man.
However, Jon Krakauer proves his argument that McCandless was not arrogant, foolish, antisocial, or crazy by giving examples of other young men who were similar to McCandless to show that his journey wasn’t unprecedented. He also proves that McCandless wasn’t antisocial because he developed personal relationships with Ronald Franz, Wayne Westerberg, and Jan Burres in such a short amount of time and explaining the many times that McCandless respected the Alaskan Bush. Krakauer admits that McCandless may have suffered from hubris; he was still a victim of circumstances. Krakauer proves that McCandless had an intrinsic motivation to discover and that he wasn’t alone because Krakauer too ventured into the Alaskan Bush when he was younger. The Alaskan Bush is a very difficult place to survive if one isn’t prepared for many challenges such as hunting for food or staying warm in the frost ridden
Born in A Different Life Life on the road is an idealistic way to escape from societal problems. There is no denying that it grants individuals satisfaction by allowing them to fulfill their goals, as well as providing immense freedom and control over one’s life; however, it is a fundamentally illogical path to take due to nature’s malevolence. In Into The Wild, Krakauer writes a biography about a young man named Chris McCandless, in which he illustrates the similarities between himself and McCandless’s overly ambitious journey to accomplish feats in the wilderness. Coinciding with their similarities, they also faced an oppressive father figure at home, which lead the both of them to believe that their journey will provide them an answer to their problems at home. McCandless planned to survive in Alaska by living off the land while Krakauer wanted to be the first one to climb the Devil’s Thumb.
He shows this in many ways throughout the novel and Krakauer hints on every single one. Several people McCandless met on his trek admired his principles and it led them to admire him. He is very anti-materialistic and shows this quality by giving the rest of his college fund to a charity fighting for world hunger. In Solitude, Thoreau writes about how society is insignificant and chooses to exchange it for a society of nature. This can be related to McCandless because Thoreau is valuing his principles over people because he believes society is insignificant, just like McCandless.
