If McCandless Read Ishmael....

Chris1401

For those of you who have read or seen Into the Wild and have read Ishmael, how do feel McCandless would have interpretted the book? As in, do you think McCandless would have agreed with the problems of humanity put forth in Ishmael? How would McCandless intpreted Quinn's view of evolution?

And..there is no right answer, this is for open and intriguing discussion!

I am still trying to figure out my answer.

Heineken Helen

who knows? I don't think any of us ever met him

I thought Ishmael was a great book at the time but I've read much more eye opening inspiring books since and it seems quite amateurish on reflection now.

Chris1401

Heineken Helen wrote:

I thought Ishmael was a great book at the time but I've read much more eye opening inspiring books since and it seems quite amateurish on reflection now.

Interesting take. I personally enjoyed the message of the book, it was a strange set up of how it was communicated.

Can you point out some additional texts that may expand on the ideas of Quinn? I am interested in the processes of humanity and the inevitable destruction of the world by humans.

Also, for those who are looking for some interesting text loosley related to dissent in America and beyond, I recommend selected Norm Chomsky books. I just bought two more, one on media in the United States and another on the U.S. form of democracy and how it's not all it's cracked up to be.

Heineken Helen

Chris1401 wrote:

Interesting take. I personally enjoyed the message of the book, it was a strange set up of how it was communicated.

Can you point out some additional texts that may expand on the ideas of Quinn? I am interested in the processes of humanity and the inevitable destruction of the world by humans.

Also, for those who are looking for some interesting text loosley related to dissent in America and beyond, I recommend selected Norm Chomsky books. I just bought two more, one on media in the United States and another on the U.S. form of democracy and how it's not all it's cracked up to be.

well the books I'm talking about certainly don't expand on Quinn's ideas... not from a literary point of view but from a human point of view I suppose. Real life is much more interesting and exciting than any theory Quinn has to talk about.

Chris1401

Heineken Helen wrote:

Real life is much more interesting and exciting than any theory Quinn has to talk about.

Can we use theory to make sense of how humans think and live? I have been reading a lot of cultural studies academic articles and believe Quinn's theory can be adapted to real life.

Anon

why worry what anyone else would think

live your own life

Chris1401

SonicReducr wrote:

why worry what anyone else would think

live your own life

It's not about what I believe or how I live my life, I just like to discuss human theory and interpretations of text.

bootlegger10

SonicReducr wrote:

why worry what anyone else would think

live your own life

I agree. Especially with this McCandless guy. He died alone in Alaska. A real winner there. It is funny the types of people some try to glorify.

Chris1401

bootlegger10 wrote:

I agree. Especially with this McCandless guy. He died alone in Alaska. A real winner there. It is funny the types of people some try to glorify.

Again, not trying to glorify anyone, I understand McCandless was ill-prepared and Penn attempted to frame his story as a journey of the spirit.

I was attempting to start some intellectual discussion on the topics, however I seemed to have failed.

I guess we can revert to talking about iPods and Pearl Jam posters and the next album date predictions.

Two Birds

bootlegger10 wrote:

I agree. Especially with this McCandless guy. He died alone in Alaska. A real winner there. It is funny the types of people some try to glorify.

I read Into the Wild and believe Chris really did appreciate life and truly wanted to live. I think he just ate some bad seeds. Life is a crap shoot!!!

Tombourine

I never really got the big deal over Ishmael. It seemed fairly dull, and as someone else said, amateurish. The point was a bit over elaborated too. I say this as an environmentalist, too. Each to their own, I suppose.

bootlegger10 wrote:

I agree. Especially with this McCandless guy. He died alone in Alaska. A real winner there. It is funny the types of people some try to glorify.

The point isn't how he died, it's how he lived. Some people go through life never experiencing what he did, and die nice and warm in bed. He's not a 'real winner' because he tried to live his life the way he wanted, in the extreme, and died for it?

Anon

Chris1401 wrote:

It's not about what I believe or how I live my life, I just like to discuss human theory and interpretations of text.

again

you really miss the point... stop thinking and talking, and start doing.

NothinGBetteRPJMaN

Heineken Helen wrote:

well the books I'm talking about certainly don't expand on Quinn's ideas... not from a literary point of view but from a human point of view I suppose. Real life is much more interesting and exciting than any theory Quinn has to talk about.

what books might those me so maybe others can read them too

quit hoggin!

im an ear

I think McCandless would've loved Ishmael and been greatly inspired by it. The basic message of McCandless/Into the Wild is to get out of your comfort zone and experience life in its purist form...nature. I think Ishamel and McCandless/Into the Wild both share a common message to not fall in line with the mainstream beliefs/myths and to pay more attention to your relationship with Mother Nature.

OceansJenny

I didn't find Ismael that inspiring.

Anon

OceansJenny wrote:

I didn't find Ismael that inspiring.

it was decent in theory

horrible in execution

givn2fly26

Chris1401 wrote:

For those of you who have read or seen Into the Wild and have read Ishmael, how do feel McCandless would have interpretted the book? As in, do you think McCandless would have agreed with the problems of humanity put forth in Ishmael? How would McCandless intpreted Quinn's view of evolution?

And..there is no right answer, this is for open and intriguing discussion!

I am still trying to figure out my answer.

Great thread, both books are amazing and life-changing (IMO)

PJLeaver44

When I read Ishmael in tenth grade it honestly changed my life and how I viewed the world. But I agree with the sentiment, that now it seems a bit amateurish, although that word is too harsh. At the time it was the best thing for me.

If you want to see Quinn's ideas layed out in a much more practical and eye-opening way, read Derrick Jensen, A Language Older than Words or The Culture of Make Believe.

Heineken Helen

NothinGBetteRPJMaN wrote:

what books might those me so maybe others can read them too

quit hoggin!

I would suggest 'touching the void' by Joe Simpson

http://www.amazon.com/Touching-Void-Story-Miraculous-Survival/dp/0060730552/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195204299&sr=8-2

'Concise and yet packed with detail, Touching the Void, Joe Simpson's harrowing account of near-death in the Peruvian Andes, is a compact tour de force that wrestles with issues of bravery, friendship, physical endurance, the code of the mountains, and the will to live. Simpson dedicates the book to his climbing partner, Simon Yates, and to "those friends who have gone to the mountains and have not returned." What is it that compels certain individuals to willingly seek out the most inhospitable climate on earth? To risk their lives in an attempt to leave footprints where few or none have gone before? Simpson's vivid narrative of a dangerous climbing expedition will convince even the most die-hard couch potato that such pursuits fall within the realm of the sane. As the author struggles ever higher, readers learn of the mountain's awesome power, the beautiful--and sometimes deadly--sheets of blue glacial ice, and the accomplishment of a successful ascent. And then catastrophe: the second half of Touching the Void sees Simpson at his darkest moment. With a smashed, useless leg, he and his partner must struggle down a near-vertical face--and that's only the beginning of their troubles'

or 'an unsung hero' by Michael Smith

http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Crean-Shackleton-Antarctic-Expeditions/dp/089886870X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195204385&sr=1-6

'I've read almost every book I can find on Antarctic exploration and without a doubt, this is one of the finest. Tom Crean is always mentioned in books about early Antarctic epics but we've never really got to know him and what kind of a man he was. Michael Smith has done a fine job in tracing Crean's life from his early days in the Navy, his subsequent trips with Scott and Shackleton right up to his final days as a Pub owner is his home in Ireland. This is the kind of man you'd want whatever your expedition might be. He was brave, strong, honest, trustworthy and humorus, no matter what the circumstances. A great story about a real hero! '


when you've finished them two come back to me for more but these are absolutely fantastic and as inspirational as anything you'll ever read.

Heineken Helen

Chris1401 wrote:

Can we use theory to make sense of how humans think and live?

Isn't that a contradiction in terms though? People have been trying to figure out forEVER how and why others live their lives... and yet we still ask the same questions.

onebadbootleg

Heineken Helen wrote:

Isn't that a contradiction in terms though? People have been trying to figure out forEVER how and why others live their lives... and yet we still ask the same questions.

Just read Vonnegut and not his other kid.

Heineken Helen

twilighthummer wrote:

Just read Vonnegut and not his other kid.

his other kid?

What I mean is... to live life freely... and genuinely freely... I don't think can be theorised or fall under any 'label'. I wish we just didn't have to define everything and try to have an explanation for everything... I wish we could just go with things and enjoy it

onebadbootleg

Heineken Helen wrote:

his other kid?

What I mean is... to live life freely... and genuinely freely... I don't think can be theorised or fall under any 'label'. I wish we just didn't have to define everything and try to have an explanation for everything... I wish we could just go with things and enjoy it

Sorry - meant "this other kid". Screw this dumb book.

Heineken Helen

twilighthummer wrote:

Sorry - meant "this other kid". Screw this dumb book.

see, I've read a lot of different kinds of books... and I mean a LOT... and I have absolutely no intention of leaving the genre that I'm reading right now. I went shopping for clothes last night and ended up coming home with 4 books (3 on extreme mountain climbing and one on polar exploration) and I seriously struggled to stop myself from buying several more. It's an addiction... but a really really really good addiction! To even contemplate reading anything else right now, quite frankly and to my surprise disgusts me :eek:

Heineken Helen

Tombourine wrote:

I never really got the big deal over Ishmael. It seemed fairly dull, and as someone else said, amateurish. The point was a bit over elaborated too. I say this as an environmentalist, too. Each to their own, I suppose.

The point isn't how he died, it's how he lived. Some people go through life never experiencing what he did, and die nice and warm in bed. He's not a 'real winner' because he tried to live his life the way he wanted, in the extreme, and died for it?

good post tom

callen

Tombourine wrote:

I never really got the big deal over Ishmael. It seemed fairly dull, and as someone else said, amateurish. The point was a bit over elaborated too. I say this as an environmentalist, too. Each to their own, I suppose.
The point isn't how he died, it's how he lived. Some people go through life never experiencing what he did, and die nice and warm in bed. He's not a 'real winner' because he tried to live his life the way he wanted, in the extreme, and died for it?

The simplicity of Ishmael for me was one of its strong points....thinking Quinn may have realized getting the average human to realize they aren't "special" and or invincible was going to be a challenge and conveying it using a one liner wouldn't get the point accross. It's a great book and everyone should read it.

Chris could give a crap about being a 'real winner', that's the societial stuff he left...the fake shit that doesn't matter.

onebadbootleg

Chris1401 wrote:

For those of you who have read or seen Into the Wild and have read Ishmael, how do feel McCandless would have interpretted the book? As in, do you think McCandless would have agreed with the problems of humanity put forth in Ishmael? How would McCandless intpreted Quinn's view of evolution?

And..there is no right answer, this is for open and intriguing discussion!

I am still trying to figure out my answer.

....he'd be wasting his fucking time??

Riverrunner

Into the Wild finally came to my town. I was skeptical, but went with the intention of enjoying the scenery and the music. However, I came away with more sympathy for McCandless than I anticipated. In real life he had to have been very charming and charismatic for all of those people to take him in. The movie portrayal accomplished that and it made him a likable person, although I disagree with what he did (I think). This notwithstanding, I understand about getting away from society and back to nature. I think all of us would be better people if we did that ...... to some extent.

I disagree with how McCandless escaped society, "found" himself, and connected to nature. I also don't think he had read Ishmael, or if he had that he connected with it. I don't think McCandless "connected" with nature. He killed what he wanted to kill without respect for the hunting seasons or the reasons for them. If everyone went "into the wild" with the intention of living off the land and shooting what they wanted to eat we wouldn't have wildlife. That is what happened to many extinct species and that is why so many species no longer live in the lower 48. Too many people killing what they wanted when they wanted cuz they thought it was their "right" to do so. We now have laws to protect wildlife because humans so out number them. McCandless didn't want to get a permit to kayak the river. He thought it was stupid that he couldn't paddle a river whenever and wherever he wanted. That is appealing in a way, but what if everyone and their brother was allowed to do what they wanted on a fragile ecosystem. Then the ecosystem is harmed and destroyed. So anyway, I forgive McCandless for his selfishness because he was young and learning about life. If he had survived I wonder how he would feel today about some of his adventures.

Even in the movie there were parts that bugged me about him. He seemed to feel some sort of superiority for giving up his trust fund and burning his money and abandoning his car. But he never hesitated to bum rides with people who didn't abandon their cars. He ate their food. If they had burned their money then they wouldn't have had money to buy him food. If Franz had done what McCandless did then McCandless wouldn't have been able to wash his clothes in his washing machine. McCandless was young and naive which is forgiveable. Hopefully he would have outgrown this stage or developed it into a more intelligent perspective. McCandless threw away all of his material things, but then relied on the material things of others. What is the difference? He also went into Alaska to survive on his own, but then he took up residence in a bus, of all things, that had been set up by others, and then took wildlife that belonged to us all. I really think he must have expected someone to save him as had happened when he got into crises before.

I really wish he had survived. I would love to read his book (which I think he would have written). But then again, if he had survived, we would probably have never heard of him and probably not bought his book.

No Way

Riverrunner wrote:

Into the Wild finally came to my town. I was skeptical, but went with the intention of enjoying the scenery and the music. However, I came away with more sympathy for McCandless than I anticipated. In real life he had to have been very charming and charismatic for all of those people to take him in. The movie portrayal accomplished that and it made him a likable person, although I disagree with what he did (I think). This notwithstanding, I understand about getting away from society and back to nature. I think all of us would be better people if we did that ...... to some extent.

I disagree with how McCandless escaped society, "found" himself, and connected to nature. I also don't think he had read Ishmael, or if he had that he connected with it. I don't think McCandless "connected" with nature. He killed what he wanted to kill without respect for the hunting seasons or the reasons for them. If everyone went "into the wild" with the intention of living off the land and shooting what they wanted to eat we wouldn't have wildlife. That is what happened to many extinct species and that is why so many species no longer live in the lower 48. Too many people killing what they wanted when they wanted cuz they thought it was their "right" to do so. We now have laws to protect wildlife because humans so out number them. McCandless didn't want to get a permit to kayak the river. He thought it was stupid that he couldn't paddle a river whenever and wherever he wanted. That is appealing in a way, but what if everyone and their brother was allowed to do what they wanted on a fragile ecosystem. Then the ecosystem is harmed and destroyed. So anyway, I forgive McCandless for his selfishness because he was young and learning about life. If he had survived I wonder how he would feel today about some of his adventures.

Even in the movie there were parts that bugged me about him. He seemed to feel some sort of superiority for giving up his trust fund and burning his money and abandoning his car. But he never hesitated to bum rides with people who didn't abandon their cars. He ate their food. If they had burned their money then they wouldn't have had money to buy him food. If Franz had done what McCandless did then McCandless wouldn't have been able to wash his clothes in his washing machine. McCandless was young and naive which is forgiveable. Hopefully he would have outgrown this stage or developed it into a more intelligent perspective. McCandless threw away all of his material things, but then relied on the material things of others. What is the difference? He also went into Alaska to survive on his own, but then he took up residence in a bus, of all things, that had been set up by others, and then took wildlife that belonged to us all. I really think he must have expected someone to save him as had happened when he got into crises before.

I really wish he had survived. I would love to read his book (which I think he would have written). But then again, if he had survived, we would probably have never heard of him and probably not bought his book.

Excellent post! I had never thought of Chris' story from this perspective, and you make a lot of good points. I think that a lot of us identify with the romantic idea of cutting loose all of the restraints society can put on us, and living a truly free life, with no strings attached. Unfortunately, as Chris proved, and as your post further illustrates, this is easier said than done. But it's still that idea of freedom and purity that some of us cling to as the ultimate dream, in a world that seems increasingly corrupt and out of our control. I guess it all comes down to what you think you need to be truly happy (whatever that means). What makes you truly happy when you're 20 might be very different from what makes you truly happy at 40. Chris realized too late that he could not find true happiness without a little of the benefits that society does have to offer, and that is companionship, friendship, or on a deeper level, love. It's hard to find love when you're alone in the middle of the wilderness. He said that he was seeking truth, and I think he found that truth at the very end of his journey: It's already been sung, but it can't be said enough . . .

pjalive21

Chris1401 wrote:

For those of you who have read or seen Into the Wild and have read Ishmael, how do feel McCandless would have interpretted the book? As in, do you think McCandless would have agreed with the problems of humanity put forth in Ishmael? How would McCandless intpreted Quinn's view of evolution?

And..there is no right answer, this is for open and intriguing discussion!

I am still trying to figure out my answer.

Ishmael is a joke, its funny how so many of you talk about that around here and hold it up to a high standard and in the real world its almost laughable and amateurish...which it is

i think McCandles did the right thing and went out and found out on his own what the meaning of life was to him (and as pointed out before he did rely on other people in this quest) and i think thats what we should do, find out on our own what everything means to us and not read books of what other people think...adopt your own point of view...thats one of the things wrong with the world, no one can think on their own

Chris1401

NT