How Chris McCandless Died

brianlux

Besides focusing on McCandless' death and whether or whether or not he was well enough prepared (I've had a bit of experience in the wild and I'm not sure I would have lasted as long as he did so I'm sure not going to judge him), I think it's more important to understand why he went into the wilderness and especially to understand the importance of wilderness. McCandless understood how irrevocably tied we are to wilderness- that without it we are all lost. Wilderness is the common link to all life and all life is interconnected. We are becoming the disconnected link. I'm thankful to Chris McCandless for his part in restoring some of that link through his story and experiences.

polaris_x

Cliffy6745 wrote:

A lot to take in here, but yeah, his family does forgive him now, and it makes no difference if I forgive him or not, but the fact is he put them through a pretty shitty period of time, which in my mind is about as awful as it gets. There is no closure with disappearing, it is not like death, they have no idea where he is, what he is doing, if he is safe, etc. All they knew was that he was gone from their lives without a trace with no answers. That is awful and in my mind very selfish.

That is a pretty big judgment. I don't think what McCandless did is anything like suicide. I think people who commit suicide are mentally ill and need help, not selfish. McCandless, from all accounts was in no way mentally ill. And for full disclosure, my wife's family has been greatly impacted by suicide, so it is not something that is foreign to me.

Regarding mistakes, yes, I have made mistakes that could have destroyed my family, too many, but again, like suicide, I don't think what McCandless did to his family can be classified as a mistake, it was a conscious decision to cut off all ties to people who loved him. He knew they were hurting and he did nothing about it. There were also no signs that this was a temporary thing and that he ever planned on seeing his family again.

I will be the first to admit that I don't get Chris McCandless. I get some of his disdain for society and I agree with a lot of his philosophies, but I don't get how he went about it and the people he hurt along the way. So no, I don't get him, which is also why I don't get the infatuation with him. I don't get how people can idolize someone who hurt the people closest to him so badly. You talked about asshole athletes yesterday, they bring people down through lies over a game, this guy devastated and hurt the people closest to him and who cared about him most. I see that as being more of an asshole than a baseball player trying to save his reputation.

LIsten, I respect your views on all of this and I respect your views on this and pretty much everything. I also think your views on the environment are admirable, coming from a family of environmental studies professors. I think there is a right way to go about and take action on your views, and I don't respect what Chris McCandless did to his family. He meant well and I cewrtainly think he had a lot of valid points and views, I just don't like the way he went about it. LIke you with baseball players, I don't think someone who hurts people the way they do should be put on a pedestal. I also think the damage he did to his family is a bigger deal than damage to a game.

i think it comes down to the fact that i don't think he purposefully was trying to hurt his family ... but understanding that his family's existence was a big part of what he was conflicted with ... he became jaded and disconnected with that purpose and felt that he had to break free from it and discover what mattered to him ... sure, his family went through hell but along the way - chris made connections with people we can only hope to do so in our lifetime ...

jeffbr

Good thread, and interesting discussion. I'm a little more neutral about McCandless than I used to be (I used to think he was an idiot). I still reserve that label for those who attempt to follow his trek.

Here's an interesting read from Outside magazine. It was published on Wednesday:
http://www.outsideonline.com/adventure- ... n=12192013

This highlights my issues with the whole McCandless myth/legend. I can excuse McCandless for being young, naive, ignorant, etc... He may have had noble reasons for heading out, but was clearly ill-prepared, and had no idea what he was doing. But all of the idiots who follow this pilgrimage for whatever reasons don't have the same excuse. There have been enough deaths by these cult-like McCandless followers that for them ignorance can't be an excuse. I'm really more interested in what drives those groupies to kill themselves than what caused McCandless to do so originally.

backseatLover12

brianlux wrote:

Besides focusing on McCandless' death and whether or whether or not he was well enough prepared (I've had a bit of experience in the wild and I'm not sure I would have lasted as long as he did so I'm sure not going to judge him), I think it's more important to understand why he went into the wilderness and especially to understand the importance of wilderness. McCandless understood how irrevocably tied we are to wilderness- that without it we are all lost. Wilderness is the common link to all life and all life is interconnected. We are becoming the disconnected link. I'm thankful to Chris McCandless for his part in restoring some of that link through his story and experiences.

McCandless not only sought out the comfort and importance of the wilderness, but he sees in the end (of the movie anyway) how important that connections with people is also what makes us whole. What mankind needs is a good balance of the two - ourselves in nature and ourselves relating with others. Society, and especially the media, strips us of any balance, the more we pay attention to it. Getting away from that static is healing. But without balance, it can be deadly.

brianlux

backseatLover12 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Besides focusing on McCandless' death and whether or whether or not he was well enough prepared (I've had a bit of experience in the wild and I'm not sure I would have lasted as long as he did so I'm sure not going to judge him), I think it's more important to understand why he went into the wilderness and especially to understand the importance of wilderness. McCandless understood how irrevocably tied we are to wilderness- that without it we are all lost. Wilderness is the common link to all life and all life is interconnected. We are becoming the disconnected link. I'm thankful to Chris McCandless for his part in restoring some of that link through his story and experiences.

McCandless not only sought out the comfort and importance of the wilderness, but he sees in the end (of the movie anyway) how important that connections with people is also what makes us whole. What mankind needs is a good balance of the two - ourselves in nature and ourselves relating with others. Society, and especially the media, strips us of any balance, the more we pay attention to it. Getting away from that static is healing. But without balance, it can be deadly.

Well taken added point, backseat. Thanks.

Who Princess

Byrnzie wrote:

Then again, I do wonder whether he maybe wasn't completely dissimilar to Timothy Treadwell, the dude from the documentary 'Grizzly Man'. Underestimating the power, and the unforgiving nature, of....nature.

This is what I tend to believe.

I'm in neither the hero nor idiot camp when it comes to McCandless. It's no disgrace to misjudge nature but when people do, they receive so much criticism! Why didn't those dumb people evacuate during the hurricane? Why do people live in California when they have all those earthquakes? Didn't those people know you can be struck by lightning if you go outside during a thunderstorm? Why did that stupid kid hike out into the wilderness without a map?

It's a defense, a justification. I'd never make that mistake, that would never happen to me! It doesn't matter if it's a natural disaster, lack of survival skills, or believing that there aren't any more undiscovered diseases. It's easy for any of easy to fall into that line of thinking and easy to forget that even a small mistake can be deadly.

EdsonNascimento

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I really really really don't get the infatuation with this guy.

Eddie wrote the music to the movie about his life. That's it period. He was an idiot plain and simple. Krakauer uses the guys diary saying he poisoned himself as a jumping off point. A guy who had very little education and acted stupidly every step of the way is the key witness in his own death. So krakauer writes a book and looks for clues to prove his hypothesis rather than go in with an open mind. Then eddie writes some music, and the idiot is now a hero to people who want total lack of responsibility instead of the dreariness of their own lives and rationalize it as some existential search for inner self. :roll:

brianlux

This discussion brings up another question: Is it wrong or stupid to confront danger in the wilderness?

I don't think so.

“Benedicto: May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. May your rivers flow without end, meandering through pastoral valleys tinkling with bells, past temples and castles and poets towers into a dark primeval forest where tigers belch and monkeys howl, through miasmal and mysterious swamps and down into a desert of red rock, blue mesas, domes and pinnacles and grottos of endless stone, and down again into a deep vast ancient unknown chasm where bars of sunlight blaze on profiled cliffs, where deer walk across the white sand beaches, where storms come and go as lightning clangs upon the high crags, where something strange and more beautiful and more full of wonder than your deepest dreams waits for you -- beyond that next turning of the canyon walls.”
-Edward Abbey

Not that one should foolishly invite danger, but danger is an integral part of the wilderness experience. My most dangerous encounters in wilderness are the ones I've found most useful as learning experiences:

- coming face to face with a bear across a small creek
-coming upon rattlesnakes in wilderness trails
-getting so sick in the wilderness a friend had to carry my pack out for me because I was too weak
-hiking from 6,000 to 10,000 feet up a mountain and then having to lead two women and a ten year old down 3,000 feet of elevation off a mountain in the wilderness at night with only moon light for vision

Wilderness is our vital link to life.

“Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.”
(again) -Edward Abbey

Byrnzie

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Eddie wrote the music to the movie about his life. That's it period. He was an idiot plain and simple. Krakauer uses the guys diary saying he poisoned himself as a jumping off point. A guy who had very little education and acted stupidly every step of the way is the key witness in his own death. So krakauer writes a book and looks for clues to prove his hypothesis rather than go in with an open mind. Then eddie writes some music, and the idiot is now a hero to people who want total lack of responsibility instead of the dreariness of their own lives and rationalize it as some existential search for inner self. :roll:

No, Krakeur didn't say McCandless poisoned himself as a jumping off point.

And as for him having 'very little education', that's not true either.

Also, Krakeur didn't write the book whilst looking for clues to prove his hypotheses. Did you even read the book? Did you read the article I posted above?

Try harder.

Byrnzie

Slightly off topic: Does anyone know of any interview in which Sean Penn mentioned his reaction to hearing Vedder's music for his film for the first time? I've wondered for a long time how he reacted to hearing those songs.

backseatLover12

Byrnzie wrote:

Slightly off topic: Does anyone know of any interview in which Sean Penn mentioned his reaction to hearing Vedder's music for his film for the first time? I've wondered for a long time how he reacted to hearing those songs.

I used to have the interview saved of Penn and Vedder on Charlie Rose, but it was deleted by Youtube. I remember that he loved the music and came back to Ed looking for more music, filler music to complete the soundtrack. That's when he wrote The Wolf, and another filler song.

backseatLover12

Found it, but you have to buy it for a couple dollars.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004IM ... B004IMKATW

satansbed

unsung wrote:

I agree with that, he definitely had good priorities in what life is supposed to be about. Imagine if he had been prepared though, he could have done a lot more good for the world if he would have survived.

Like I said I admire him, but his mistake could have been so easily avoided and I believe his convictions also contributed to his death by clouding the reality of his situation. Alaska doesn't forgive.

In what is probably a first, i agree with you on this one, his mistake wasn't so much the seed he had eaten but his preparation before he went into the wild

Byrnzie

I figured before that Vedder had given him the finished product, and imagined Penn hearing it for the first time in it's entirety and having his mind blown by the greatness of the thing.
Looks like he was drip-fed it in stages.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

I figured before that Vedder had given him the finished product, and imagined Penn hearing it for the first time in it's entirety and having his mind blown by the greatness of the thing.
Looks like he was drip-fed it in stages.

No... Eddie commented on his contribution to the movie at his first Vancouver solo show. He and Penn watched the film at Penn's place and then Eddie went back home crafting the music. He sent Penn the big chunk of it and Penn, from all accounts, was floored.

Byrnzie

unsung wrote:

1/2 mile away there was a cable crossing that had he been prepared with a map or had a discussion with a ranger to let them know he was out there he may have survived. But no, he was stubborn and wanted to evade people.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe ... s#See_also
'Others have pointed out that a map of the area (although apparently not including the location of the hand-powered tram) was found among McCandless's belongings, and refute the accusations that he intentionally discarded this map.'

Thirty Bills Unpaid

The 'romantic' elements to this story become lost when you balance it with the tragic end.

I read the book, read various other pieces, and watched the movie. From all accounts left to decipher, Chris had come to terms with his place in the world and was ready to rejoin it.

His 'journey' was no different from many other young people's journeys who seek travel and a departure from the life they are being pushed into. The difference being he never sought the 'comfort' typical travellers afford themselves in countries like Thailand or Costa Rica.

As well, he was going to have to fend for himself without the convenience of a market close to his bungalow. It is here where we might be able to agree that he underestimated his ability to do so. He managed for a while, but the bottom line is he began the process of starving when he finally ventured on foot 'into the wild'. The small rodents and plants he fed on only prolonged the inevitable.

He was hungry for a long time.

brianlux

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

The 'romantic' elements to this story become lost when you balance it with the tragic end.

I read the book, read various other pieces, and watched the movie. From all accounts left to decipher, Chris had come to terms with his place in the world and was ready to rejoin it.

His 'journey' was no different from many other young people's journeys who seek travel and a departure from the life they are being pushed into. The difference being he never sought the 'comfort' typical travellers afford themselves in countries like Thailand or Costa Rica.

As well, he was going to have to fend for himself without the convenience of a market close to his bungalow. It is here where we might be able to agree that he underestimated his ability to do so. He managed for a while, but the bottom line is he began the process of starving when he finally ventured on foot 'into the wild'. The small rodents and plants he fed on only prolonged the inevitable.

He was hungry for a long time.

This really gets to the heart of the matter. A nice way with words here, Thirty.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

brianlux wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

The 'romantic' elements to this story become lost when you balance it with the tragic end.

I read the book, read various other pieces, and watched the movie. From all accounts left to decipher, Chris had come to terms with his place in the world and was ready to rejoin it.

His 'journey' was no different from many other young people's journeys who seek travel and a departure from the life they are being pushed into. The difference being he never sought the 'comfort' typical travellers afford themselves in countries like Thailand or Costa Rica.

As well, he was going to have to fend for himself without the convenience of a market close to his bungalow. It is here where we might be able to agree that he underestimated his ability to do so. He managed for a while, but the bottom line is he began the process of starving when he finally ventured on foot 'into the wild'. The small rodents and plants he fed on only prolonged the inevitable.

He was hungry for a long time.

This really gets to the heart of the matter. A nice way with words here, Thirty.

Cheers, Brian.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

From all accounts left to decipher, Chris had come to terms with his place in the world and was ready to rejoin it.

His 'journey' was no different from many other young people's journeys who seek travel and a departure from the life they are being pushed into. The difference being he never sought the 'comfort' typical travellers afford themselves in countries like Thailand or Costa Rica.

As well, he was going to have to fend for himself without the convenience of a market close to his bungalow. It is here where we might be able to agree that he underestimated his ability to do so. He managed for a while, but the bottom line is he began the process of starving when he finally ventured on foot 'into the wild'. The small rodents and plants he fed on only prolonged the inevitable.

He was hungry for a long time.

Also, let's not forget that he stated how he wished to 'kill the false being within'. The false being meaning that part of him connected to the lies and deceit of his family, and of all the trappings of modern life, which he detested. He was looking for something more honest, more real.
I imagine that coupled with his optimism, and thirst for experience, there was an element of disgust and anger with the modern World.