If McCandless Read Ishmael....

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

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?

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.

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.

Riverrunner wrote:

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.

Riverrunner wrote:

Oh yeah. I really wish that before I had taken on all the responsibilities of adult hood that I had backpacked around Europe, or joined the Peace Corp for a couple of years, or lived in the outback for a few months. I think I would have learned a lot about life and myself sooner than I actually did.


In the movie didn't Chris make a comment to Ron Franz that you don't need a relationship (or something) to be happy? That you can find happiness in nature or freedom, or something like that? At the time I thought it was rather insightful because I thought Chris was trying to emphasize that happiness comes from within and that maybe people are too dependent on trying to "find someone" or find someone to make them happy. However, by the end of the movie I was thinking that he meant that you had to break away from people you had relationships with to be happy and I didn't think that was insightful nor correct. And as you say if that is what he meant originally then he found out it wasn't true. Most people need others to love and to love them, even if happiness comes from within. O.K. now I'm rambling and probably not making myself clear so I will quit.

Heineken Helen wrote:

Just get a piece of paper, write it down and, hey presto, you have a list