7 ms·

One of my friends lived in Healy, Alaska, the nearest town to the bus. He said that a lot of people came to the area trying to relive McCandless' journey. Loca

• jdhawk 6y ago
  this is the slow version of idiots falling into the grand canyon trying to get a great selfie.
  • regulation_d 6y ago
    If you're going to Healy, AK, chances are you're not just doing it for the gram. I remember reading Into The Wild in my twenties and feeling a strong connection to Alex. Even if going to the bus wasn't a wise decision, I feel it's only human to want to cultivate those types of connections. I never went to the bus, but I was definitely curious what Alex was experiencing in the final days of his life. I agree with GP that it's a cautionary tale, but it's more than that. It's caused thousands of people to think more about the way they live their lives. Seems a bit more substantive than simply trying to get a selfie, don't you think?
    • brudgers 6y ago
      To me, a celebrity bus is not more substantive than the Grand Canyon. This would include Furthur if it still existed. YMMV.
      • kerkeslager 6y ago
        I don't think the person you are responding to was saying that a celebrity bus is more substantive than the Grand Canyon. I think they were saying that going to a place because it has meaning for an ideal of breaking dependence on society is more substantive than going to a place so you can take a picture to get attention on the internet. It's not about the place, it's about your reasons for going there. The Grand Canyon is a place with incredible splendor, and I am sure there are people who go there for substantive reasons too.
        • brudgers 6y ago
          The bus is famous for a best selling book and a Hollywood movie. It's what Eco might call "hyperreal." It signifies breaking dependence on society not a breaking of dependence. The Grand Canyon doesn't require knowing the story. It forces acceptance that one does not and cannot know the story. Admittedly, that doesn't make for a good movie.
          • kerkeslager 6y ago
            I'd like to respond to what you're saying, but I don't understand it. Would you mind clarifying?
            • brudgers 6y ago
              Are you familiar with Eco’s work?
              • kerkeslager 6y ago
                I've read only Foucalt's Pendulum.
    • dhosek 6y ago
      There's a significant trade in people who go to the top of Everest "for the gram." I think you're underestimating the willful foolishness of people. The Last Week Tonight episode on Everest is useful viewing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bchx0mS7XOY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bchx0mS7XOY
      • kerkeslager 6y ago
        Everest is even worse than "doing it for the gram". It's not just that they're doing it for attention that's disgusting. It's that they're literally trying use wealth to buy achievement without doing the actual work of achievement. It used to be that Everest was a crowning achievement in a mountaineer's career. To top out, you would have to climb many, many other mountains in preparation, building skills, physique, and relationships with other mountaineers. But now people regularly reach the top of Everest as their first (and often last) summit. If you have never reached the top of a major mountain before, you're a beginner mountaineer. And if Everest is summitted by dozens of beginner mountaineers every year, it's a beginner mountain. The primary barrier to Everest now is amassing ~$40k in expendable income to pay sherpas to drag you to the summit. It's worth noting that what the sherpas do is still extraordinary.
  • jschwartzi 6y ago
    Or Rattlesnake Ledge in Washington.
    • NotSammyHagar 6y ago
      Yeah, that's a crazy dangerous place that is often very overcrowded on a weekend near Seattle.
      • marssaxman 6y ago
        It is definitely often crowded, but what about it is "crazy dangerous?"
        • NotSammyHagar 6y ago
          Because it is exposed, you could easily fall and die and a few people do die every year or so. Here's one from 2018 https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/teenager-dies-after-fall-from-rattlesnake-ledge-near-north-bend/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/teenager-dies-afte...
• dekhn 6y ago
  I spent a month on an ice field and glacier in Alaska and let me tell you, that state is no joke. We nearly lost a couple of my team to a glacial runoff river that we crossed, I have a permanent scar from devil's club. Fortunately we didn't get poisoned (the onyl thing we ate that was local was some blueberries). It was really amazing being only ~50-60 miles from Anchorage in the most isolated place I'd ever been (chugach ice fields) We did have an interesting experience- an encounter with Dick "Black Ass" Griffith (his nickname came from the frostbite that removed his back parts) who adventured all over just on the money that Alaska gives to its citizens every year.
  • 0x38B 6y ago
    Speaking of devil's club - what really sucks is scrambling in the brush down a hill (I did a lot of that in 15 years there), slipping, and grabbing a nice spiky devil's club as you reach out to catch yourself... But the nature is amazing, and now that I compare it with other places, just plain good for the soul.
    • dekhn 6y ago
      yes, that's exactly what happened to me- well, i didn't grab it, just brushed against it while bush-whacking. A whole section of my skin turned red, then black, then sloughed off, and I still have a big scar 20+ years later.
• mikorym 6y ago
  As a South African growing up in a rural area, I always saw Into the Wild as an example of how Alaskans—or other people who don't die in the woods—with common sense are thrown under the bus in favour of general Americans with more gripping stories that unfortunately revolves around a couple of stupid decisions. It's a great story to make a movie about, but isn't the daily life of an Alaskan a great story too? It appears that it isn't seen as a cautionary tale at all, but an instruction on how to "go back to nature".
  • starpilot 6y ago
    Most Alaskans live in towns with lives similar to that of other Americans. They go to work, buy groceries, do laundry, watch TV. Not a "great" story except in the sense of celebrating the ordinary.
    • 0x38B 6y ago
      I guess, but as a kid, I practically lived in the thick woods around our house. As a boy, it was awesome to live in a place where carrying a khukuri (or small sword) wasn't so out of the ordinary, and I have fond memories of bushwhacking trails, coming home smelling of earth and picking the inevitable spiders out of my clothes.
      • kerkeslager 6y ago
        > I guess, but as a kid, I practically lived in the thick woods around our house. You were just enjoying nature and going back to the safety of civilization at night. McCandless was trying to break his dependence on civilization entirely. There's nothing wrong with what you were doing, I do it myself. But it's not the same thing.
      • starpilot 6y ago
        I lived like that growing up in Virginia. Mid-Atlantic has many areas like this. Minus the Nepali souvenirs though.
        • 6y ago
• akamia 6y ago
  I worked with a guy who used to live in the area and he also had an interesting perspective. He explained that there were many people who lived in remote homes that needed to have water, fuel, etc. trucked in from town. Sometimes they would encounter one of these people half dead. They'd had to waste some of their limited resources helping them get to safety. This led to a lot of anger.
  • lopmotr 6y ago
    This is such an arrogant and narrow minded attitude that's strangely popular. Just because they happen to encounter more people in trouble than most of us, doesn't mean those people don't deserve help. Imagine seeing a homeless person begging in the street and getting angry because he wants your help when he should have just not made all those "stupid" "unprepared" decisions that led to it. Or imagine someone having a heart attack and getting angry because they should have had a better diet and exercise throughout their life - it's their own stupid fault that they're dying and why should I bother helping them. Or a suicidal person - just get a therapist or stop thinking those stupid thoughts that make your problem worse. Almost all causes of death are preventable or at least delay-able. Most of us will die earlier than we could have because of our own unnecessary pleasure-seeking actions.
    • msla 6y ago
      > Imagine seeing a homeless person begging in the street and getting angry because he wants your help when he should have just not made all those "stupid" "unprepared" decisions that led to it. I don't know that people get dumped into the Alaskan wilderness for being unable to pay medical bills. > Or imagine someone having a heart attack and getting angry because they should have had a better diet and exercise throughout their life - it's their own stupid fault that they're dying and why should I bother helping them. Never hang around ER nurses. > Or a suicidal person - just get a therapist or stop thinking those stupid thoughts that make your problem worse. Really never hang around ER nurses.
    • ip26 6y ago
      People are usually pretty willing to help when they are in a secure position. But when you start assuming a lot of risk to help someone, outright foolishness is harder to stomach. You might say when offering help saddles you with risk, it accelerates compassion fatigue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue)
• staycoolboy 6y ago
  > "pukers" That's really funny. On the one hand, I feel a satisfying connectedness when I visit a real-life place mentioned in a book: I traveled the Spanish countryside after reading "The Sun Also Rises", and got lost in the countryside and drank red wine on the hills. I also visited the killing fields in Cambodia after reading "The Killing Fields" and "Swimming to Cambodia". It was fucking terrifying that this happened in my lifetime. On the other hand, I can see how stressful this is for locals, like both in Alaska and Spain who aren't asking for the influx. But at least in Cambodia, it is an important historical legacy and it brings revenue. I've come to the conclusion for myself that I don't want to bother the locals just for my own satisfaction unless the target destination has been built with concern and sensitivity, and not for exploitation. Even the latter case is still subjective: are the streets of Paris' tourist-traps exploitative and annoying? What about the shops around Giza's pyramids? Both locations seemed to be unhappy about the tourism. I spoke with a shop owner in Panama and he said the locals love/hate tourists: the dollars are important, but the psychological impact of having their homes be fishbowls is not insignificant.
  • david422 6y ago
    I read The Killing Fields. It makes me really appreciate my little bubble of safety in the world. It was totally surreal.
  • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    I grew up in an area where tourism was the only industry. I think you under-estimate how many people in those places have drank the cool-aid and think they are sharing something special with the world. Everyone else gets out or gets addicted to something. That said, this was a first world country where people could mostly get out if they didn't like it. That said, it's a terrible industry and is only marginally more ethical than cutting down mountains and polluting rivers for coal in my opinion.
• l_t 6y ago
  IMO (having only watched the film), preparation was meaningless because McCandless had a mentality that led him _toward_ risk -- a kind of death wish. He escalated his personal risk more and more, and eventually suffered the inevitable consequences. But, I get the impression that in his own head, he didn't feel a choice in the matter, or rather the alternative was worse. Therein lies the true "moral" of the film, as I personally interpreted it: McCandless was trapped in his own head, no matter how far he traveled he couldn't escape his own mentality. The tragedy is that it seems he himself realized this too late. But, who knows -- personally, I imagine him being at peace with his decision and the ultimate result.
  • kerkeslager 6y ago
    It's been over a decade since I read the book and saw the film, so what I am about to say may be a product of my imperfect memory rather than the reality of the book and movie, but here goes anyway: I see how you got the impression that McCandless was trapped in his own risk-addicted thinking from the movie, but I think that impression is editorializing on the part of the filmmakers. I'm a rock climber and it's my experience that the risk taking in rock climbing isn't a death wish. On the contrary, it's a life-wish, a desire to experience life to its fullest even if that means risking your life. You will die--risking death is not a risk. The greatest risk you take is dying without achieving your deepest desires and dreams. This is a pretty common view in the rock climbing community, and I think that Jon Krakauer, a mountaineer the author of the In To the Wild book, probably held a view of risk similar to my own, which is why the book presents a much more sympathetic view of McCandless' risk-taking.
    • andyjohnson0 6y ago
      I climb too, and I agree with your perspective. When I read the book I felt McCandless was a romantic. Naive perhaps, and his death was unnecessary, but he lived his life on his own terms to a degree which is relatively rare today.
      • discreteevent 6y ago