11 ms·

Obligatory quotes from McCandless' wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless): Al

Obligatory quotes from McCandless' wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless): Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote: "When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn't even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he [had] had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament [... ] Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide.[11]" Sherry Simpson, writing in the Anchorage Press, described her trip to the bus with a friend, and their reaction upon reading the comments that tourists had left lauding McCandless as an insightful, Thoreau-like figure: "Among my friends and acquaintances, the story of Christopher McCandless makes great after-dinner conversation. Much of the time I agree with the "he had a death wish" camp because I don't know how else to reconcile what we know of his ordeal. Now and then I venture into the "what a dumb--" territory, tempered by brief alliances with the "he was just another romantic boy on an all-American quest" partisans. Mostly I'm puzzled by the way he's emerged as a hero[13]"

cpncrunch 13y ago
I think the point is that he was an independent thinker, and thus was disillusioned by all the BS in modern society. Sure he made some mistakes and he had some back luck, but he chose to find meaning in his life instead of being another sheep. Can you say the same for your own life?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- lrm242 13y ago
  Give me a break. The guy was most certainly not an independent thinker. Nor was he a critical thinker. Nor did he have any respect for the challenge he was taking on. He was an angst ridden teenage boy captured in an twenty something's body that never learned the difference between fantasy and reality. Most importantly, he never learned that in the real world there are consequences for stupid actions.
  - Zimahl 13y ago
    This. The previous comment is the reason why McCandless is such a polarizing figure. Those who prepare and go on a quest without suffering negative consequences are somehow derided for not being independent thinkers, somehow cheapened for not risking enough. "Adventure is just bad planning." - Roald Amundsen
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      I like to think of adventure as good planning combined with inherently difficult circumstances. The first treks to the poles were quite the adventure, yet they were also highly methodical and carefully planned.
    - wwweston 13y ago
      The good admiral has a point, but I don't think it gets to the heart of the McCandless drama. For that, I think I'd look to Norman Maclean's _Young Men and Fire_ where he talks about smoke jumpers: "It is very important to a lot of people to make unmistakably clear to themselves and to the universe that they love the universe but are not intimidated by it and will not be shaken by it, no matter what it has in store. Moreover, they demand something from themselves early in life that can be taken ever after as a demonstration of this abiding feeling... "For many former Smokejumpers, then, smokejumping is not closely tied up with their [eventual] way of life, but is more something that is necessary for them to pass through and not around and, once it is unmistakably done, does not have to be done again. The 'it' is within, and is the need to settle some things with the universe and ourselves before taking on the 'business of the world,' which isn't all that special or hard but takes time. This 'it' is the something special within that demands we do something special, and 'it' could be within a lot of us." If people here are reading this and haven't already realized some parallels between not just McCandless and smokejumpers but also entrepreneurs I'd be surprised. Now, you can draw distinctions between McCandless and smokejumpers, too: the later train and drill and prepare, probably as well as Amundsen could be satisfied with. And their work has a practical end. But their work is still an adventure because they also operate in an area of high risk, and as a result they sometimes pay a high cost. And they don't do this job for entirely practical reasons. They do it because they have a need for an internal narrative that settles certain things and establishes a kind of identity, they do it because they need something off the beaten track for middle class success. McCandless was clearly looking for that. I think it's fair to ask if he'd been a little less romantic about it and a little more thoughtful whether he might have had both his survival adventure and his survival. Then again, unless you're Batman or some other protagonist whose superpower is acute anticipation by authorial fiat, it's mitigated by the limits of the best laid plans.
- guywithabike 13y ago
  If having "some bad luck" and living a "meaningful life" means I die of starvation / poisoning alone in a forest, then I guess you can count me out.
- vecter 13y ago
  How was Chris's life more meaningful than everyone else's?
- untog 13y ago
  he chose to live a meaningful life instead of being another sheep. Can you say the same for your own life? Yeah, I can. Most of us can. 'Sheep' is such an over-used term that covers so much. Getting a full time job for a company doesn't make your a 'sheep', you can still leave a happy and meaningful life. People say (though I have no personal experience) that having children is the most meaningful thing you can do in your life. If you do, maybe nothing else matters? The point is, it's ironic to me that you're deriding all the "BS in modern society". To me, the biggest load of BS in modern society is this first world preoccupation with "meaning", "purpose" and all that other junk. The vast majority of people out there don't even have the time to stop and think about these things. None of us can judge what McCandless did with his life because none of us are him and know how he felt as he was dying. But if I was him, I would have regrets.
  - base698 13y ago
    I don't believe sheep is overused when a huge population of people are pursuing material gains for people who don't care. The short list of what this leads to: depression, hopelessness, addiction, dietary diseases, and other first world problems. All trying to keep up with the Joneses. There are more meaningful pursuits.
    - untog 13y ago
      There are more meaningful pursuits. Like Chris McCandless's one that resulted in death? Seriously, you can't hold him up as an idol of a 'better life' when his life was cut short very, very prematurely. I'm not qualified to judge whether depression and dietary diseases are better than death, but I think it's at least worth debating. And few people pursue material gains for the purpose of simply having them. Like I said, for a great many people in the world, being a parent is hugely meaningful. It leads them to pursue material gains in order to provide for their children and watch them grow in comfort. That does not make them 'sheep'. If they are then everyone is a sheep. You are an "anti-'sheep'" sheep.
      - base698 13y ago
        I'm not saying to hold him up as an idol. I'm just saying, if you aren't happy and you are "successful" then you may have to rethink your approach. Happiness is hard and a lot of work, and I know a lot of people never figure it out. If you're trying what consumer culture is offering and you're miserable, then maybe try something else? I would highly debate it's few. There's a reason AdBusters struck such a nerve.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The irony of your post is that his death is a vivid demonstration of one reason why humans engage in flock behavior: to develop social memory of what's safe to eat. Those who stayed with the flock lived meaningful lives--they got jobs they had kids, they propagated their genes. He didn't live a meaningful life--he died painfully in his 20's in the woods because he ate a lethal dose of neurotoxins.
  - base698 13y ago
    Better stay in your manufactured suburban home and eat plastic wrapped pastries like everyone else.
    - hga 13y ago
      You could still stay at the edge of the flock and follow a zillion people who've "gone back to nature" ... but the nature of post-hunter-gatherer agriculture. Stick to growing plants and raising animals we're on very solid grounds WRT short term toxicity vs. "This wild stuff doesn't seem to be deadly" and then accidentally find out the conditions and dosages in which it turns out to be. The flock itself has value; you don't have live with someone else, but as jusben1369 points out, if he'd so much as broken his leg falling down the steps of the bus he'd have ended up just as dead. Regular contact with a neighbor would have saved him, but he had no reserves and no margin for error.
      - base698 13y ago
        I'm just pointing out that some risk is necessary and complete risk aversion can lead to undesirable outcomes. A lot of people here probably moved far from their home base to work at a startup for example. Some were exposed to completely new cultures and lost comforts of home because of it. If they did what their family or friends did they would have stayed home and not took the risk. People from my home state think California is an awful place. I moved here for work and couldn't imagine living anywhere else--imagine if I'd of took their word.
        deleted 13y ago
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Can you say the same for your own life? Hmm, yes.
runjake 13y ago
This point has been rehashed again and again and again every time McCandless is mentioned. We get it. Aside from that, what is your point? Did you even bother to read the article, which despite mentioning this detraction, has nothing to do with it? Or were you just looking for easy upvotes?
- jere 13y ago
  >Did you even bother to read the article, which despite mentioning this detraction, has nothing to do with it? In fact, it invalidates those criticisms against McCandless.
  - billybob255 13y ago
    It doesn't really invalidate them, it says that if you eat the seeds while malnourished the ODAP can kill you. It doesn't mention anything about him dying in an unforeseen accident, he went into the Alaskan bush unprepared and died of malnutrition. If he brought a map he could've walked to safety when he started to realize his plight.
    - jere 13y ago
      >he went into the Alaskan bush unprepared and died of malnutrition. If he brought a map he could've walked to safety when he started to realize his plight. Did you actually read the article? That's not what it says. It suggests he became paralyzed by a neurotoxin, an event which no one could have foreseen at the time. Having a map wouldn't have cured his paralysis. I'm not even convinced he was lost.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        The neurotoxin killed him in his weaken state. A weakened state he found himself in because he was starving already, basically from rabbit-starvation. Because he was unprepared. Yes, had he not eaten the seeds, he (possibly) would still be alive... but he still would have been an idiot.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Zimahl 13y ago
Mostly I'm puzzled by the way he's emerged as a hero I tend to agree with the sentiment although I appreciate the his quest. As a side note, I can understand how someone gets into a sticky situation in the theme of adventure. A friend's little brother (in his 20s, lot so little) decided to hike the Appalachian Trail this summer. Unfortunately he found out about a month in that he was ill-prepared for the calories it takes to hike the sometimes over 20 miles-per-day and the physical toll as well. He had to quit much earlier than expected.
mhartl 13y ago
Read the article.
freerobby 13y ago
Why are judgmental quotes like these "obligatory?" The whole thesis of the article is that regardless of the value judgments of what McCandless did, it was not in fact arrogance that killed him, nor was it possible to correct his ignorance until a scientific discovery was made two decades after his death.
- jeltz 13y ago
  Additionally a scientific discovery made by people investigating his death. If he had not died we probably would still not know about this.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
grecy 13y ago
It certainly is a very dividing topic. I estimate that the comments on my personal trip to the bus [1] are split 50/50 between people that admire Chris' story, and people that think he was a dumbass. I think the argument boils whether Chris was unprepared (mentally and equipment-wise) to go into the Alaskan wilderness. If you read "Into the Wild", and the newer "Back to the Wild" book which has entries from his diary and photos from his cameras, I think it's clear Chris was very prepared mentally - he knew exactly what he was trying to do, and he knew exactly how dangerous it was. He spent months working out, climbing mountains with his heavy pack, and researching wild edible berries and game in preparation for what he wanted to do. This shows he had a clear mind going in. So essentially, he was trying to do something dangerous, with the minimum amount of gear possible. This is no different from the countless people that attempt to climb Everest or K2 without oxygen and perish in the attempt. Those people are not considered dumb asses. Neither are the countless thousands and thousands that perish getting out there and pushing themselves as best as they can. A person's level of preparedness for any life adventure is clearly their own choosing. Who are we to say that someone was foolish for attempting to push the boundaries of what they thought they were capable of? Even worse, if someone were to be the first to summit some mountain or other without oxygen, they would be hailed a hero. If they died, they'd be a dumb ass. The outcome should not have any baring on if they were "prepared enough" or not - only they can make that choice for themselves. -- As a side note, have you even spent any time in Alaska or with Alaskans? I live up here. If you were to go more than 10 yards from a highway and didn't have a quad, rifle, chainsaw, axe, saw, three pairs of boots, sixteen gloves, spare everything, spare gasoline, 300lb wall tent & stove, sat phone and a spot satellite messenger and you so much as broke a fingernail, Alaskans would very quickly point out you're a complete dumb-ass for being so horribly unprepared. Even worse, you go by yourself. [1] http://theroadchoseme.com/the-magic-bus http://theroadchoseme.com/the-magic-bus
- rosser 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but if you think you can climb Everest without oxygen, and die in the attempt, you were a dumb-ass. Full stop.
  - grecy 13y ago

cpncrunch 13y ago

I think the point is that he was an independent thinker, and thus was disillusioned by all the BS in modern society. Sure he made some mistakes and he had some back luck, but he chose to find meaning in his life instead of being another sheep. Can you say the same for your own life?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lrm242 13y ago
Give me a break. The guy was most certainly not an independent thinker. Nor was he a critical thinker. Nor did he have any respect for the challenge he was taking on. He was an angst ridden teenage boy captured in an twenty something's body that never learned the difference between fantasy and reality. Most importantly, he never learned that in the real world there are consequences for stupid actions.
- Zimahl 13y ago
  This. The previous comment is the reason why McCandless is such a polarizing figure. Those who prepare and go on a quest without suffering negative consequences are somehow derided for not being independent thinkers, somehow cheapened for not risking enough. "Adventure is just bad planning." - Roald Amundsen
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I like to think of adventure as good planning combined with inherently difficult circumstances. The first treks to the poles were quite the adventure, yet they were also highly methodical and carefully planned.
  - wwweston 13y ago
    The good admiral has a point, but I don't think it gets to the heart of the McCandless drama. For that, I think I'd look to Norman Maclean's _Young Men and Fire_ where he talks about smoke jumpers: "It is very important to a lot of people to make unmistakably clear to themselves and to the universe that they love the universe but are not intimidated by it and will not be shaken by it, no matter what it has in store. Moreover, they demand something from themselves early in life that can be taken ever after as a demonstration of this abiding feeling... "For many former Smokejumpers, then, smokejumping is not closely tied up with their [eventual] way of life, but is more something that is necessary for them to pass through and not around and, once it is unmistakably done, does not have to be done again. The 'it' is within, and is the need to settle some things with the universe and ourselves before taking on the 'business of the world,' which isn't all that special or hard but takes time. This 'it' is the something special within that demands we do something special, and 'it' could be within a lot of us." If people here are reading this and haven't already realized some parallels between not just McCandless and smokejumpers but also entrepreneurs I'd be surprised. Now, you can draw distinctions between McCandless and smokejumpers, too: the later train and drill and prepare, probably as well as Amundsen could be satisfied with. And their work has a practical end. But their work is still an adventure because they also operate in an area of high risk, and as a result they sometimes pay a high cost. And they don't do this job for entirely practical reasons. They do it because they have a need for an internal narrative that settles certain things and establishes a kind of identity, they do it because they need something off the beaten track for middle class success. McCandless was clearly looking for that. I think it's fair to ask if he'd been a little less romantic about it and a little more thoughtful whether he might have had both his survival adventure and his survival. Then again, unless you're Batman or some other protagonist whose superpower is acute anticipation by authorial fiat, it's mitigated by the limits of the best laid plans.
guywithabike 13y ago
If having "some bad luck" and living a "meaningful life" means I die of starvation / poisoning alone in a forest, then I guess you can count me out.
vecter 13y ago
How was Chris's life more meaningful than everyone else's?
untog 13y ago
he chose to live a meaningful life instead of being another sheep. Can you say the same for your own life? Yeah, I can. Most of us can. 'Sheep' is such an over-used term that covers so much. Getting a full time job for a company doesn't make your a 'sheep', you can still leave a happy and meaningful life. People say (though I have no personal experience) that having children is the most meaningful thing you can do in your life. If you do, maybe nothing else matters? The point is, it's ironic to me that you're deriding all the "BS in modern society". To me, the biggest load of BS in modern society is this first world preoccupation with "meaning", "purpose" and all that other junk. The vast majority of people out there don't even have the time to stop and think about these things. None of us can judge what McCandless did with his life because none of us are him and know how he felt as he was dying. But if I was him, I would have regrets.
- base698 13y ago
  I don't believe sheep is overused when a huge population of people are pursuing material gains for people who don't care. The short list of what this leads to: depression, hopelessness, addiction, dietary diseases, and other first world problems. All trying to keep up with the Joneses. There are more meaningful pursuits.
  - untog 13y ago
    There are more meaningful pursuits. Like Chris McCandless's one that resulted in death? Seriously, you can't hold him up as an idol of a 'better life' when his life was cut short very, very prematurely. I'm not qualified to judge whether depression and dietary diseases are better than death, but I think it's at least worth debating. And few people pursue material gains for the purpose of simply having them. Like I said, for a great many people in the world, being a parent is hugely meaningful. It leads them to pursue material gains in order to provide for their children and watch them grow in comfort. That does not make them 'sheep'. If they are then everyone is a sheep. You are an "anti-'sheep'" sheep.
    - base698 13y ago
      I'm not saying to hold him up as an idol. I'm just saying, if you aren't happy and you are "successful" then you may have to rethink your approach. Happiness is hard and a lot of work, and I know a lot of people never figure it out. If you're trying what consumer culture is offering and you're miserable, then maybe try something else? I would highly debate it's few. There's a reason AdBusters struck such a nerve.
rayiner 13y ago
The irony of your post is that his death is a vivid demonstration of one reason why humans engage in flock behavior: to develop social memory of what's safe to eat. Those who stayed with the flock lived meaningful lives--they got jobs they had kids, they propagated their genes. He didn't live a meaningful life--he died painfully in his 20's in the woods because he ate a lethal dose of neurotoxins.
- base698 13y ago
  Better stay in your manufactured suburban home and eat plastic wrapped pastries like everyone else.
  - hga 13y ago
    You could still stay at the edge of the flock and follow a zillion people who've "gone back to nature" ... but the nature of post-hunter-gatherer agriculture. Stick to growing plants and raising animals we're on very solid grounds WRT short term toxicity vs. "This wild stuff doesn't seem to be deadly" and then accidentally find out the conditions and dosages in which it turns out to be. The flock itself has value; you don't have live with someone else, but as jusben1369 points out, if he'd so much as broken his leg falling down the steps of the bus he'd have ended up just as dead. Regular contact with a neighbor would have saved him, but he had no reserves and no margin for error.
    - base698 13y ago
      I'm just pointing out that some risk is necessary and complete risk aversion can lead to undesirable outcomes. A lot of people here probably moved far from their home base to work at a startup for example. Some were exposed to completely new cultures and lost comforts of home because of it. If they did what their family or friends did they would have stayed home and not took the risk. People from my home state think California is an awful place. I moved here for work and couldn't imagine living anywhere else--imagine if I'd of took their word.
      - deleted 13y ago
anigbrowl 13y ago
Can you say the same for your own life? Hmm, yes.

runjake 13y ago

This point has been rehashed again and again and again every time McCandless is mentioned. We get it. Aside from that, what is your point? Did you even bother to read the article, which despite mentioning this detraction, has nothing to do with it? Or were you just looking for easy upvotes?

jere 13y ago
>Did you even bother to read the article, which despite mentioning this detraction, has nothing to do with it? In fact, it invalidates those criticisms against McCandless.
- billybob255 13y ago
  It doesn't really invalidate them, it says that if you eat the seeds while malnourished the ODAP can kill you. It doesn't mention anything about him dying in an unforeseen accident, he went into the Alaskan bush unprepared and died of malnutrition. If he brought a map he could've walked to safety when he started to realize his plight.
  - jere 13y ago
    >he went into the Alaskan bush unprepared and died of malnutrition. If he brought a map he could've walked to safety when he started to realize his plight. Did you actually read the article? That's not what it says. It suggests he became paralyzed by a neurotoxin, an event which no one could have foreseen at the time. Having a map wouldn't have cured his paralysis. I'm not even convinced he was lost.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      The neurotoxin killed him in his weaken state. A weakened state he found himself in because he was starving already, basically from rabbit-starvation. Because he was unprepared. Yes, had he not eaten the seeds, he (possibly) would still be alive... but he still would have been an idiot.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Zimahl 13y ago

Mostly I'm puzzled by the way he's emerged as a hero I tend to agree with the sentiment although I appreciate the his quest. As a side note, I can understand how someone gets into a sticky situation in the theme of adventure. A friend's little brother (in his 20s, lot so little) decided to hike the Appalachian Trail this summer. Unfortunately he found out about a month in that he was ill-prepared for the calories it takes to hike the sometimes over 20 miles-per-day and the physical toll as well. He had to quit much earlier than expected.

mhartl 13y ago

Read the article.

freerobby 13y ago

Why are judgmental quotes like these "obligatory?" The whole thesis of the article is that regardless of the value judgments of what McCandless did, it was not in fact arrogance that killed him, nor was it possible to correct his ignorance until a scientific discovery was made two decades after his death.

jeltz 13y ago
Additionally a scientific discovery made by people investigating his death. If he had not died we probably would still not know about this.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

grecy 13y ago

It certainly is a very dividing topic. I estimate that the comments on my personal trip to the bus [1] are split 50/50 between people that admire Chris' story, and people that think he was a dumbass. I think the argument boils whether Chris was unprepared (mentally and equipment-wise) to go into the Alaskan wilderness. If you read "Into the Wild", and the newer "Back to the Wild" book which has entries from his diary and photos from his cameras, I think it's clear Chris was very prepared mentally - he knew exactly what he was trying to do, and he knew exactly how dangerous it was. He spent months working out, climbing mountains with his heavy pack, and researching wild edible berries and game in preparation for what he wanted to do. This shows he had a clear mind going in. So essentially, he was trying to do something dangerous, with the minimum amount of gear possible. This is no different from the countless people that attempt to climb Everest or K2 without oxygen and perish in the attempt. Those people are not considered dumb asses. Neither are the countless thousands and thousands that perish getting out there and pushing themselves as best as they can. A person's level of preparedness for any life adventure is clearly their own choosing. Who are we to say that someone was foolish for attempting to push the boundaries of what they thought they were capable of? Even worse, if someone were to be the first to summit some mountain or other without oxygen, they would be hailed a hero. If they died, they'd be a dumb ass. The outcome should not have any baring on if they were "prepared enough" or not - only they can make that choice for themselves. -- As a side note, have you even spent any time in Alaska or with Alaskans? I live up here. If you were to go more than 10 yards from a highway and didn't have a quad, rifle, chainsaw, axe, saw, three pairs of boots, sixteen gloves, spare everything, spare gasoline, 300lb wall tent & stove, sat phone and a spot satellite messenger and you so much as broke a fingernail, Alaskans would very quickly point out you're a complete dumb-ass for being so horribly unprepared. Even worse, you go by yourself. [1] http://theroadchoseme.com/the-magic-bus http://theroadchoseme.com/the-magic-bus

rosser 13y ago
I'm sorry, but if you think you can climb Everest without oxygen, and die in the attempt, you were a dumb-ass. Full stop.
- grecy 13y ago