5 ms·

What's fascinating is inferring the other motives and agendas swirling around the issue that are then cut through by hard science (in Krakauer's favor): From h

What's fascinating is inferring the other motives and agendas swirling around the issue that are then cut through by hard science (in Krakauer's favor): From http://www.alaskacommons.com/2013/09/22/what-everyone-is-getting-wrong-about-chris-mccandless/ http://www.alaskacommons.com/2013/09/22/what-everyone-is-get...: "The forensic question “Were the seeds poisonous?” is of interest only because it sheds light on broader, more contentious question, expressed bluntly as “How stupid was Chris McCandless?” If, like Alaska Dispatch reporters Dermot Cole and Craig Medred (and again), you think McCandless was a clueless, crazy knucklehead, arrogant in his disdain for wild nature and its perils, then you want to think the seeds weren’t poisonous; the kid just died of starvation because he was too stupid/crazy/arrogant to make it to safety." "But if, like Jon Krakauer (and, in the interest of full disclosure, like me), you have some level of empathy with or sympathy for McCandless, you want to think the seeds were poisonous—he was doing his best to survive a difficult enterprise and was done in because he consumed something that was not known to be poisonous until two decades after his death."

Isamu 12y ago
I have empathy for McCandless, he didn't deserve to die and I wish he hadn't. But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into, didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own death. It's not a judgment about his character. He wasn't a knucklehead, he was probably fairly intelligent. He was probably just unaware, like most people, how hard it is to subsist in nature alone, and how harsh the beautiful landscape can be. In the right context, ignorance is a kind of superpower. When you survive and it all works out, you are a genius. Many successful people start their story with: "If I had known what I was getting into, I would never have started..." So yeah, I kind of admire this ignorance ... in other people. I am WAY too self-conscious and introspective to embark on some enterprise where I know that I know nothing. Oh, and the poisonous seed thing - he was just eating a plant whose edibility was not established. I dunno, maybe people think nature is benevolent, and sure I can think of a bunch of edible plants in the woods near my house ... but I can think of plenty that are poisonous, or mildly toxic, or carcinogenic, or indigestible, or otherwise liable to disagree with you. He didn't know if he should or shouldn't eat it. He was rolling the dice. If you roll the dice and you live, you're a genius and in a few years you get to write your memoirs as the next Thoreau.
- jeffdavis 12y ago
  "But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into, didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own death." Another way to look at it is that he knew there were unknown risks of various kinds, and he decided to prepare as well as he could and go anyway.
  - Perdition 12y ago
    Except he didn't prepare as well as he could. IIRC there was a ferry or similar a few miles upstream of where he was "trapped" (because he didn't expect the river to swell as it did) and died. Learning about seasonal weather and checking alternate routes are a basic part of wilderness survival.
    - jimmytidey 12y ago
      But that's the whole point - he wanted to take a risk. That's why the story is a moving poetic statement. If he'd done it the sensible way there wouldn't be a book about it.
      - Perdition 12y ago
        Going skydiving is taking a risk. Going skydiving without training and without checking your equipment is just being an idiot. It isn't noble or poetic it is just dumb. The only thing sadder than McCandless pointless depth is the people whose own lives are so devoid of meaning that they seek inspiration from a fool who killed himself.
- Nanzikambe 12y ago
  "But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own death." In the postcard at the very top of the article Chris says: "If this adventure proves fatal and you don't ever hear from me again I want you to know your (sic) a great man. I now walk into the wild" And earlier he asks his friend to return all mail to sender for the foreseeable future. That and everything else I've ever read has made me think he was entirely aware of the potential for danger in the wilderness. He walked in & did it any-ways. Plenty people look to test themselves in nature's crucible with minimal preparation, fully cognisant of the risks. Sometimes they lose. I think looking down upon them with the rosy vision of decades hindsight from the comfort & safety of home does them a disservice. Their lives, their choices. I hope Chris found what he was looking for.
mipapage 12y ago
I've lost two friends in Alaska, one with a similar story, both with significant outdoors experience and neither was ever found. I myself worked in both territories around the time when McCandless died. Many of us were fascinated by this story because it hit so close to home; that Krakauer continues to examine this definitely hits the empathy and sympathy button, and also the fascination that McCandless was not stupid but had the huevos to do what he did, and sadness with how it ended.

Isamu 12y ago

I have empathy for McCandless, he didn't deserve to die and I wish he hadn't. But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into, didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own death. It's not a judgment about his character. He wasn't a knucklehead, he was probably fairly intelligent. He was probably just unaware, like most people, how hard it is to subsist in nature alone, and how harsh the beautiful landscape can be. In the right context, ignorance is a kind of superpower. When you survive and it all works out, you are a genius. Many successful people start their story with: "If I had known what I was getting into, I would never have started..." So yeah, I kind of admire this ignorance ... in other people. I am WAY too self-conscious and introspective to embark on some enterprise where I know that I know nothing. Oh, and the poisonous seed thing - he was just eating a plant whose edibility was not established. I dunno, maybe people think nature is benevolent, and sure I can think of a bunch of edible plants in the woods near my house ... but I can think of plenty that are poisonous, or mildly toxic, or carcinogenic, or indigestible, or otherwise liable to disagree with you. He didn't know if he should or shouldn't eat it. He was rolling the dice. If you roll the dice and you live, you're a genius and in a few years you get to write your memoirs as the next Thoreau.

jeffdavis 12y ago
"But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into, didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own death." Another way to look at it is that he knew there were unknown risks of various kinds, and he decided to prepare as well as he could and go anyway.
- Perdition 12y ago
  Except he didn't prepare as well as he could. IIRC there was a ferry or similar a few miles upstream of where he was "trapped" (because he didn't expect the river to swell as it did) and died. Learning about seasonal weather and checking alternate routes are a basic part of wilderness survival.
  - jimmytidey 12y ago
    But that's the whole point - he wanted to take a risk. That's why the story is a moving poetic statement. If he'd done it the sensible way there wouldn't be a book about it.
    - Perdition 12y ago
      Going skydiving is taking a risk. Going skydiving without training and without checking your equipment is just being an idiot. It isn't noble or poetic it is just dumb. The only thing sadder than McCandless pointless depth is the people whose own lives are so devoid of meaning that they seek inspiration from a fool who killed himself.
Nanzikambe 12y ago
"But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own death." In the postcard at the very top of the article Chris says: "If this adventure proves fatal and you don't ever hear from me again I want you to know your (sic) a great man. I now walk into the wild" And earlier he asks his friend to return all mail to sender for the foreseeable future. That and everything else I've ever read has made me think he was entirely aware of the potential for danger in the wilderness. He walked in & did it any-ways. Plenty people look to test themselves in nature's crucible with minimal preparation, fully cognisant of the risks. Sometimes they lose. I think looking down upon them with the rosy vision of decades hindsight from the comfort & safety of home does them a disservice. Their lives, their choices. I hope Chris found what he was looking for.

mipapage 12y ago

I've lost two friends in Alaska, one with a similar story, both with significant outdoors experience and neither was ever found. I myself worked in both territories around the time when McCandless died. Many of us were fascinated by this story because it hit so close to home; that Krakauer continues to examine this definitely hits the empathy and sympathy button, and also the fascination that McCandless was not stupid but had the huevos to do what he did, and sadness with how it ended.