** spoiler alert ** I vaguely remember hearing about Chris McCandless and his fatal adventure in Alaska but I missed the movie and quite honestly I'm not sure what triggered me to read the book at this point?? I mean it's been almost 30 years since his death. Maybe curiosity to understand the circumstances finally caught up with me...
After reading it tho, I still can't commit to which of the two camps of thought I fall into about him? I'm straddling the fence, leaning ever so slightly toward the one where he was ill-prepared and kind of an idiot to think he could just hike into the Alaskan wilderness, with no supplies, and walk out to tell the tale. From everything I've read, Alaska is an environment & land unto its own. Not a place for amateurs & definitely not a place to "practice" survival skills. Apparently (according to the book) lots of McCandless minded people find their way there and many end up with a similar fate. Let's give him some credit tho for making it as long as he did. I couldn't make it 10 days but then again, you wouldn't find me even attempting it. I do keep finding myself wondering if he would have stayed anywhere near as long if that van weren't conveniently there?? Without it for shelter, could he possibly have ended (and lived to tell about) his Alaska adventure much earlier???
I can appreciate his disenchantment with the grind of life. I've had many discussions with friends about the "trappings" of life ~ getting tied down to mortgage payments, car payments and the monotony of repeating the same steps day after day. The security of knowing there's a place to sleep, eat and be safe from the elements usually trumps any call of the wild for me tho. The author tried to associate his unconventional lifestyle, wanderlust, disregard for rules, and quest for spiritual fulfillment with a bad father/son relationship. I couldn't really buy into that, too many people have difficult relationships with their family and aren't inspired to follow a similar path. He did seem to be influenced by his reading material but even that didn't explain his lifestyle choices. The only explanation that makes sense to me is it was something innate that made him different than his peers.
It was a tragedy that he couldn't take the education he received and work to do good for the world, try to change it even instead of spurn it. Maybe he would have if he'd survived?? Sad that but for a few critical errors, he could still be among the living. Had he walked out of that trail tho, the world would never know his name, associate it with that green & white bus or make a martyr out of him. In the end, the choice of how to live was his as it is all of ours.
Extremely sad story. Also ironic that the guy who gave his savings away to a charity that supports wiping out hunger, starved to death (albeit because of eating a poisonous plant but still...) I believe Jon Krakauer recognized a kindred spirit in McCandless and that's why his story touched him so deeply. I wish he'd included more photos from the 5 rolls of film left behind. One criticism, the book could have been condensed to a short story. It's a little misleading when you pick it up and discover it's not just about McCandless ~ it's got "filler" material in it about other people who went off grid & disappeared, including a segment about the author himself.
Regardless of how you feel about Chris, the last two years of his life are fascinating reading. He left a trail of "bread crumbs" about his whereabouts in the form of letters & postcards mailed from all over the American West. When his adventure came to a tragic end, it's a really difficult one to shake.