Shaun Callarman’s commentary on the Chris McCandless character from Into the Wild opens with a damning assessment. According to Callarman, McCandless was arrogant, stupid, ill-informed, and, most importantly, he allowed his romantic imagination of spending time in the wilderness to create unrealistic expectations, and then to leave him dangerously unprepared. While Callarman attempts to provide some contextualisation – McCandless was young and nave, and his mistake was approaching a few months in the wilderness as a spiritual practice – on the whole, his critique comes across as a chastisement. ‘He was also physically fragile, making any punishment beyond basic discomfort from the cold pointless,’ Callarman writes. ‘And he made numerous mistakes because of his stupidity, overconfidence, and fearfulness.’ Callarman dismisses any admiration for courage or ideals, it seems – he believes that McCandless ‘was just plain crazy’. In order to evaluate Callarman’s claim, let us turn to McCandless’s journey and review its components and weaknesses. I partially agree with Callarman’s claim, but I also believe that it overlooks certain important features of McCandless as a character and of his motives. …show more content…
McCandless left what remained of his supplies to survive, naively assumed he could find consistently fresh berries, failed to gain survival training, and left without the essential equipment for well-planned travel in an inaccessible area, such as a detailed map, all of which indeed point to some level of failed planning and a failure to appreciate the challenges he’d entangled himself
Into the Wild by John Krakauer is a rare book in which its author freely admits his bias within the first few pages. “I won't claim to be an impartial biographer,” states Krakauer in the author’s note, and indeed he is not. Although it is not revealed in the author's note whether Krakauer's bias will be positive or negative, it can be easily inferred. Krakauer's explanation of his obsession with McCandless's story makes it evident that Into the Wild was written to persuade the reader to view him as the author does; as remarkably intelligent, driven, and spirited. This differs greatly from the opinion many people hold that McCandless was a simply a foolhardy kid in way over his head. Some even go as far as saying that his recklessness was due to an apparent death-wish. Krakauer uses a combination of ethos, logos and pathos throughout his rendition of McCandless’s story to dispute these negative outlooks while also giving readers new to this enigmatic adventure a proper introduction.
Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, describes the adventure of Christopher McCandless, a young man that ventured into the wilderness of Alaska hoping to find himself and the meaning of life. He undergoes his dangerous journey because he was persuade by of writers like Henry D. Thoreau, who believe it is was best to get farther away from the mainstreams of life. McCandless’ wild adventure was supposed to lead him towards personal growth but instead resulted in his death caused by his unpreparedness towards the atrocity nature.
Although it may be true that Chris McCandles was stubborn, people should consider that he had family problems, he loved nature and he also had an adventurous spirit. I believe that the motives that led him to the wild were family problems and emotional damage as well as his love of nature and his adventurous spirit. In Chris’s journal it seemed like he had lived for 113 days in that “magic bus” but in his last days he had written that “death looms” and that he was “too weak to walk out”. There are many evidence that connect with family problems as well as his adventurous spirit. As I go on with this essay I will state my theory on why Chris was led into the wild as well as evidence that support my claim.
Throughout Into the Wild, Krakauer portrays Christopher McCandless as an infallibly eager young man hoping to distance himself from the society he so obviously loathes, to "live off the land," entirely independent of a world which has "conditioned [itself] to a life of security." Chris, contrarily to this depiction, is disparagingly viewed by some as a "reckless idiot" who lacked the sense he needed to survive in the Alaskan wilderness. This derogatory assessment of Chris's mindset is representative of the society he hopes to escape and contains all the ignorance that causes him to feel this way. Nevertheless, he is misjudged by these critics, allowing Krakauer to hold the more accurate interpretation of Chris's character, his goals, and his accomplishments.
In 1992, Christopher McCandless set off on an odyssey into the backcountry of Alaska, an adventure that had proved fatal. After McCandless's corpse was found, Jon Krakauer wrote an article on the story of Chris McCandless, which was released in the January 1993 issue of Outside magazine. The article had received a negative response; several readers criticized McCandless for being foolish and ill-prepared, and showed no sympathy or remorse for his death. McCandless has been referred to as a nut, a kook, and a fool. However, McCandless was not a nonsensical man. In 1996, Jon Krakauer's novel, Into the Wild, was published. The novel uncovers more detail of McCandless's story. Into the Wild rebuts the idea of McCandless being someone who is foolish, and speaks of the many occasions where McCandless has demonstrated great perseverance and determination. The novel also proves the intelligence of McCandless, and brings insight into McCandless's psyche. The following examples will illustrate how McCandless was not a fool, but someone to admire.
McCandless was not the 'sit down and take it in stride' kind of person. If he saw something wrong, something he did not agree with, he would try to fix it, or help in any way that he could. He was inherently compassionate, a man of his principles; owned by the rules that he governed himself with. It is apparent that he had always been an idealistic dreamer, and had always believed himself capable of much, because as his friend shared: “He'd say 'Come on,...
Was Chris McCandless deranged? Was he delusional? Or was he a hero? Since Chris’ body was found in bus 142 in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness, he has been called many things. Those who knew him believed that he wasn’t crazy; that his impulsive actions and aspirations to explore the world, were no more than the natural inclinations of a young and idealistic spirit. However, his desire to venture into the unknown with no source of human contact and nothing but a ten-pound bag of rice, is not considered normal behavior. Jon Kraukauer’s, Into The Wild, manifests how Chris McCandless’ antisocial demeanor, lack of remorse, and impulsive actions are directly relatable to behaviors associated with a sociopath.
“Never judge a book by it's cover.” This statement is heard hundreds of times throughout one's life, but for some reason it is a natural reaction to do just the opposite. The notion should not have a pre thought opinion of someone because of the way they look or the things they do is baffling to some individuals. Chris McCandless, the main character of the novel “Into The Wild” by Jon Krakauer, is a victim of this scenario. In the Novel, Chris McCandless leaves the comfort of the “perfect” life that he has been given to live an independent life on the road. With no money and his own two feet, McCandless travels the country in hopes of eventually making it to Alaska to live off the land in the bush. As the reader moves through the book, they
Life is a form of progress- from one stage to another, from one responsibility to another. Studying, getting good grades, and starting the family are common expectations of human life. In the novel Into the Wild, author Jon Krakauer introduced the tragic story of Christopher Johnson McCandless. After graduating from Emory University, McCandless sold of his possessions and ultimately became a wanderer. He hitchhiked to Alaska and walked into the wilderness for nearly 4 months. This journey to the 49th state proved fatal for him, and he lost his life while fulfilling his dream. After reading this novel, some readers admired the boy for his courage and noble ideas, while others fulminated that he was an idiot who perished out of arrogance and
Christopher Johnson McCandless was not justified for shunning society and social norms in favor of individualism. McCandless misinterpreted “Walden”, was crazy to shun society, misunderstood “Self Reliance”, and committed actions that contradicted themselves. McCandless was misguided, insane, and had no idea what he was trying to accomplish because he got two simple things like solitude and isolation mixed up.
Jon Krakauer, fascinated by a young man in April 1992 who hitchhiked to Alaska and lived alone in the wild for four months before his decomposed body was discovered, writes the story of Christopher McCandless, in his national bestseller: Into the Wild. McCandless was always a unique and intelligent boy who saw the world differently. Into the Wild explores all aspects of McCandless’s life in order to better understand the reason why a smart, social boy, from an upper class family would put himself in extraordinary peril by living off the land in the Alaskan Bush. McCandless represents the true tragic hero that Aristotle defined. Krakauer depicts McCandless as a tragic hero by detailing his unique and perhaps flawed views on society, his final demise in the Alaskan Bush, and his recognition of the truth, to reveal that pure happiness requires sharing it with others.
Although, Chris McCandless may be seen as stupid and his ideals uncanny, he gave up everything to follow his heart he escaped the world that would have changed him, he wrote his own tale to feel free, and he left a conformist world to indulge in true happiness. How many people would just give up their lives, family, material goods, to escape into a world of perfect solitude and peace; not many and Chris was one of those that could and he became and inspiration. “The idea of free personality and the idea of life as sacrifice” (187).
...can be a life-changing experience. McCandless entered the wild as an overly confident hitchhiker and left as a self-accepting and humble man. He thought that human relationships were futile, he was impervious to materialism, and that he could understand nature on a scientific level. However, McCandless left the wild with a newfound appreciation for humanity, some clarity on his purpose in life, and the ability to create his own legacy. Many people finish reading Into the Wild and form negative opinions about McCandless’ reckless behavior. However, it is important to focus on how being in the wild brought McCandless closer to understanding himself. Into the Wild should motivate humans to participate in explore the wilderness to discover the true meaning of life.
McCandless was a fearless human being. I think that most of the people’s ideologies and personalities have to do with how they were raised by the parents and everything that was taught to them. When a lack of love exists from a parent towards his child, a hate can be created without knowing it. McCandless could have gone away from society to escape reality or, for being in a place where he could find himself at peace. Either one, we can assume that he obviously had different ideas about civilization; the idea of having a life full of danger and adventure inspired and excited him.
Specifically, Court lacked jurisdiction when grating the motion to enforce, rendering the judgments void. ( you must show how you were effected) had not shown that she was “strongly affected” by the judgment or made a strong showing that the judgments were obtained by fraud. This case demonstrates the very good reasons why judgments should be final and should not be disturbed. The plaintiffs to prevail must have shown by clear and convincing evidence that there was fraud on the court, and all doubts must be resolved in favor of the finality of the judgment.