Notifications
Clear all
Into the Wild Afterword and Additional Materials
3
Posts
3
Users
0
Reactions
141
Views
Topic starter
06/12/2025 1:10 am
Jon Krakauer himself said in his foreword that: "A lot of people came away from reading Into the Wild without grasping why Chris did what he did" (Krakauer xv). We see through these later published articles and afterword materials that Chris McCandless's death was likely due to a toxin found in potato plant seeds. A toxin that when ingested over time, can begin to leave the consumer unable to function properly, ultimately leading them to become emaciated to the point of starvation. There are so many ways that Chris McCandless's death can be viewed. Many see it as an useless cautionary tale, while fellow Alaskan wilderness seekers and scientists like Edward Treadwell and Thomas Clausen take it as an opportunity to learn for the better..
It is hard to define exactly why Chris McCandless's legacy has such a strong hold on people. It has been decades since his death, yet we still continue to dissect his intentions and mistakes. Why should people even care about this seemingly stupid young man who died so many years ago in the Alaskan bush? The truth of the matter is that almost any ordinary person can see themselves as a reflection of some part of McCandless, even just a little bit. Only few individuals desire raw wilderness and survival in the same way, but everyone can say they have felt the urge to either run-away, dislike some societal norm, or have intense cravings for free will. Chris McCandless's death is one we can learn from, not just practically but also as a self consideration and study on human nature. As I said in an earlier post: "Krakauer's intent was to write a novel that was more than just a report, but rather an exploration of character and true intent" (Ch. 15-EP). Every abnormal death has its many news reports and articles, but the fact is what made this story different was that Jon Krakauer chose to recount the story behind the death, not just the death itself. He explores every part of Chris McCandless's life - his family, acquaintances, actions and even literary inspirations. The deep and personal connections that Krakauer gives of McCandless leave the reader feeling conflicted. I have another proposition for how to define his legacy. McCandless so deeply captivates us because he represents the rawest form of human desire - individuality.
In my initial forum posts I felt sympathy towards McCandless not because of the way he died, but because I thought he was a fool. I thought Krakauer was "over-glorifying McCandless and labeling criticism… cushioning the character of McCandless" (Ch 6-9). Since realizing how intense and intimate of a character dissection Krakauer has created, I actually admire the young man who had the courage to follow his dreams. As far as these additional materials go, they simply strengthen my newfound opinion. I like that Krakauer took the time to review every single part of McCandless's death. I really like that he brought the full scientific truth forward. Don't get me wrong, I still think negative opinions were necessary to negate total bias, but I no longer view his over glorification as bad. Krakauer simply saw that reflection of his young self, full of lust for adventure and determination just like the crazy young McCandless.
07/12/2025 1:17 pm
First of all, your introduction was beautifully intruiging, and I was immediately hooked. I had a similar take on his story, and the impact it has on people. Chris's legacy affects us because he is an example of attempting to go against the grain and failing, and we wan't to know if we can succeed in the same trial. I also had a a similar progression of ideas through my posts. While I originally felt the same about Chris, that he was a fool: "I view McCandless as an idealist with the courge to pressure his dream, and as someone who was underprepared and overconfident" (O.F 6-9), I eventually grew to understand him on a deeper level, especially when Krakhauer showed how he was essentially 1 mistake away from being Chris. While Krakhauer relates to Chris, as I think we all do, like you say in your last line, do you think we would still admire or relate to him if he had survived his journey?
08/12/2025 12:57 am
I absolutely love how you connected McCandless to the average person by saying, "The truth of the matter is that almost any ordinary person can see themselves as a reflection of some part of McCandless, even just a little bit." because I 100% agree with you. at some point or another we as humans have all thought about running away into the raw wilderness and experiencing what it's like to be completely free, no matter your reason or wanting for it. Not all of us do it in the end, and definitely not to the extreme McCandless pulled off but we have all thought of it and that's what makes McCandless's situation so special and almost unique to think about because of how he ended up. Would we have ended up the same way given a similar path? I know I personally would have went in way more prepared, but then again, I'm not McCandless, nor am I facing the same struggles he was. I like how you also brought up that what makes McCandless's story so special from other deaths was that Krakauer chose to tell the story behind it and everything about McCandless in order to break down what really happened. It almost makes you wonder what are some of the deeper stories behind other people's deaths that were never told? Backstories and reasonings and whole lives that have tales never brought to light. Do you think there are stories similar to McCandless's that were never delved into?
