Notifications
Clear all
Into the Wild Afterword and Additional Materials
4
Posts
4
Users
0
Reactions
172
Views
Topic starter
04/12/2025 10:36 am
It is relieving to hear that Chris died from involuntary intoxication. Not that I wanted him to die, but it’s good to know he didn’t die voluntarily. Throughout my journey of reading and making posts, I did not have much respect for Chris. It was personally frustrating that this young man, filled with life, would go out into the wilderness with no supplies and expect to survive. “I wish he were more prepared so he wouldn’t have died. Maybe that’s what he wanted in the end; we don’t know.” (Forum 6-9) We were all confused and asking ourselves “why”. After reading the additional information it is clear that we know what happened, “it wasn’t the arrogance that had killed him, it was the ignorance… which must be forgiven, for the facts underlying his death were to remain unrecognized to all” (212) I feel awful for Chris, he tried to survive and it was the lack of knowledge of a plant that killed him.
Before reading the afterword, I had no idea that potato seeds were toxic. Most things happen for a reason, every experience I have or anyone else, good or bad, helps people learn something new. Chris McCandless's story has helped other adventurous young people to be more cautious. The plant itself didn't kill him, it was the lack of strength to get food. Chris died of starvation. I respect Chris, I respect his bravery and willingness to step out of society's norms. His legacy should be appreciated, we will never know the real answer to his actions and his thoughts. I am glad that the author Krakauer inserted himself into the story to try to justify Chris’s trek into the wilderness. Chris is a human just like all of us, everyone makes mistakes and hard decisions. Any one of us could decide to do what he did any day, would we? Probably not, but we need to have sympathy and respect for anyone who does. I would encourage them to be prepared. Thanks to Chris, we can be smarter about our actions in the end.
04/12/2025 11:30 pm
I find it very interesting that your initial take on Chris McCandless was about his death. I understand where you come from when being relieved that he did not die intentionally, but would you have continued to lack respect for Chris if he died in some other manner, or even not at all? I do think it was amazing for Chris to step out of his norms like you said and the emphasis you used on him being human just like everyone else is important to convey how you endorse everyone to really think about their actions. It is very hard to know his legacy but not his specific thoughts as you said. Would his legacy maybe change if he was still alive? Would he be a symbol of something other than thinking about your decisions? Overall I do think the change in your perspective is extremely reasonable, the external materials definitely helped learn more about Chris McCandless and his legacy.
05/12/2025 11:19 pm
It is interesting to me that you view the fact that Chris McCandless's death was concluded to be an accident as relieving. You mentioned that you felt frustrated and confused by McCandless throughout the novel. The way in which McCaandless chose to live his life is abnormal; it breaks so many societal norms and familial expectations that the ordinary reader is completely valid in thinking he is reckless and stupid. I am not saying that opinion is wrong - in fact I am still not set in my own opinion of McCandless. However, it is worth talking about why McCandless going into the wilderness bothers us so much. I like that you later brought up how McCandless's mistakes make him a more authentic and real human, despite any opinions people have formed about him. His "human-ness" is exactly why his story continues to be dissected decades after his death. People want to understand the mindset of this random young man who ventured into the Alaskan wilderness so much. Many people likely see themselves in him, though he was the only one who took his urges to such a level. It is clear through his rejection of society that he had a strong passion for paving his own path in life.... is it really so wrong that he pursued that? Is freedom not the very root of being human? He should be allowed to have complete free will of his own actions, and if he dies because of it, that is just natural consequences. There are so many complexities of this story, many of which are impossible to answer without asking Chris himself (obviously impossible, after all he is dead).
My question to you is, does his death being an accident he made redeem his character in a way to you? If the potato seeds were not his cause of death, and it was in fact his own foolishness, would you feel any sympathy at all towards Chris McCandless?
08/12/2025 12:46 am
I like how you used that quote from page 212; it perfectly complements your point and what you are trying to get across. I agree with you that it's almost a relief in a way that McCandless died the way he did, absolving him of most of his ignorance. Although, I do find it kind of ironic in a way that his death still somewhat leads back to what we were all saying at the beginning of the book about him going into this situation unprepared and lacking the knowledge, because his lack of knowledge and awareness truly was his end. I still at the end have the opinion of he was just simply unprepared, impressive as it was that he lasted as long as he did. I do agree with you, though, on your point of saying how bad you feel for him, because if he didn't run into this stroke of bad luck, I personally think he could have lasted a lot longer than he did.
I do wonder though if we would have all made the same mistake in the end though. Would any of us fared any different out there with no knowledge of what we were eating and could we have gone through the same process of death that McCandless did without knowing something was up?
