Into the Wild 15-Epilogue

I Believe that Krakauer's goal in writing this was not to glorify or advertise what McCandles did, but to show that despite his idea of adventuring into the wilderness alone and unprepared was an admirable thing to do because of his bravery and his determination.  I feel like it was important for Krakauer to put little details about McCandles home life into the novel, because it adds motive for why he did what he did. McCandles was struggling with the standards his father had set for him in life but did not want to amount to what his father had. He wanted to create his own path and not follow in his fathers footsteps is what I got out of the subtle details added throughout the story about their relationship. Krakauer used this to show how this kid had an understanding of his environment and realized he wanted a change. Even though his change was very extreme and he did a bad job in preparing or putting any thought into it, doing something like McCandles did is a very daunting thing that many would never even remotely consider doing. I feel that Krakauer does succeed in getting his message across that although McCandles actions were unthought and reckless, the deeper meaning to what he did was really an impressive move. Krakauer says, “I bring up McCandles’s hubris and the dumb mistakes he made-the two or three readily avoidable blunders that ended up costing him his life… but I admire what he was trying to do. Living completely off the land like that, month after month, is incredibly difficult. I've never done it. And I’d bet you that very few, if any, of the people who call McCandles incompetent have ever done it either.” (Krakauer 185) What Krakauer is saying is exactly right; that so many are quick to slander McCandles actions but would never have the bravery to do such a thing that he did. Krakauer admits that McCandles may have been stupid in a sense that he put no effort into planning this, but he was still able to survive for months off the land on his own. So even though it did in the end lead to his death, it is very impressive that he was able to do what he did and Krakauer admires that about him and the mindset he had. “It would be easy to stereotype Christopher McCandles as another boy who felt too much, a loopy young man who read too many books and lacked even a modicum of common sense… McCandles wasn't some feckless slacker, adrift and confused, racked by existential despair. To the contrary. His life hummed with meaning and purpose.” (Krakauer 184) This also shows how Krakauer knew how McCandles was interpreted, but he believed that McCandles was so much more than what people thought about him. Krakauer honestly believes that McCandles had a purpose and he had a drive in his mind that made him have a lot of respect for McCandles, because he did something almost anyone would be too afraid to do. So although he does not advocate to go out and try to do what McCandles did, he has a lot of respect and admiration for McCandles and the things he was able to do on his own. I think the lack of distance helps Krakauer write this, because it allows us to understand how he personally feels about McCandles which does help readers to understand his point of view. It gives readers the opportunity to see all the reasons why McCandles actions were so admirable and impressive.