Into the Wild

I disliked this book not so much because of the writing (which was just fine) or Krakauer's message (which I felt was pretty ambivalent) but how people normally take this story. Most people see it as a wonderful story about a heroic figure who went against the grain of the mind-numbing American society and really lived. The only problem is that's he's dead. Really, really dead. And why is he dead? Because of his own stupidity. This is my problem. I see this book as glorifying stupidity. And then they made it into a movie, further glorifying stupidity with its own Hollywood twist. That and movies like 127 Hours make me just want to scream. There are plenty of ways to really live without throwing your life away with both hands. And for those of us who still use money and take showers, it doesn't mean our lives are meaningless or that we actually buy into the dominant paradigm of our culture. It just means that our methods of rebellion are less self-destructive and dramatic. We don't feel the need to go live by ourselves in the Alaskan wilderness or paddle our way alone down the Colorado River. As an Arizonan, I can't think of an easier way to die, except maybe to wander around the desert off the trail alone and unprepared. It's like asking for Death to come by and pick you off. What I want to know is this: how is his death constructive? How is this book constructive? How can we use this story in a positive way? So far, except for encouraging me to always bring a buddy, snacks, water, and proper equipment on a hike, I really can't say this book has affected me in a positive way. Try again, Krakauer.

It's interesting. I have not seen the film.
I wish there was less of the author and more of Chris.
I also wish there was more of Chris' actual journal and copies of his photos.
That would be fascinating.
I don't really care about the authors hiking endeavours.

“Curiously, Chris didn’t hold everyone to the same exacting standards. One of the individuals he professed to admire greatly over the last two years of his life was a heavy drinker and incorrigible philanderer who regularly beat up his girlfriends. Chris was well aware of this man’s faults yet managed to forgive them. He was also able to forgive, or overlook, the shortcomings of his literary heroes: Jack London was a notorious drunk; Tolstoy, despite his famous advocacy of celibacy, had been an enthusiastic sexual adventurer as young man and went on to father at least thirteen children, some of whom were conceived at the same time the censorious count was thundering in print against the evils of sex.”

----

It was a very good book. Some parts were slow only because it was a constant going back and forth or the author's biography and the protagonist's tragic life story. If you ever need to be inspired to explore the wild, I would recommend this book. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and it wasn't that long of a book, which took me twice as long to finish because I was in school.

If you're the kind of person that can sit down for hours and read a book through cover to cover, I would highly suggest reading this one. What I liked about this book is the fact that the author doesn't set out to criticize the protagonist for what he did and the outcome of such, but he tried to understand why he did what he did by retracing his steps and writing about it.

When I started the book, I felt sorrow for what had happened, but interestingly enough, by the end of the book I got a sense of closure.

In short, loved the book, good read!

I could get over the third person view here , would have preferred this written in the voice of the lost person with as an imagined story . Made it ~25% thru