McCandless is convinced that his relationship with nature is more profound and honest than that of his relationship with people. Krakauer deduces that McCandless’s decision to be a vagabond is due to the “threat of human intimacy, of friendship, and all the messy emotional baggage that comes with it” (Krakauer 55). McCandless’s fear of “human intimacy” and “friendship” unravel his true purpose of escaping civilization, which is to break away from burdening others by his imperfections. McCandless presumes that nature would provide him reassurance because it does not doubt his choices and require him to explain himself for any of his actions. Due to this misconception, McCandless has misled himself into thinking that he is refraining others from …show more content…
Though his desires to take care of himself, to be freed from the government law, authority, and human relationships do not make him a selfish person, however, he does not pause and reflect on how his actions would affect those around him. In the case of Ronald Franz, McCandless’s death causes him to lose his faith in God and begin to drink again. Despite the fact that McCandless is largely driven by the principles and morals of London, Thoreau, and Tolstoy, he is also somewhat driven by the desire to punish his parents. McCandless decides to cut off all ties with his family because he resents their compulsion for him to attend law school, their value on materialism, and their authority over him. Despite the fact that McCandless is admirable for practicing what he preaches and doing his best to live up to the moral standards that he sets for himself, the passion that he has for it largely stems from bitterness, anger, and resentment for his parents. This flaw eventually leads McCandless to his downfall. Evidently, McCandless ends up fooling himself to believe that his decision to live in the wilderness is the more honest path than the path others have chosen for
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.
Chris McCandless’ motives can be thought of as noble or selfish. In one way, he could be considered noble in the fact that he completely left everything he had in life before to accomplish something he has wanted to do for a while. On the other hand, Chris McCandless is selfish for those same reasons.
To begin with, McCandless’s decision to walk into the wild was acceptable because he wanted to become an inspiration and an individual. Emerson states, “There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance: that imitation is suicide” (Emerson). Chris McCandless left to shun the conformist society that he could feel changing him. Chris wanted the chains that bound him to be broken. Society takes the individual and locks it up and destroys it. According to Emerson, “It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion: it is easy to in solitude to live after our own: but the great man is he who in the midst of the crow keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude” (Emerson). McCandless left his materialistic family to be his own person ad to be unique. The world’s opinion does not make the man wh...
...fe for oneself. McCandless primary tragic flaw being his unwillingness to form long-term relations brought him both to the happiest moment of his life, but also to his demise. McCandless never had a problem with people, but rather with the status quo of society, the idea that a man or a woman has to live inside of a coordinate plane. McCandless left home and went on his adventure simply for his own well being, he achieved both what he wanted to accomplish while learning a valuable lesson along the way. He learned that happiness must be shared, and while everyone has his or her flaws, it is important to let these go. Christopher McCandless should teach people the importance of following your dreams, and the importance of enjoying the natural serenity of life.
Chris McCandless, a known fan of famous transcendentalists and Romantic writers, exemplifies the three big ideas of American Romanticism to varying extents. To begin, Chris is a very independent person with ideals that align with the American Romantic idea of optimism and individualism. For example, Chris carved a paragraph into some wood that he left on the bus in which he declared that he was in a “climactic battle to kill the false being within and victoriously conclude the spiritual revolution” (Krakauer 163). A key component of individualism is finding one’s own truths, and what Chris carved in the bus shows that he was in Alaska to search within himself and find out what he believed, what he wanted, and what his purpose was. Furthermore,
One may assume that deliberately choosing to become a vagabond to prove that one is self sufficient is praiseworthy, but not every story of rags to riches or transcendentalism prints lasting impressions on civilization. Chris McCandless wanted to discover himself in nature and, consequently, commenced a spontaneous journey which ultimately lead to his untimely demise. Adam Shepard, with similar desires to McCandless, chose to prove that survival and success are attainable when poverty-stricken. While McCandless and Shepard ventured on quests to find what they are capable of on their own, the backgrounds they had and circumstances they were given restrict the majority of society to be positively influenced by their stories.
One may think that with a venture as important as creating a new worldview that one would take a substantial amount of time finding the right one. However, a lack of belief system causes a lack of purpose, and a purposeless man is hardly a man at all. McCandless was in desperate need of a worldview and fast. It was no secret that Chris was an intelligent young fellow. “Well educated,” was Franz’s first observation about Chris. McCandless quickly found a worldview in the writings of Transcendentalists Jack London, Lev Tolstoy, and Henry David Thoreau. He wanted to believe in something so desperately that he clung to the transcendentalist ideals regardless of whether the writings were fact or fiction. “He seemed to forget that it [the book] was fiction” Pg. 67. McCandless was chasing a fairytale. The ideals of McCandless’s new worldview were the opposite of his parents. While his parents measured the value of ones life in success and outward appearance, Chris focused on becoming one with nature. They wanted Chirs “to go to a good school” (pg.114) and afterword attend “law school” (pg27). However, after his parents lies were revealed to him, he hated his parents. He stated that his father was a “hypocrite” and “evil,” (pg. 64). Chris rejected
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.
After reviewing Krakauer’s writing, we can see that he uses devices to connect to the reader. Whether it is providing epigrams or Krakauer’s own personal beliefs. He also proves to the reader that he shares the same ideology as McCandless making him a bit more creditable telling McCandless’ story. Then the reader can infer that McCandless believes that nature is a place of healing, and that it is his dream. As Krakauer demonstrating McCandless dreams, he gives us a chance to reflect on our own dreams.
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,...
Chris McCandless is regarded as being something as a spiritual figure almost as a cult hero, some call him a disillusioned fool, some call him a great adventurer, and the debate still continues. As Matthew Power calls in his article, an article where he tells the story of McCandless,“The debate falls into two camps: Krakauer's visionary seeker, the tragic hero who dared to live the unmediated life he had dreamed of and died trying; or, as many Alaskans see it, the unprepared fool, a greenhorn who had fundamentally misjudged the wilderness he'd wanted so desperately to commune with.” Like so many stories covering Christopher McCandless’ death, both ends of the argument are discussed in an unfavored manner in the hopes to help develop an opinion on the McCandless story. This open ended question can only be answered open-endedly based on what the readers base for themselves as covered stories intend. Like Power has done, ...
Krakauer states, “McCandless was thrilled to be on his way north, and he was relieved as well-relieved that he had again evaded the impending threat of human intimacy, of friendship, and all the messy emotional baggage that comes with it” (55). This had also occurred a few months prior in Niland Slabs, where he met Burres and Tracy. He had made friends there, and Tracy had developed feelings for him, but he rebuffed any of her advancements; he didn’t want to get involved with others, not after having left home for his journey. To him, having had friends and family that he left behind, he loved people, but he didn’t want to be close to them in any way other than purely being around them. Growing up with a difficult family relationship, such as McCandles’s, which caused him to push people away; it’s easy to relate to him in that aspect.
“Into The Wild” by John Krakauer is a non-fiction biographical novel which is based on the life of a young man, Christopher McCandless. Many readers view Christopher’s journey as an escape from his family and his old life. The setting of a book often has a significant impact on the story itself. The various settings in the book contribute to the main characters’ actions and to the theme as a whole. This can be proven by examining the impact the setting has on the theme of young manhood, the theme of survival and the theme of independent happiness.
In Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer explores the human fascination with the purpose of life and nature. Krakauer documents the life and death of Chris McCandless, a young man that embarked on an Odyssey in the Alaskan wilderness. Like many people, McCandless believed that he could give his life meaning by pursuing a relationship with nature. He also believed that rejecting human relationships, abandoning his materialistic ways, and purchasing a book about wildlife would strengthen his relationship with nature. However, after spending several months enduring the extreme conditions of the Alaskan wilderness, McCandless’ beliefs begin to work against him. He then accepts that he needs humans, cannot escape materialism, and can never fully understand how nature functions. Most importantly, he realizes that human relationships are more valuable than infinite solitude. McCandless’ gradual change of heart demonstrates that exploring the wilderness is a transformative experience. Krakauer uses the life and death of Chris McCandless to convey that humans need to explore nature in order to discover the 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.