Thursday, June 3, 2010
Into the Wild
I think the reason that I've really responded to "Into the Wild" (thus far) is because the book manages to pull off the hat trick of not making a judgment call regarding the behavior of McCandless while still capturing the visceral excitement which prompted his journey of self-discovery. Krakauer's descriptions are compulsively readable, never tedious, and effective at putting the reader into McCandless' shoes as he makes his trek across the country. McCandless is such a fascinating, contradictory figure that I'm glad the book doesn't definitively idolize or condemn him. It recognizes both arguments and addresses their validity, and while Krakauer is very much sympathetic to McCandless' personal calling (understandably), I find it refreshing how even-handed the book is. Much of it is Krakauer letting the people who knew McCandless dramatize his story, and I find that much more effective on an emotional level than if Krakauer were to attempt and fill in the gaps himself. Whereas other writers that we've read like Seierstad have injected their works with commentary, Krakauer literally does instead of merely stating, notably when he injects himself into the text. "Into the Wild" is a book about how people define themselves through their actions (or in the case of the people wishes to escape, lack thereof), and Krakauer admirably lets McCandless' actions speak for themselves. He informs you what McCandless did, how it affected those around him, and ultimately how it affected Krakauer himself. For that reason, I think this is the best book we've read this year, or at least my personal favorite.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with Chris. From what little I've read of Into the Wild, I could immediately discern that Krakauer wrote to present a story totally sans bias. While other books we've read seem to highlight a specific emotion of the narrator, Krakauer actually pulls from his audience and culminates each of their, sometimes clashing, views to compile a multifaceted narration that never seems to actually lean towards one opinion or idea. The only first-person narration he uses is to recount his discovery of new information. This semi-ambivalent style does more to chronicle a story rather than create well-crafted prose. We've emphasized language so much this semester, and, frankly, it's a breath of fresh air to read a story for a story rather than pore through each word and sentence, trying to detect anaphora or chiasmus. Ultimately, Krakauer's ability to detach himself from the text enables his reader to achieve a greater understanding of McCandless' character - especially since we don't have him around to tell his story for us.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agreed. Krakauer manages to capture the unfortunately true essence of society, its materialistic preoccupations and corrupt and immoral ways, almost flawlessly. He enables the reader to truly identify with at least one aspect of McCandless, although perhaps not to the extreme of going off and dying in the vastness of nature. He is able to predict the reader's reaction to the normally unaccepted bleak truth of the world, and detaches his personal opinions from the story. He lets his novel express these views, simply based on what they are. Krakauer is able to maintain the reader's interest, especially based on the reader's desire to find out if such isolation actually proves successful in life. Most of society is not content with their current lifestyle; Into the Wild provides a passage in which they can explore alternative ways of life and different futures.
ReplyDeleteI have thoroughly enjoyed reading Into the Wild, and I must attribute that greatly to what Chris mentioned above. Krakeur is able to tell such a riveting, and somewhat controversial, story without imposing his own opinions on the reader. The reader is allowed to take the stories about McCandless, the letters written by McCandless himself, and other resources that provide the reader with information about this man, and form their own opinion about him. And if the reader does not want to form an opinion, the author allows the reader to just enjoy this story for what it is. The reader can feel as if they are put into the story, rather than feeling detached while reading one man's interpretation of a story. Krakeur also did a very good job of piecing together McCandless' adventure, and that was definitely a factor in keeping me interested. I also enjoyed the sections Krakeur added about men similar to McCandless who came before him and took similar journeys. It was an aspect of the book I was not expecting, as I saw the movie before hand and this was not seen, yet it was a pleasant surprise and it expanded my understanding of the motivation behind such an adventure.
ReplyDeleteInto the Wild is without a doubt my favorite book of the semester. I enjoyed being able to relax and simple reading the story as a story, rather than analyzing the rhetoric and searching the text for metonymy and anaphora. I agree with the others that Krakauer did an incredible job in re-creating McCandless' story. This is one of the few books that I feel surpasses the movie because Krakauer allows the reader to actually read-for once! He does not criticize nor idolize McCandless, as Chris said, and gives the reader an open door to interpret McCandless' story in his or her own POV. I wish, however, that I had read the book before watching the movie so that I could visualize the Alaskan pilgrimage on my own- before being influenced by Hollywood's vision.
ReplyDelete-AJ
Andrew you really think that the movies are better than the books? Huh. I do agree though that it is amazing to be a be able to visualize his journey. In most book-to-movie attempts, the movie simply replays what the reader has already learned from the book. Here, I couldn't possibly visualize the stark enormity of the Arizona desert, or the massive and grandiose Alaska mountains without the movie. The book? I'm a huge fan, and like everyone else, totally agree with Chris. So many details of McCandless's journey are left up to the imagination, a rare exercise for our spoon fed minds. My favorite part about McCandless's story is his letter to the old man pressuring him to desert all his belongings and live freely. While I think it unwise of the man to do this, I love the concept that the human heart is made to be adventurous, and living adventurously day by day will make it happy. Tragic as his life was, there is a lot that can be learned from the lonely Chris McCandless.
ReplyDeleteI've found Into the Wild to be an interesting, deep, and compelling read. Through his letters found throughout the book, he clearly was a thoughtful, smart boy, and the book as a whole goes to show how he could do something so thoughtless and seemingly idiotic. I originally heard the story of Chris McCandless in Alaska, and the Alaskan perspective was very different. The people who talked of his death focused on the hard facts, and thought he made several key blunders. For example, he could have made it out alive if he only had recently updated maps. A map from a different year really should not have gone against his principle of going into the wilderness poorly supplied. While Alaskans viewed his death as 'just another dead guy,' the book and movie give more insight to his personal thoughts, and showed how stood out, and why everyone he met tried to form a close relationship with him. Alex seemed aware of the risks, and because he never wrote much about his family, we will never know how he actually felt about leaving them forever. He told his sister that he was planning on cutting off relations forever, but can we really believe that his opinions never changed?
ReplyDeleteI've really enjoyed Into the Wild along with everyone else in the class. It was a nice break to the other, more serious, books. I felt i was really in the wild while reading this. i thought it was interesting how Krakeuer explored different aspects of Alex's life and how Alex affected so many other people so deeply. Alex, in general was portrayed as a very interesting individual, and even though going into the wild seemed like a death wish, i dont think he actually wanted to die. I think its interesting how much he wrote in his journal and kept track of what he did. i also thought it was fascinating when he described killing the moose and how he smoked it and that ruined his kill. Its also interesting how Alex was only one of many nature lovers. Many people did exactly what Alex did, but they were better prepared and were more lucky. However, Alex lived over 100 days in the wilderness, and that is an impressive feat itself. Overall, this was a very descriptive book, which i really enjoyed reading, and i hope to read more books like his in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think Into the Wild may be my favorite book this semester. I must admit, however, that my initial reaction was not what it is now. To me, it seemed that he acted in an impulsive and reckless manner simply because he felt like rebelling. His actions seemed extremely ignorant. I initially felt that Chris was just sort of crazy. Now, as I have gotten further into the book, I can understand his reasons. Based on the author's narration, I see Chris as a man who wants to escape the avaricious material world. While I do still believe his wildly eccentric and odd, I understand why he ran off. Sometimes I feel so sick and tired of societal pressures that I contemplate running off into the woods. But I don't because that would be weird.
ReplyDeleteSo far, Into the Wild has definitely been my favorite book this semester. Krakauer is able to bring life to the story of a man that he never met and had never heard about before McCandless' death. He is able to capture the life an unknown adventurer who left little behind except his personal accounts and the people that he deeply affected. I believe that Krakauer captures the true beauty of what McCandless experience. I have also, like others, enjoyed the movie so far. I have really enjoyed getting a picture of the nature that McCandless emerged himself in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carly, Into the Wild has been my favorite book this semester. I really enjoyed both the interesting story of Chris McCandless's adventure and Krakauer's narration of and comments on the story. I liked how Krakauer did not jump to conclusions about McCandless and therefore he was able to provide a fairly accurate and unbiased account of what happened. Although I really enjoyed reading about McCandless I did not like the part where Krakauer interjected his own story about mountain climbing. I thought it was too long and unnecessary to tell the story that he was trying to tell. Despite this, overall, I really enjoyed the book.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Carly, I understand where it would seem almost heroic to be able to leave society in deviance of its negative attributes. However, I also think that it was completely reckless naive of his to not adequately prepare for going into the wild and therefore just wasted his life and the message he was trying to send by being reckless.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Amar- I am enjoying this book after reading other, much more complicated readings. It was a huge relief to finally read a simple narrative about a boy going on his own adventure to escape society's restricting laws and expectations. I have not read the whole story yet, but unfortunately the movie ruined the ending. I now know what happens in the end :(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the point of view of the story is very interesting. It's not a first person narrative as I thought it would be, but rather a reporter reporting on another's adventures- like a newspaper story.
In response to Chris, I totally agree. Unlike Bookseller, or even first they killed, Krakauer is willing to live with the shades of gray in McCandless' life. He doesn't try to explain or analyze everything, but simply tells the story. Out of all the authors that we have read, he truly seems to follow the "ethical" approach to writing- not trying to manipulate readers to feel a certain way.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Carly, I also agree- his behavior seemed reckless and naive, but he was so clouded by his goals to escape society that he wasn't listening to the advice of experienced people.
For Meredith:
ReplyDeleteven though JK could have come in (and in some places does) with a bias, for the most part he avoids the easy pitfalls to make and instead works even harder to paint an objective picture of McCandless through conversations, memories and facts. He performs this task exceptionally well, leaving it to the reader in the final pages to make their own conclusions about McCandless. I appreciated how he alerted the reader to sections of the book where his opinions/beliefs were coloring the text - often writers don't do that, and especially in supposedly objective accounts where that happens, I think a little less of the writer.