Post: #1

I recently watched the movie Into the Wild for the first time. The film is an adaptation of a book by the same name written by Jon Krakauer which is based on the real-life story of a young man (Chris McCandless) just out of college who sheds all of his possessions and identity to travel the Western US in search of some kind of enlightenment.

The main theme in the story seems to be McCandless’s search for true happiness and purpose in the world conflicting with his skepticism in the need for human love and companionship. This appears to have been fueled by his poor experiences growing up in an abusive household. He travels all over, experiencing wonderful things, and enriching his mind and body with enlightened literature, and oneness with nature.

He ends up in Alaska and lives off the land for months until eventually passing away, possibly from starvation which Krakauer believes was likely from eating poisonous or moldy vegetation. In his final days, McCandless becomes lonely and reaches a poignant revelation that love is the key to the human experience, and that “happiness is only real if it is shared.”

It was believed he was a transcendentalist, and coming to his realization before his death was just that. Transcendent. There was a time when I was in my early 20’s where I came to a realization that I believed love was the pinnacle of human experience. It’s the only thing you can experience where it is impossible to do without someone else. The chemistry between people is real and powerful – it enhances your experiences and makes them more worthwhile.

I think this is an interesting concept to explore given our community is generally made up of independent men who sort of seek the same thing McCandless was seeking; to experience and be one with the world absent of unnecessary material possessions, and more importantly, absent of attachment to others. Pursuits of self-experience, and only having surface level interaction with others as a means to an end.

Post: #2

The jury is kind of out on McCandless. If I remember correctly, native Alaskans were pretty miffed that this outsider who didn't take the time to learn about the bush was being turned into some kind of saint.

That is the complementary pole to your observations. On the one hand, he seemed to have courage to turn his back on the norms of society and look inside to find a deeper truth. On the other, he was in essence becoming something of a burden on the world around him by letting everyone else take up his slack.

He was taking the path of the wandering holy man, like a Sadhu in India, only he was doing it in a country that doesn't have the tradition of venerating and aiding its itinerant holy men, so he was also becoming a kind of a bum.

You raise interesting questions, and they are well worth discussing. I think that his death was the result of a combination of genuine spiritual experience combined with the heedlessness of youth, which sometimes works out, and sometimes, as in his case, doesn't.

I think it is very difficult to find all you are seeking by turning entirely into yourself, and very few people are equipped to become an anchorite, that is, religious hermit. It is so easy to get all mixed up in your mind, confusing your own personal preferences and desires with genuine spiritual insight. That is why most of the people who do choose the mystic interior path do so under the supervision of a spiritual director.

I don't remember all the details of this book, only a general sense that if he took a little time to learn the terrain better, like maybe by talking to some locals a little, and learned a little more about surviving in an unforgiving environment like Alaska, he might be still with us, writing about his experiences.

If I had to sum him up, I would say that he had some valid spiritual experiences, and they went to his head, and he felt invincible (Alex Supertramp), and jumped headlong into a spiritual mentality without taking into account the realities of an Alaskan winter.

I can both relate to the people who admire him for living life entirely on his own terms, and the common sense Alaskans who thought he was just another idiot outsider who thought the Alaska bush would be like a slightly more uncomfortable Disneyland, and found out they were wrong in a horrendous way.

There is an element of his tale that is cautionary, that is what I keep going back to.

There can be benefits of solving your own problems in your own way without relying on the insights of others, but there is also a reason that we have communities and other people to keep us grounded.

There is no shame in being humble, and asking for advice, and learning from other people's mistakes either.

Definitely food for debate.

Post: #3

Quote:I don't remember all the details of this book, only a general sense that if he took a little time to learn the terrain better, like maybe by talking to some locals a little, and learned a little more about surviving in an unforgiving environment like Alaska, he might be still with us, writing about his experiences.

I did a lot of research on Chris after watching the movie (I didn't read the book until a year later), and what originated as pure admiration devolved into a kind of indifference. While we can all draw aspiration from going "Into the Wild" at some point in our lives, when you look at things objectively he was lacking in common sense, amongst other things.

-He should have known the river would be a torrent upon his return.
-If he had followed it downstream a few km's he would have stumbled upon the device which allows people to cross the river in high season. Apparently it's a common rule to follow rivers downstream and you'll hit civilisation eventually.
-What would he have done if he hadn't found the Magic Bus? His dependence on this piece of land orchestrated his downfall.
-He not only shot an endangered piece of wildlife, but he also wasted it because he was unable to preserve it.
-Considering the amount of time combined with lack of books he had, logically he would have read that book a number of times and noticed any similarities between toxic and non toxic.

While I may be sounding overly critical, I'll concede that he did something I may never do, and everyone should engage in some form of survival even if it's just one week in the hills. The fact that he refused material possessions is also commendable.

But a hero he is not, unfortunately.

If you're as interested in this subject as I was, read the following:

A Park Ranger's perspective.

Quote:When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn’t even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament using one of several routes that could have been successful. Consider where he died. An abandoned bus. How did it get there? On a trail. If the bus could get into
the place where it died, why couldn’t McCandless get out of the place where he died? The fact that he had to live in an old bus in the first place tells you a lot. Why didn’t he
have an adequate shelter from the beginning? What would he have done if he hadn’t found the bus? A bag of rice and a sleeping bag do not constitute adequate gear and
provisions for a long stay in the wilderness.

And another Park Ranger comments:

http://www.kenilgunas.com/2009/10/chris-...-park.html

Post: #4

That first ranger you quote makes a good point:

Quote:If he had a good map he could have walked out of his
predicament using one of several routes that could have been successful. Consider where
he died. An abandoned bus. How did it get there? On a trail. If the bus could get into
the place where it died, why couldn’t McCandless get out of the place where he died?

And the second ranger you link to quotes Sean Penn's response to the first ranger's opinion:

Quote:No, I don’t object to a person who wears a brown shirt and a patch on their shoulder and follows instructions all day either. I'm not all that interested in what the park rangers have to say. I accept that there's an automatic instinct to judge those you envy and who have more courage than you do, and I think that while he (the ranger) rides around in his four-wheeler on a CB radio getting fat, Chris McCandless has spent 113 days fucking alone in the most unforgiving wilderness that God ever created.

Yikes.

Post: #5

Well, all judgments of McCandless's naivety and hubris aside, I'm more focused on the bigger and more existential picture than just his death and lack of foresight venturing in the wilderness. Most notably, that last bit of my OP.

Quote:I think this is an interesting concept to explore given our community is generally made up of independent men who sort of seek the same thing McCandless was seeking; to experience and be one with the world absent of unnecessary material possessions, and more importantly, absent of attachment to others. Pursuits of self-experience, and only having surface level interaction with others as a means to an end.

I'm curious on where others stand on the concept of attachment to other people versus pursuits purely of the self. Some of us here like to live life with the famous mantra from Heat:

"Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner."

Many of us vying to never fall for a woman, never have children, don't have any "close" male friends.

Post: #6

The guy was emblematic of his generation. Not saying he was a hero or anything, just that his attitude was typical. Younger guys may not have the entire context to understand his mindset like Gen X'ers would.

Many of the role models of that time were slackers. They could screw up their own lives in many ways - such as drug habits. But their natural talent and coolness kind of shone through. So shit just seemed to happen for them and they fell on their feet.

If he had survived, his worldview would surely have developed. He would have moved onto other things, found new interests, put down roots.

While in that early adulthood "searching for something" phase, he was lackadaisical, fucked up and died. So he will remain forever at that stage of life.

Recalls a scene from a contemporary movie of that generation - Before Sunset (1995). This couple of college aged travelers is wandering through a cemetery which the girl had also visited a decade earlier. She says:

"This is the one I remember the most." (Name on gravestone is Elizabeth). "She was only 13 when she died. That meant something to me, you know, I was around that age when I first saw this. Hmm. Now, I'm 10 years older, and she's still, 13, I guess."

Post: #7

I watched the movie, and admit I enjoyed it.

However, months later I discussed it with my cousin and he dropped some serious truth that I have to agree with.

In the end, this kid was a spoiled little white twat who had everything- well off family, promising future etc and put them through hell to do his male hamster version of eat pray love.

So your dad flew off the handle from time to time to put your hypergamous, status-obsessed mother in check. Boo fucking hoo. If anything he should have been taking notes. What he did to his parents emotionally was incredibly selfish and cruel.

Good movie, though.

Post: #8

In Alaska he is generally seen as very stupid and arrogant to die that way. He was on the edge of the wilderness in a bus. People were surprisingly angry at him here. I figure he was just a misguided kid who sort of committed suicide. He waited until he had no energy to leave, and even then he didn't try hard enough.
Moose are far from endangered but shooting one and wasting the meat is a big sin in Alaska.
My good friend partied with Sean Penn a few nights in Anchorage when the filming was taking place. Said he was a good guy. Sean is full of shit for denigrating the ranger though.

Post: #9

(06-22-2016 03:49 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  I'm curious on where others stand on the concept of attachment to other people versus pursuits purely of the self. Some of us here like to live life with the famous mantra from Heat:

"Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner."

IMO, human interaction and human connection are two very different things. I myself traveled the world solo for about a year, but unlike Chris I interacted with people (all strangers) on a daily basis. Becoming a complete recluse like Chris probably isn't healthy nor the recipe for a good life. I am quite hesitant to form any sort of connection with anyone, but that doesnt mean one shouldn't interact with people. Just dont expect anything from anyone and move on to the next person.

Post: #10

Bumping this thread because I think the premise for the discussion I presented is worth digging into but these initial comments just going back and forth about how much of a fuck up the main character in the story is really through the discussion O/T. I'll re-quote myself here:

Quote:In his final days, McCandless becomes lonely and reaches a poignant revelation that love is the key to the human experience, and that “happiness is only real if it is shared.”

It was believed he was a transcendentalist, and coming to his realization before his death was just that. Transcendent. There was a time when I was in my early 20’s where I came to a realization that I believed love was the pinnacle of human experience. It’s the only thing you can experience where it is impossible to do without someone else. The chemistry between people is real and powerful – it enhances your experiences and makes them more worthwhile.

I think this is an interesting concept to explore given our community is generally made up of independent men who sort of seek the same thing McCandless was seeking; to experience and be one with the world absent of unnecessary material possessions, and more importantly, absent of attachment to others. Pursuits of self-experience, and only having surface level interaction with others as a means to an end.

Curious to see what others' perspectives are on the idea of governing happiness solely from the self versus reliance on other people to be happy.

Post: #11

I'll try to not ramble too much on this one.

I tend to fall easily into a mindset that could be considered "ultradarwinist" (including,or specially exalting its chimeras) but men are social animals/creatuures/beings and extended solitude is something that only extreme minds (spiritual/deranged/mighty/weak.etc) can take without too much damage. And even then ,interaction with the "gestalt" of society is affected upon the occasional contact and/or a return to it's fold.

I had long stretches of solitude in my travels, and the times I felt the most miserable and desiring company it wasnt in vocabulary thoughts it was just this primal longing to be amongst non hostiles, to sense just the most basic and passing hospitalityor at least to verify I actually existed and wasnt a brain in a jar - If I had been raised in a less social environment than a capital mega city perhaps my perception would have been different however.
Getting a dog probably helped me keep sane and indeed I no longer felt completely abandoned as I had living company.


Uh,ok so I ranted after all!
I'd say that unless you have an epiphany that clearly states what and how and where you should be, I'd vye for a balance between self reliance and other people.

After all many of us stick around the boards because we do like the interaction (even if we're lurking) going on,right?

Post: #12

(06-22-2016 02:25 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  I recently watched the movie Into the Wild for the first time. The film is an adaptation of a book by the same name written by Jon Krakauer which is based on the real-life story of a young man (Chris McCandless) . . .
The main theme in the story seems to be McCandless’s search for true happiness and purpose in the world conflicting with his skepticism in the need for human love and companionship. This appears to have been fueled by his poor experiences growing up in an abusive household.

McCandless really happened. The kid was upper middle class, attended Emory University, an expensive and fairly elite university, and then threw it all away, literally.

The book is excellent, and tries to answer the question of why he did what he did. As noted above, he essentially committed suicide because he could have walked out if he did some basic research.

The film is entertaining, in some ways more so because of the relationships he has along the way. Particularly the old man. But the film is fiction. If you watch the credits, there is a disclaimer that says the family situation in particular was fictionalized.

So its an interesting film on many levels, but not reality. The film sort of glamorizes a possessionless life, which is appealing on some levels. But reality is that the kid was very selfish and committed suicide in slow motion. As just one example, he didn't say goodbye to the people who loved him, not even his sister.

Do some research. some of this is on the Wikipedia site. There are some more facts in an article that Krakauer did for Outdoors magazine, literally about 20 years ago.

Post: #13

I didn't think much of the movie, but the book was really interesting. I sort of envied the guy for just saying fuck it and hitting the road. If you're a traveler, you should surely read this book.

Post: #14

Great movie, and it aged well. The ending can be summed up by a quote from the bible :
Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor. If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls, and has no one to help them up. (Ecclesiastes 4:09).

For those who enjoyed "Into the Wild", I recommend the movie "Captain Fantastic". Viggo Mortensen portrays the father of a hippie family living off the grid. He gives his 6 kids a great physical and intellectual training in the nature. They eventually have to go back to civilization, and the movie does a great job at portraying the pros/cons of their lifestyle.

Post: #15

I thought it was shit. Mostly hung around with people below his intelligence class, learnt fuck all and died of exposure whilst not even banging 16 year old Kristen Stewart. Truly shameful treatment of his parents too.

Post: #16

(06-22-2016 05:52 PM)HonantheBarbarian Wrote:  I watched the movie, and admit I enjoyed it.

However, months later I discussed it with my cousin and he dropped some serious truth that I have to agree with.

In the end, this kid was a spoiled little white twat who had everything- well off family, promising future etc and put them through hell to do his male hamster version of eat pray love.

So your dad flew off the handle from time to time to put your hypergamous, status-obsessed mother in check. Boo fucking hoo. If anything he should have been taking notes. What he did to his parents emotionally was incredibly selfish and cruel.

Good movie, though.

Some great points here. But he being "blessed" like that from an early age, isn't it understandable that he would want to throw it all away? If he had grown poor and had to make ends meet everyday, he probable would have been a completely different person with a different view on love, material possessions, and relationships.

Also, according to the book and the movie. McCandless was a very social and friendly person. Even though he enjoyed (and apparently preferred) solitude, he had no problem forming strong bonding relationships with people from different genders, ages, backgrounds, history, and paths in life, which became important characters in the story. However it seemed that McCandless was always the one who was the least attached and invested. This then raises the point of General Stalin, where people like us in this forum try to live life to the fullest while minimizing the attachment to people, things, and events. This ideology of course, is not reserved to the Manosphere or Red Pill thinking.

With this in mind, the ending of the movie is not a surprise, but it is still a huge blow to the head when you think about the similarities above. After all, even when you didn't throw and leave everything away to go "Into the Wild", his death and everything it entailed could not be far from what people like us could experience and feel during your last seconds.

Post: #17

I watched this movie when I was younger, and quite impressionable. In fact, McCandless is still my avatar, seven years on

I thought it was a beautiful story then, still do now, but share some of the dismay that others have already voiced.

@ General Stalin, regarding governing happiness solely from the self, TLOZ dropped some solid gold on this 'issue' in the 1 Year Drinking Wagon Thread:

"The opportunity is not to get in touch with oneself, with your ineffable inner core. That is indeed what men will try to do -- they will turn inward and they will seek self-definition and self-knowledge of one kind or another. But what they will discover if they are honest -- and that is really the great opportunity -- is that these things come to an end very quickly. The self -- any self -- is a quite limited sphere; there is really not that much there. Your emptiness and boredom when you are left alone with yourself are well-justified; you are a boring subject. Introspection has its uses but they are rapidly exhausted. And what then?

Then -- perhaps -- you might remember that there is a whole world of things outside the self; otherwise known as life, or the world. And once you've exhausted every other possibility, you just might, out of utter boredom, desultoriness, and the belligerence of having nothing better to do and nowhere else to turn to, actually check out that world outside the self. You might sit on a bench one day in the late summer, completely dry, completely done with all the things that have preoccupied you for so long and so uselessly, and simply look out, in a very pure way; look out with a slug's or lizard's eye, an eye that is ready to take it all in because it's got nowhere else to turn to.

And it's then -- at that humble moment -- that the real opportunity presents itself. Because the world outside the self is, in fact, the source of all interest, variety, knowledge, of the greatest and deepest pains and pleasures. And there is nothing that makes, over time, for a more enjoyable and interesting and fulfilling life than turning away from the depredations of the self and turning towards the world, in a modest attitude of relaxed concentration. There is beautiful comedy in this conjunction: when a man is so stupefied, so dully and completely bored out of his mind, that in his exasperation he turns to the source of endless depth and interest that was there all along, always there for the taking but seemingly too mundane and modest to ever take notice of until there was literally no other choice. That is what the wagon can do, for those who are willing to follow the trail all the way to the desert, and past it."

/thread-30625-page-68.html

Post: #18

I traveled around the US in a van for five years in my twenties. Spent time in some of the same places. Connected with similar people along the way. One even was a relative of Chris. Had a chip on my shoulder which I finally worked through.

I watched the movie and listened to book. Read a few commentary articles. I agree he was naive, particularly in Alaska to the point of negligence with his own life. There's definitely a glamorization of his life and the tragedy of it.

The careless abandon is alluring. I don't think that's the main appeal. What drew people to the story was his renunciation of money and a professional life and the modern entitlements that come with it.

Many GenXY Americans see the white collar life of their parents as unsatisfying. They endured the sacrifices of two working parents and the subsequent failure at a wholesome family life.

Writing them off as spoiled brats is is simplistic. Most never get enough distance, experience, and perspective in life to understand the full picture of where their angst is rooted, what kind of a life they want/would actually find satisfying if they got t, and how to practically get there since they view their parents generation as a negative role model. Further they may even see the entire American society as fundamentally flawed for various reasons. Consumerism, discrimination, inequality, lack of opportunity, fat girls... take your pic.

It's under this paradigm Chris went off on his adventure. In one sense he was well educated and in another sense he was completely uneducated. I think what he realized was that following the path he was on was not going to give him what he wanted out of life.

I think he was also a bit angry. I know I was at his age. You do all this work and for what. You graduate like hmm, it's a Bullshit life. And if youre not close with mom or dad all the money in the world doesn't mean shit. You better have a professor or someone take a personal interest in you at some point or you're left twisting in the wind with a degree that means as much in today's economy as a high school diploma meant for your parents.

No gives a fuck where you went to school only that you have a degree. Now tell us about your work experience. Because we want 5 years+ experience for this entry level position. And you'll have to live two hours away to afford rent lol.

Ok this wasn't his personal problem as he had loot. But he had little to no life experience. Understanding this subtext is important. He was rebelling. Against his family, society, himself (his privileged position). He was tying to find himself.

From what I understand his dad and mom had to work hard to build their company. I think the dad was likely abusive but not terribly so. Doesn't matter if you had Star Wars sheets, opta, ice skating and Xmas presents. You've also got emotional baggage that everyone tends to poo poo away as crybaby Bullshit so you're stuck with it and most people don't work through it. Sad but true.

The problem is even a little bit of emotional abuse/negligence and the threat of physical abuse can damage kids. Especially if they get no therapy.

Compounding that everyone probably treated him like your life is so great but deep inside he has angst and issues no one wants to hear about bc he's an upper class white kid with an education and trust fund. He probably read siddartha too. It makes the life of an ascetic seem necessary on the path to spiritual enlightenment. Maybe it is...

I had a very similar experience to him. The main difference is I had a ton of therapy in college. I basically talked about all my parents negligence/abuse/bullshit to the point where I realized:

-I love my parents but despite their own education and cultural indulgences they were a bad couple who could not work together.
-They divorced and maybe half or more of their resources that should have gone into creating a stable loving family during my adolescence (time, money, attention) was diverted to outsiders.
-This compounded already the already poor emotional and social dynamics between all the family members to the point of dysfunction (people were not talking to each other for years).
-My parents didn't "do the best they could" because demands like work, starting new lives midlife, moving, etc. made parenting a second priority a lot of the time.
-They were behind the 8 ball most of their lives due to their own shitty upbringing and highly competitive job market that forced them to move around and change jobs.
-Going to grad school (like both my parents) would lead to an unfulfilling career and probably same and worse for my home life.
-I seriously questioned marriage, kids, an employee career.

Unlike Chris I was on my own financially. Knew I had to use my intelligence and assets. I think that's where he fucked up. He became a bum.

What an idiot. Being a car tramp is way smarter. He killed his battery trying to start a flooded engine. When the rangers jumped it days later it started fine. Maybe he panicked. Maybe his dad was too busy to pop the hood and show him a few things. Kinda pathetic all around considering papa advised NASA but his son started down a slippery slope pf death over a flooded engine.

Actually you could blame his shitty elite education. I learned not to camp in a wash when I studied abroad in the desert It was wth an in Ivy League uni bit they took us camping. I think this shows how following the main path can work if you're creative with how you do it.

I camped in the desert and national parks as well as downtown. I never needed to ghost out of a shitty homeless shelter when 24 hour fitness memberships cost $99/year. Also kept me athletic and I fucked chicks in my van who didn't give a Fuck that my wardrobe was sweatpants and my goal was to be a minimalist explorer.

After 5 years I got bored of the states. Finished a degree healthcare that will always be in demand and can't be exported (if I need to work). Be careful though. Easy to email an X-ray to India at 3am and get a report back. So for instance going into radiology is dicy. I provide direct patient care. I only need to worry about the US importing workers. But I'm willing to work abroad so even that doesn't phase me. Good luck having any guidance counselor or mentor tell you practical shot like that.

I thought I had my shy together living in a van. I had my priorities right for sure. But when I started traveling internationally with carry on only luggage I really paired it down to essentials. And yet I did this while massively upgrading my style.

Do you need to travel to get to this place in life? Probably. The logistics of avoiding winter are huge. Not to mention the personal growth and perspective you can get. I also spent a few years in the military. I don't think that gives you the experience and perspective you really need but it has other benefits.

It's important to point tout that his epic quest ended in failure and death. He never reached enlightenment. He died with a beggers note for help. Meanwhile he donated over 100k to OXFAM and wrote feed a family. How sad and ironic. Not to mention moronic considering he starved so badly he ate poison.

Most Walmarts let you park overnight. Just ask before. Try it a night. You don't need to go to alaska. Maybe a road trip?

If I could do it again I'd probably do what I'm doing now. Stay in world cities and make loops for weeks to months to get to know different areas of the world. Sometimes you rough it for a bit.

I wrote this while on a multi month trip. Making a loop of northern Laos. With a girl I met last year and made a loop of southern Laos with. Next year I want to do Burma with her. She said who knows what future will bring? Doesn't concern me.

One problem with youth is your whole life is ahead of you. So you tend to worry and not enjoy it. After awhile you get comfortable not having all the answers or being perfect. You relax a bit and enjoy things as you can, while you can. I literally wrote this walking trails between small villages. I'm back to my bungalow. I'm going to shower, fuck her, get a massage, and eat a buffet.

It's really not THAT complicated. Unless you have kids maybe.

Post: #19

I saw this when it first came out, and found it pretty downbeat to be honest, although given that the previous Sean Penn movie I had seen was "The Pledge", I should have known what was coming.

Two days later, I went to see "La Vie en Rose". It wasn't really my week....

Post: #20

I read Jon Krakauer's book "Into the Wild" and saw the movie as well. The book was great: the author goes into a lot of detail about the psychology of outsiders and outcasts, and gives some good life anecdotes as well. He also spends a lot of time speculating on the actual cause of McCandless's death. So the book is a must-read.

I can't say the same thing about the movie. As Norwand (above) said, it's very depressing. I don't think the movie is worth seeing and I'll give my reasons:

*The lead actor doesn't capture the spirit of McCandless as he should. His portrayal is out of tune with what I believe the guy was in real life.
*The movie leaves you feeling flat and depressed. No conclusions of any kind come out of it.
*The movie glosses over McCandless's serious character flaws and personality defects. They portray him as some sort of anti-hero when in fact he was (as I see it) mentally defective with a suicide intent.

I see McCandless very much as I see Timothy Treadwell, the "Grizzly Man" that Werner Herzog made a documentary about. I wrote about this guy on my website.

McCandless is not exactly someone to be admired. He was not an evil person or a bad guy, but he had serious problems and almost certainly was suffering from some kind of mental illness. You can call it whatever you want to call it, but the fact remains that this was someone who threw away his life savings and plunged out into the wilderness to "live off the land" in some crazed and misguided death wish. If he wanted to test his mettle, there were a hundred other ways he could have done it that were more rational.

In the end, he spat in Nature's face, and got what was coming to him. Just like Timothy Treadwell.

.

Post: #21

Both the book and the movie are great.

I agree with Quintus - Emile Hirsch's portrayal of McCandless wasn't what I expected either. It was still good, but in my mind I pictured him differently.

Maybe I'm projecting, but I get the feeling that he wasn't a hero nor an idiot with a death wish. He just didn't know how deep the shit he was going into could get.

I get the feeling that he didn't have a proactive, but rather a reactive, easy going personality. It's kind of like being a counterpuncher - you're so used to dodging, being punched and coming back, that you don't worry about trouble. You let it find you because you've always managed to get around it, and you'll do it again if you need to. It works well... until it doesn't. It's not stupid, but it's certainly arrogant and naive.

Being a reactive guy, his attempt at exiting society was his way of dealing with this huge monster that he felt he had no control over. Rather than being proactive and trying to create change, he decided to leave.

Travel Museums mentioned Siddhartha and it's a great read - I've mentioned how it impacted me personally before. Walden, The Call of the Wild, Siddhartha - these are all great books that make the reader want to push to the edge of society.

McCandless' attempt at escaping was specially interesting to me because he realizes the ultimate truth of our existence on Earth - there's no escape. Even if you manage to remove yourself physically, mentally you've never left society. If you manage to remain sane while in isolation, your thoughts inevitably float to the things (material and immaterial), the people, the relationships you left. The potential of what could have been.

Best case scenario you get away from it all - but you still have to face you, your education, your baggage, everything you took from the world.

Simply put, there's no way out - the closest you can get to it is to either adapt and let go of worrying, or try to create your own little bubble, like what the main character in Captain Fantastic does with his family, as mentioned by Soyouz.

Independence is great but building something with someone else is invaluable. I really feel for some of the guys on the board who always seem so cold and emotionless - I wonder if they really are so or if they act like and try to fool themselves.

I must admit that since I first got to know McCandless' story, I've been bumping more and more into his maxim of happiness only being real when shared. But realizing that on the deepest level is not constraining. It's the opposite.

When you know there's no where to go and that you have to share the world with others, you realize you can share your humanity with anyone. A quick smile exchanged with a girl on a bus passing by, buying a coffee to a homeless guy and leaving by his side before he sees you, cooking for your family, trading stories with a bunch of buddies, even getting a massage. It's all about connecting.

Also to this point, even recluses only do their job when they get back to their people, either physically or in the form of their ideas and gospel. There's no power in diving inside one's own spirit and staying here - it's only valuable when you can come back. Drugs are the same way - they can be great tools, but after you get the message don't hold the line - hang up the phone, as Alan Watts would say, and share what you heard.

Post: #22

I haven't read the book but I have seen the film. It is a beautiful movie but I couldn't get over how mentally fucked McCandless seemed.

Hitting the road is one thing. Dying on it is another. I have some risky trips in the pipeline and my #1 goal is to get out of it safely and alive. If you don't manage to survive then for me the total voyage is compromised. Its passion turns to poignancy.

One thing that's important to keep in mind when you plan trips is WHY. Sometimes the urge to flee society is a healthy one, but sometimes it's a sign of depression, emotional pain, and mental distress.

That's what I think about when I reflect on his far-flung journey, and it seemed like an obsession that became the center of his world rather than just a destination. It lacked a certain will to live that would make any traveler think circumspectly about his own choices.

Post: #23

I enjoyed the movie at the time, but upon reflection I can see both parties are correct.

On the one had this is a genuine search for spiritual enlightenment by the lad.

On the other hand, he did turn hi back on privilege and make a lot of stupid mistakes.

Post: #24

One benefit of cutting off all communication with family during a vision quest (which I sorta did not counting posting daily pics on Facebook lol) is that it allows you to focus on yourself while getting away from codependent Bullshit and emotional abuse.

After awhile I came back around with clear boundaries for certain family members. For instance to be happy I realized I needed to tell my father to shut the fuck up when he started whining to me about money problems. I'd heard so goddamn much about it growing up it had really negatively effected me to the point where I just couldn't discuss it with him.

It's too bad this kid never made it out and came around to finding a happy coexistence with society.

Another thing. He wasn't all that far into the Alaskan wild. I was up in Denali camping for a week this summer. (Yes I saw the mountain clearly on my last day!). There's a pub a few miles away that has the bus from the movie out front. One of the lodges runs tours to the real bus.

Into the Wild? Not really. He hung out in an abondes vehicle. He was discovered by a couple local teenagers a few days after the spring thaw. If it wasn't so morbid it'd be laughable. Maybe that's what led him to underestimate an Alaskan winter, idk...

Post: #25

I watched a documentary about him, didn't see the Sean penn movie or read the book. I took away a couple opinions from it.
First, he was stupid and naive and deserved to be destroyed by the wilderness. He managed to shoot a moose... if he spent Andy time preparing he should of learned how to preserve meat in the bush, by 'smoking/drying' it. There's a lot of meat on a moose.
Second, the documentary said that none of the fathers children are in contact with him anymore. Clearly they had a fucked up time as kids.