Skip to main content

Was Chris McCandless a visionary hero or a fool? How did stubbornness contribute to his death?

The central question about McCandless is exactly the one you ask—was he a visionary, or a fool? There is no simple answer to this, other than to say he was a little bit of both. I think McCandless very much thought he was following a dream, and that his adventure in the wilderness would be transformative in a spiritual way. That is, his decision to retreat to Alaska is driven in part by his anger at his parents, particularly his father, who McCandless saw as a liar and hypocrite, and by a belief, fueled by his reading of Thoreau and Tolstoy, that self-reliance could purify his spirit, grant him greater self-knowledge, and bring him some measure of inner peace.


On the other hand, McCandless can also be seen as emblematic of a certain kind of hubris. He truly believes that he can survive in the wild. Partly, his self-confidence comes from his youth—when you are twenty, you think you can handle anything—and partly from a certain kind of middle class privilege. Whatever McCandless thought of his parents, he absolutely believed in education and his innate ability to figure things out. He had always been the best at whatever he tried to do. Surviving in the wilderness was simply another problem to solve. In a sense, his belief in his own intelligence was his greatest weakness, and, perhaps, the thing he was most stubborn about. It’s not that he wasn’t smart; it’s that he didn’t realize that he wasn’t smart enough.


The book is full of examples that support each interpretation, but to me the best story is the one Krakauer recounts in the first pages of the book—Jim Gallien’s story about picking up McCandless hitchhiking, and dropping him off at the trailhead of the Stampede trail. Gallien knew at once that what McCandless was attempting to do—“live off the land for a few months”—was foolhardy.”



People from outside…They’ll pick up a copy of Alaska magazine, thumb through it, get to thinkin’ ‘Hey, I’m goin’ to get on up there, live off the land, go claim me a piece of the good life.’ But when they get here and actually head out into the bush – well, it isn’t like the magazines make it out to be.”



This description does not exactly fit McCandless: he knew, probably more than most, the general outlines of surviving in the wilderness. Gallien, nevertheless, thought McCandless was a “nut case.” But there was something about McCandless that made Gallien want to protect him or help him. After failing to convince McCandless that the trip was a bad idea, he offers to drive him to Anchorage and buy him some real gear; failing that, he manages at last to give him a pair of boots and a couple of sandwiches. Chris is absolutely determined to go: as Gallien says, “He was determined. Real gung ho. The word that comes to mind is excited. He couldn’t wait to get out there and get started.”


Gallien’s desire to help McCandless is a theme that repeats over and over in the book; McCandless is always running into strangers who want to help him (or even, in the case of Ron Franz, adopt him). I think the reason for that is that people could see in McCandless something true and genuine; they connected with his desire to live more purely and simply, and understood empathically his desire to make his own identity. In other words, people like Gallien could see both sides of McCandless: the “nut case” side, and the visionary side. McCandless was simply too stubborn to sacrifice his vision for the practical realities of living in the wild.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more