into the wild

[bikerscars]

i enjoyed reading 'into the wild' and am looking forward to seeing the movie

the whole getting back to nature thing is very appealing to me...

my newest interest is learning 'bout edible parts of wild plants (and their preparation)...

endlessly fascinating

who else is interested in the movie or read the book

[Jezebel]

I read the book. I liked it even though I don't have such urges to go off into the wilderness by myself. I thought the guy was foolish though. He probably would have lived if he hadn't been so stubborn about not taking more precautionary measures (like maps of the area).

[bikerscars]

I read the book. I liked it even though I don't have such urges to go off into the wilderness by myself. I thought the guy was foolish though. He probably would have lived if he hadn't been so stubborn about not taking more precautionary measures (like maps of the area).


yeah he was a bit too idealistic

in many ways he reminds me of that knucklehead who pranced around with wild bears before getting himself and his girlfriend eaten by a grizzly in alaska

when pbs goes through its fundraising episodes they replay 'alone in the wilderness'...great story of a single individual who makes a successful escape (return to?) the wilds of alaska to live off the land and become a hermit

since childhood the solitary lifestyle held a certain fascination in my mind; although being a hermit is not a choice i would make for myself...society does have some nice perks

[Rick]

"One Man's Wilderness" is a good book along those lines. It may be the same story as "alone in the wilderness".

I am the solitary type and am actually planning a trip to Alaska next summer to see if I'd like to move there.

[Henry]

I read the book. I liked it even though I don't have such urges to go off into the wilderness by myself. I thought the guy was foolish though. He probably would have lived if he hadn't been so stubborn about not taking more precautionary measures (like maps of the area).

Yes I thought the same thing. He was a bit of a fool. Alaska? Why not something like eastern Oregon, or North Dakota? It felt a touch like a slow suicide to me.

I also thought he was very selfish. I know his parents were superficial jerks, but they still had feelings, and so did his sister, and I would have liked him a lot more if he had sent them a "Hey I don't hate you and hey I'm not dead" letter every once and a while.

[TruorTupnm]

I saw the movie recently. It was a whim. I usually read books first. Anyways, it looked like fun. I wouldn't have chosen Alaska. I might have left some note about why I was leaving, for whoever might find the thing, but why worry about people who might have known you? It was all about the joy of independence, yes? Leave, and if the thought of some relative comes to brain, hope that they can remember to just have fun with their own lives, but why worry about them? oh well. After the movie, I just said, "Well, dang. He should have read that plant book more thoroughly. Otherwise, he would have had lots of fun." The roommate who I saw the thing with pointed out that the movie was attempting to inform that humans require socialization and such, and he would have been happier if he had never left. I saw no evidence of that. He was having fun before he made mistakes, yes?

[Henry]

IThe roommate who I saw the thing with pointed out that the movie was attempting to inform that humans require socialization and such, and he would have been happier if he had never left. I saw no evidence of that. He was having fun before he made mistakes, yes?

Well, "fun" is the wrong word. Remember that he read the Tolstoy quote and then realized that its best to go back, pain in the ass though society is.

[TruorTupnm]

Sure, I would agree that living among humans is better than attempting to figure out how to survive in a patch of Alaskan wilderness. Especially when you don't really have much experience with attempting to survive in patches of Alaskan wilderness. Also, I remember the quote, but I thought that he only decided to agree with the thing once he knew that he was going to die. It seemed to me to be that he was merely saying, "Well, dang. This didn't pan out so great. Alternatives would most likely have been healthier."

[Saurus]

I saw the movie too. I liked it.

In your opinion, what is the main character's MTBI type ?

[sriv]

I just read this book again and decided that it was actually much better than when I first read it. Krakauer's writing style was appealing.

Chris McCandless...I would say he was an INFx.

I because he valued solitude.
N because he was a natural rebel and was looking for revelation.
F because he was very emotional, and he just didn't think sometimes.
x - I am leaning towards J because INFJs are Dominant Ni's.
Or he could have been another type attempting to be that type.

[Indy]

I saw the movie last night and I was deeply impressed. It really struck a nerve.

The adventure, the solitude, the great works like Thoreau's Walden, are all very appealing to me. The guy is the same age as me ,23, and I look a lot like him, physically as well as mentally, so I can identify strongly with him.

His anti-materialism I could sympatize with to, but I'm not nearly as radical as him. He didn't seem to understand the true value of money, the independence and liberty it offers, which he was striving to find.

But perhaps I don't understand the liberalization of burning his last dollars and being completely out of the system of caring about money and wealth. As he said while writing his friend who gave him some money to continue his trip, "Actually, I was happier when I was travelling pennyless". Perhaps money, or for instance, morgages, can often lead to less freedom instead of more.

The movie reminded me of my two trips last year, hiking through the Belgian Ardennes. It had the same excitement and immersion into nature, the ruggedness of terrain, the amazing views over hills and forest and the general freshness of everything new you encounter. I can't wait to go hiking again this summer.

Regarding the movie, he loved being alone, travelling for over two years by himself, not attaching himself to anyone. Only after living alone for several months, he needed some form of human interaction, but this was partly caused by him realizing it through reading passages. Then he decided it was time to go back into civilization, but he got trapped due to the enormous river.

His death was primarily due to a mistake, otherwise he could have easily survived the summer until the rivercrossing was passable.

I disagree that the main message is that isolation is unwise and we all need social interaction and cherish people in our lives, etc. It also showed how wonderful it can be travelling alone for over 2 years, living by himself for such a long time, and not missing anybody, not even his sister he was somewhat close with.

Only after living completely in isolation, after about 2 or 3 months, did he start to realize, after reading the advice in his novels, that he needed some form of social contact.

What was interesting though, was that for everytime he was travelling, he encountered people that marked a memory of that part of the trip. While that was for cinematographic purposes, it does function a more general purpose.

You are reminded of your trips or stays abroad not only through the landscape or the things you did, but also by the people you have met. The inter-personal connections he made, were important to him. Still, this does mean that the overall message is that 'see, you can't live without people, now just go huggle each other', like that huggle-thread here on the forum (which I love btw).

I think this must be really understable for most INTJ's here, the love of just going out on your own and the rebelliousness and the determination of his actions. I agree he probably was a INFJ.

He didn't let his parents know where he was, making them worried sick and basically destroying their lives this way. Part of this was just revenge, changing his name and not wanting anything to do with them anymore. But partly this is just introversion. I do not have the need to contact my girlfriend (who lives in Shanghai) or parents for long periods of time as well. I still do it, just to not piss them off, but his actions are, while not nice, still understandable to me. It was better if he had told them, like Onno Quist in the Discovery of Heaven by Harry Mulisch: "Im gone, don't take the effort to find me, because you won't".

I don't condider him to be 'foolish', perhaps a just little too reckless. He didnt have a map, compass, or a back-up in case he got seriously sick, like he did. But he considered that part of adventure, to be totally isolated, not just arms-lengtt away. Unfortunately, he paid the price for it.

[Motor Jax]

thanks Sriv, this looks like an older thread, dating back to October

i've never read the book though, but from what y'all's said, it sounds pretty interesting



(yea, when i talk, i have a tendency to slur/ellide my words together)

[hyper84]

Correct me if I'm wrong (it's been years since I've read the book and I don't have immediate access to it), but wasn't the movie version of Chris's death different than the book's. In the book, Chris dies because he ate the berries or roots of a plant that the book said was edible. I mean, the plant itself was edible, but the book neglected to mention that the berries/roots were poisonous. So it wasn't completely Chris's fault that he died? Personally, I'm impressed with how well he did alone in Alaska, although I don't guess it amounts to much given the unfortunate outcome.

[ElstonGunn]

I don't condider him to be 'foolish', perhaps a just little too reckless. He didnt have a map, compass, or a back-up in case he got seriously sick, like he did. But he considered that part of adventure, to be totally isolated, not just arms-lengtt away. Unfortunately, he paid the price for it.

I doubt that it never occurred to him to bring those things. Between him being a generally smart kid, and having spent the previous two years traveling, I'm sure he was well aware of the value of a map and compass. I think it was that value that made him neglect to bring them. Anyone can walk a tightrope when there's a safety net under it.

[Siegel]

I doubt that it never occurred to him to bring those things. Between him being a generally smart kid, and having spent the previous two years traveling, I'm sure he was well aware of the value of a map and compass. I think it was that value that made him neglect to bring them. Anyone can walk a tightrope when there's a safety net under it.

I agree. People say he should have taken back-ups or something, but that would just be him depending on society once more. This is what he wanted to avoid. Personally, I would choose a warmer climate, but he never complained of the cold, did he. I, really, just blame society for his death. His purpose was too valid, and it is because of society's recklessness that he went out.

My personal opinion, based on the movie. I didn't know it was a book. I will have to check this out.

[Liquid]

I have read ‘Into the Wild’, one book after reading ‘The Fountainhead’ by Ayn Rand. I found it interesting that the two philosophies involve achieving a state of mental nirvana, but both pursue that ideal in the most opposite of ways.

In ‘Into the Wild’, Chris tried to make himself insignificant to the masses of the world. He gave into nature rather than trying to shape it.

With ‘The Fountainhead’, Rand immortalizes the personal spirit, of individuality and integrity. That the purpose of life is to build – from nature.

While McCandless’s ideals lean more towards the communist side, Rand’s ideals are very capitalist. Although, having thought about it a bit, there seems to be strong parallels between both books.

I felt McCandless’s opinions about life very oppressive though, such as we must sacrifice our life for god and the pristine nature of the world. Rand’s opinions are much more liberating, and we aren’t burdened by moral obligations towards the great of humanity and nature. Sometimes I felt as if McCandless was too easily influenced by what he read and didn’t question his author’s ideas.

[zibber]

I just read this book again and decided that it was actually much better than when I first read it. Krakauer's writing style was appealing.

Chris McCandless...I would say he was an INFx.

I because he valued solitude.
N because he was a natural rebel and was looking for revelation.
F because he was very emotional, and he just didn't think sometimes.
x - I am leaning towards J because INFJs are Dominant Ni's.
Or he could have been another type attempting to be that type.

Well, there you go.. :P