Customer Reviews

Into the Wild

5 star:		(625)
4 star:		(458)
3 star:		(188)
2 star:		(85)
1 star:		(66)

 

 

There is little suspense (in the traditional sense of the word) in Krakauer's Into the Wild, as anyone who reads the synopsis or picks up the book instantly learns that it is the story of a young man, Chris McCandless, who ventures into the Alaskan Wilderness and who never gets out. Chris' body is found in an abandoned bus used by moose hunters as a makeshift lodge, and Krakauer skillfully attempts to retrace his steps in an effort both to understand what went wrong, and to figure out what made McCandless give away his money, his car, and head off into Denali National Forest in the first place.

His book was one of the most haunting, unforgettable reads in recent years for me. I was mezmerized by passages in the author's other best-selling masterpiece Into Thin Air, such as the passage involving stranded and doomed guide Rob Hall, near the Everest summit, talking to his pregnant wife via satellite phone to discuss names for their unborn child. However, I was unprepared for the depths of emotion felt in reading Into the Wild - it literally kept me up at nights, not just reading but thinking about the book in the dark.

Some reviewers criticized the book because they thought McCandless demonstrated a naive and unhealthy lack of respect for the Alaskan wilderness. This is no hike on the Appalachian Trail - Chris was literally dropped off by a trucker into the middle of nowhere, with no provision stores, guides, or means of assistance nearby at his disposal. He had a big bag of rice and a book about native plants, designed to tell him which plants and berries he could eat. "How could he have been so stupid?", they ask.

Well, I certainly didn't feel compelled to give away my belongings, pack some rice and a Tolstoy novel and walk into the woods after reading the book, but the author does a remarkable job of exploring McCandless the person, including passages derived from interviews with the many poeple whose lives he touched in his odyssey as he drove and then hitch-hiked cross country from his well-to-do suburban home. Some of the more touching parts of the book involved tearful reminisces by some of these old aquaintances when they learned he had perished.

Krakauer also throws in for good measure an illuminating passage about a similar death-defying climb that he foolishly attempted at about the same age as McCandless, with little training and preparation, providing insight into what makes a person attempt a dangerous climb or hike. He even tells several fascinating tales, all of them true, of other recreational hikers who were stranded in the wilderness.

By the end of the book, I thought I understood McCandless' character, and I thought Krakauer was probably right in putting his finger on exactly what caused his death. I was moved by his plight regardless of his possible foolishness in venturing into Denali, and the final scenes involving Chris' family were emotionally devastating. You need not be an outdoorsman to appreciate it, and in fact unlike Into Thin Air the book is completely accessible to those who know nothing about the subject. I think this book is destined to become a classic.

After having had this book for some time, I finally set out to make it part of my summer 2000 reading schedule. I am drawn to books of the northern wilderness, which was the initial attraction to this one. I'll state up front that I have not read anything else by Krakauer, so I cannot draw any comparisons as other reviewers have done.

Krakauer tells the tale effectively. He uses an intelligent vocabulary balanced with a conversational writing style. He easily held my attention as the facts unfolded throughout, employing logic and drawing inferences to fill in many questions that remain. He obviously did his research on the central character, Christopher McCandless, and must have invested countless quantities of money and time to gather accurate information. With so many of the facts of this distressing story remaining obscured probably forever, his assumptions and extrapolations about Chris' actual fate are posed as theories rather than as irreproachable conclusions. I appreciate this aspect of Krakauer's account.

Hats off also to the McCandless family, since Krakauer relied upon them not only for information about their son, tragically lost, but also for their courage in allowing many private family issues to be exposed in support of telling the story as thoroughly as possible. Chris' father, mother, and sister are true heroes in my eyes.

I have some degree of understanding of Chris and his northerly wanderlust, and also an appreciation for the not-so-uncommon desire to conquer the wilderness. What concerns me, however, is the apparent arrogance of the central character. According to the author's account, Chris seemed to possess an intermittent wariness about his closest acquaintances, along with outright rejection of others who cared for him much more than he cared for them. He treated some important people who crossed his path as disposable. But probably Chris's most crucial deficiency was the flippant and over-confident approach towards the actual work of survival in the wilderness. He even seemed a bit contemptuous toward relevant learning despite his quality education and intelligence. He especially needed important knowlege about survival in the wilds of the north. However, he apparently rebuffed all attempts from others to assist him in his quest. I have spent considerable time in the extreme north of B.C. (an area not entirely dissimilar to Alaska): it is ridiculous, misguided, and presumptuous to embark on such an adventure with the dearth of equipment, supplies, and knowledge as did Chris. I would want to know everything possible about how to survive such a life and death endeavor. Indeed, I feel a strange combination of sadness and anger as I reflect on Chris's unfortunate departure. Was his death ultimately caused by youthful innocence or arrogant ignorance? It is a question I cannot answer and I commend Krakauer for his deft ability to stimulate thought in the reader rather than provide tidy little assumptive answers.

My only complaint: the personal reflective chapter towards the end of the book. I understand why Krakauer included it (personal connections with the need for adventure, context, struggles with nature, etc.), but for me it was irrelevant and it de-railed the flow of the story.

Perhaps we can learn from Christopher McCandless' experience, not in any attempt to qualify him as a martyr or to label him a fool. I have thought about how my appreciation for the north has changed, how families need to be close, the requirement to really listen to and understand people, and countless other themes which have been tweaked by Jon Krakauer's writing about Chris' misadventure. I recommend this book highly.

This is a poignant, compelling narrative about Chris McCandless, an intelligent, intense, and idealistic young man, who cut off all ties to his upper middle class family. He then reinvented himself as Alexander Supertramp, a drifter living out of a backpack, eking out a marginal existence as he wandered throughout the United States. A modern day King of the Road, McCandless ended his journey in 1992 in Alaska, when he walked alone into the wilderness north of Denali. He never returned.

Krakauer investigates this young man's short life in an attempt to explain why someone who has everything going for him would have chosen this lifestyle, only to end up dead in one of the most remote, rugged areas of the Alaskan wilderness. Whether one views McCandless as a fool or as a modern day Thoreau is a question ripe for discussion. It is clear, however, from Krakauer's writing that his investigation led him to feel a strong, spiritual kinship with McCandless. It is this kindred spirit approach to his understanding of this young man that makes Krakauer's writing so absorbing and moving.

Krakauer retraced McCandless' journey, interviewing many of those with whom he came into contact. What metamorphosed is a haunting, riveting account of McCandless' travels and travails, and the impact he had on those with whom he came into contact. Krakauer followed McCandless' last steps into the Alaskan wilderness, so that he could see for himself how McCandless had lived, and how he had died. This book is his epitaph.

Several words come to mind when thinking of Chris McCandless, as reviewers on Amazon and others in Krakauer's book note: rash, impulsive, idealistic, individualistic, selfish, histrionic, foolhardy. Indeed, the book had the trappings of apologia for the young man's destructive nature. Contrary to many reviewers, though, I believe Krakauer gave a fair assessment of Chris.

Krakauer attempts to salvage the good name of Chris, primarily because he saw much of his subject's characteristics in himself as a young man. The renunciation of a comfortable, secure environment for the aesthetic, ascetic, and the existential does not make sense to some. However, Krakauer admits that these are the same attitudes on which countries capitalize to recruit men into battle. In one of his more eloquent writings, Chris declares that nothing is more destructive to a man's adventurous spirit than a secure future. Some who have always had security--a life without hardship--begin to look at it with contempt; it becomes something shameful. Giving 25,000 dollars to OXFAM and feeding homeless on K Street was just as charitable as it was self-serving. As is most philanthropy. I admit character portrayal does border on romanticization, but ultimately Krakauer is more sober. Understanding McCandless's flaws, Krakauer still manages to upon McCandless with empathy

But, all this is beside the point. It would be unfair to attack or support a book solely on a personal judgment about the characters. Let Chris be scorned, but I think Jon Krakauer told a good story, and attempted to fully understand the motivation, emotion, and conflict among his characters. Krakauer's deviation from the plot to stories of other brash (even psychotic) adventurers and the author's own experiences does not take away from the text. Even Melville interrupted what would be an excellent adventure story of conquest with encyclopedic entries. Into the Wild is no Moby Dick, but Krakauer's literary decisions serve the same purpose; to reconcile the speaker's internal conflict, and to personally comprehend the enigma of human nature. Krakauer tries to show us that the Chris's characteristic thirst for experience--even a bit of danger--are not idiosyncratic. Rather, they are common to all mankind; latent in many (society inherently discourages wandering into the threatening unknown while encouraging the sanctuary of its uniformity).

The story of Chris McCandless serves as medium for contemplation of our will to live, our insatiable desire for risk, and the choices we make. You don't have to agree with the decisions of the character to find fulfillment in understanding. Overall, well-written.

I loved this book. It's one of the most original and satisfying works of non-fiction I've read in a long time. Mr. Krakauer writes beautifully, and he did an amazing amount of on-the-ground research to unravel the mystery of Chris McCandless, a very remarkable, if difficult, young man.

Having just read the 1-star review below by the anonymous person from Freeport Maine, I can't let his/her negative observations pass without comment. First of all, Mr./Ms. Freeport accuses Mr. Krakauer of writing "Into the Wild" in order to cash in on the success of his bestseller "Into Thin Air." This is somewhat unlikely, because "Into the Wild" was published more than a year BEFORE Mr. Krakauer wrote "Into Thin Air"!

Also, Mr./Ms. Freeport opines that McCandless's "story and his family should be left alone. Shame on Mr. Krakauer for attempting to profit from their intense loss." The only problem with this opinion is that the McCandless family has stated publicly that they are extremely glad Mr. Krakauer wrote "Into the Wild."

In early 1996, a month or two before Mr. Krakauer went to Mt. Everest, I saw him give a lecture/slide show about "Into the Wild" at a Borders bookstore outside of Baltimore. At the beginning of the lecture Mr. Krakauer introduced Walt and Billie McCandless, Chris's parents, who were in the audience that night. After the slide show I approached them and told them how much I admired their son. Then I asked them what they thought of Mr. Krakauer's book. They said they were extremely grateful that Mr. Krakauer had written it, because "Into the Wild" had answered many riddles about their son that had been troubling them--riddles that would have otherwise gone unanswered. Mr. McCandless even admitted that in some ways Mr. Krakauer had probably come to know Chris better than they knew him during the last years of his life. Both Mr. and Mrs. McCandless spoke quite highly of Mr. Krakauer's integrity and his skill as a journalist.

I'm afraid to sound overly enthusiastic about this book for fear that those so "annoyed" by it will take their anger in spending [money] on Jon Krakauer. Krakauer is a great journalistic writer and his work and research far exceeds any ficticious adventure flick.

I can understand how one can get confused with the shifts in location and time during McCandless's two year journey, but retracing the man's steps should not be the focus. Krakauer enlightens the reader and unfolds the mystery of McCandless's death as interviews, childhood experiences and stories of similar adventurers give greater insight to the man's psyche. I was continuously facinated as I read highlighted passages from McCandless's books, grafitto, et al which Krakauer includes at the beginning of each chapter. All the research he has done is not just laid out flat, but revealed in a dialogue between him and the reader.

Others I've read remark McCandless as stupid, selfish, uninteresting, and a waste of a human life, suggesting stories by Jack London as a superior examination of human condition.

"McCandless [and other readers obviously] conveniently overlooked the fact that London himself had spent just a single winter in the North and that he'd died by his own hand on his California estate at the age of forty, a fatuous drunk, obese and pathetic, maintaining a sedentary existence that bore scant resemblance to the ideals he espoused in print" (44).

It is sad to know that such a life holds more respect than one man's passion to actually live out his beliefs as did McCandless.

As far as calling this man stupid and selfish, some readers happen to skim over the parts about his college education and donating [money] to OXFAM America, a charity dedicated to fighting hunger. I don't know where you live, but how many teenagers do you know who read War and Peace and spend the last of their money to buy hamburgers to give to the homeless while their peers are out partying?

McCandless may have been overly confident and stubborn to make his way on his own, but weren't his ideals real? Those who knew him speak of his true love of nature and high spirits. How anyone can claim he was wasting his life instead of living for the gain of material possesions is beyond me. McCandless reached his dream of living off the land and he did it for over 100 days, while others work their whole lives and feel empty, never knowing the real beauty of the world.

Krakauer tells of experiences with Alaskan hunters who claim that McCandless was wrong in thinking the animal he killed was a moose after examining the bones. "It was definitely a caribou...you'd have to be pretty stupid not to tell them apart" (177). Krakauer later found out that the animal was in fact a moose. Seems as though the natives are overly confident of themselves as well.

And had it not been for a bit of information left out in a refernce book of edible plants, McCandless may have survived.

The main thing that saddens me when I read reviews with low ratings is the hypocritical way the reader will toss off a man's life as not worth the pages in this book while complaining about McCandless wasting his own life. No one is trying to make this man out as a saint and judging his actions on your own ideas of success does not give your life more reason.

I'll end with a few quotes of the book that some may need to read over:

"McCandless wasn't some reckless slacker, adrift and confused, racked by existential despair. To the contrary: His life hummed with meaning and purpose. But the meaning he wrested from existence lay beyond the comfortable path: McCandless distrusted the value of things that came easily. He demanded much of himself-more, in the end, than he could deliver" (184).

"'Sure he screwed up' Roman answers, `but I admire what he was trying to do. Living completely off the land like that, month after month, is incredibly difficult. I've never done it. And I'd bet you that very few, if any, of the people who call McCandless incompetent have ever done it either, not for more than a week or two. Living in the interior bush for an extended period, subsisting on nothing but what you hunt and gather-most people have no idea how hard that actually is. And McCandless almost pulled it off'" (185).

"Into the Wild" is one of the most unusual and powerful books I have ever read. Krakauer tells the story of Chris McCandless very skillfully, in haunting, mesmerizing prose. Krakauer's themes are grand, but he makes his points with great subtlety and understatement. Some readers have failed to understand what he is up to, but those who are perceptive will get it.

Some readers, for instance, apparently didn't understand why Krakauer included two chapters about his own solo Alaskan adventure, which he undertook when he was the same age as McCandless. But Krakauer's inclusion of these chapters is absolutely essential to the book's success. Far from being "filler," these chapters explain (albeit between the lines) why Krakauer was so obsessed with the tragedy of ChrisMcCandless, and shed a great amount of (indirect)light on McCandless's motivations.

The writing techniques and structural strategies Krakauer employs in this book are quite sophisticated and somewhat risky, and will no doubt pass over the heads of some readers, but I think the risks Krakauer took are worth it, and the book succeeds brilliantly when all is said and done. "Into the Wild" will one day be recognized as one of the classics of twentieth century American literature. If you read it, I guarantee it will get under your skin. You will not be able to stop thinking about Chris McCandless.

This is the tragic stroy of Christopher McCandless, a man who was willing to sacrafice everything for a chance at experiencing life as few people ever do. One day Chris, or Alexander Supertramp as he preferred to be called, decided to cut all ties with the modern world and live in absolute freedom. Jon Krakauer beautifully narrates the reader through Alexander's ill-fated adventure that finally ended in an abandoned bus in the wilds of Alaska. Along the way, the reader is introduced to a collection of colorful people who have also sought escape from the trials of daily life. These glimpses help to put Alexander's uncommon desire to break from modern society into its proper perspective. Into the Wild is also a story about one family's love for their son, and the search for understanding and closure concerning his eventual death. In the process the reader is given great insight into the mind, and possible motives for his desire to escape. But, as we find out this is not just the story of one family, but, the story of many people and families that Alexander touched in his odyessy across America. Despite the fact that Alexander's quest cost him his life, I would dare to say that during those four brief months he felt more alive and experienced more than most people do in a entire lifetime. His warm smile on the opening page is a testament to the happiness, and contentment that he experienced in his self-imposed solitude. Finally, this is not merely a book about the tragedy of death, it is instead a celebration of nature and one mans quest to experience it.

I really enjoyed this book. It gave me a lot of insight into why Jon Krakauer wrote both this and "Into Thin Air." Krakauer spends two chapters talking about his own Alaskan adventure where he nearly died. So it shouldn't be surprizing that he takes a sympathetic view of Chris McCandless and his fatal Alaskan trek.

He also delves into history and writes about other people who have died as they tried to get closer to nature, or were just plain ill-prepared for what they got themselves into, not giving Mother Nature the respects she demands, sometimes at the price of our lives.

My favorite part was toward the end where he critiques his own "Outdoor" magazine article about McCandless and talks about where he was wrong, and then suggests how he thinks McCandless actually died.

In depth and facinating. Worth the read. I loved it and I don't usually read nature-y type books.

Excerpted quotes from Ranger Peter Christian are from a document available at George Mason University (pasted below):


Chris McCandless from an Alaska Park Ranger's Perspective
by Peter Christian

Both Chris McCandless and I arrived in Alaska in 1992. We both came to Alaska from
the area around Washington, D.C. We were both about the same age and had a similar
idea in mind; to live a free life in the Alaska wild. Fourteen years later Chris McCandless
is dead and I am living the dream I set out to win for myself. What made the difference
in these two outcomes?
There was nothing heroic or even mysterious about what Chris McCandless did in April
1992. Like many Alaskans, I read Jon Krakauer's book "Into the Wild" when it first
came out and finished it thinking, "why does this guy rate an entire book?" The fact that
Krakauer is a great outdoor writer and philosopher is the bright spot and it makes a great
read, but McCandless was not something special.
As a park ranger both at Denali National Park, very near where McCandless died, and
now at Gates of the Arctic National Park, even more remote and wild than Denali, I am
exposed continually to what I will call the "McCandless Phenomenon." People, nearly
always young men, come to Alaska to challenge themselves against an unforgiving
wilderness landscape where convenience of access and possibility of rescue are
practically no nexistent. I know the personality type because I was one of those young
men.
In fact, Alaska is populated with people who are either running away from something or
seeking themselves in America's last frontier. It is a place very much like the frontier of
the Old West where you can come to and reinvent yourself. In reality, most people who
make it as far as Alaska never get past the cities of Fairbanks and Anchorage because
access is so difficult and expensive (usually by airplane), travel is so hard, the terrain is
challenging, the bears are real, and so on.
A very few competent and skillful people make a successful go at living a free life in the
wild, build a home in the mountains, raise their children there and eventually come back
with good stories and happy endings. A greater number give it a try, realize it is neither
easy nor romantic, just damn hard work, and quickly give up and return to town with
their tails between their legs, but alive and the wiser for it.
Some like McCandless, show up in Alaska, unprepared, unskilled and unwilling to take
the time to learn the skills they need to be successful. These quickly get in trouble and
either die by bears, by drowning, by freezing or they are rescued by park rangers or other
rescue personnel-but often, not before risking their lives and/or spending a lot of
government money on helicopters and overtime.
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.
No experienced backcountry person would travel during the month of April. It is a time
of transition from winter's frozen rivers and hard packed snow with good traveling
conditions into spring's quagmire of mud and raging waters where even small creeks
become impassible. Hungry bears come out of their dens with just one thing in mind--
eating.
Furthermore, Chris McCandless poached a moose and then wasted it. He killed a
magnificent animal superbly conditioned to survive the rigors of the Alaskan wild then,
inexperienced in how to preserve meat without refrigeration (the Eskimos and Indians do
it to this day), he watched 1500 pounds of meat rot away in front of him. He's lucky the
stench didn't bring a grizzly bear to end his suffering earlier. And in the end, the moose
died for nothing.
So what made the difference between McCandless and I fourteen years ago? Why am I
alive and he is dead? Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide while I
apprenticed myself to a career and a life that I wanted more badly than I can possibly
describe in so short an essay. In the end I believe that the difference between us was that
I wanted to live and Chris McCandless wanted to die (whether he realized it or not). The
fact that he died in a compelling way doesn't change that outcome. He might have made
it work if he had respected the wilderness he was purported to have loved. But it is my
belief that surviving in the wilderness is not what he had in mind.
I did not start this essay to trash poor Chris McCandless. Not intentionally. It is sad that
the boy had to die. The tragedy is that McCandless more than likely was suffering from
mental illness and didn't have to end his life the way he did. The fact that he chose
Alaska's wildlands to do it in speaks more to the fact that it makes a good story than to
the fact that McCandless was heroic or somehow extraordinary. In the end, he was sadly
ordinary in his disrespect for the land, the animals, the history, and the self-sufficiency
ethos of Alaska, the Last Frontier.