..by Jon Krakauer

I hope I am not being too presumptuous, but since no one has objected, I will moderate of discussion of this book.

How about if we post comments on the first five chapters between now and next Saturday, October 15th?

If someone has another suggestions on how to discuss this book, please let me know.

Dan

In the first chapter, Jim Gallien gives "Alex" a ride ten miles up the Stampede trail.
-Should Jim have even given Alex the ride? Would it have made any difference
-In this chapter we begin to see into Alex's personality. What traits are revealed? Do we learn anything about what shaped his personality?

Dan

That's an interesting question.....I'm not sure anyone could have stopped "Alex" from pursueing his dream, but if he hadn't gotten those extra 10 miles down the road, perhaps he wouldn't have gotten stuck on the wrong side of the river.

I know that young people often go off on wild adventures that are not well thought out....and sometimes all you can do is offer a few supplies or a tidbit of information. I know that I did some crazy things that certainly were dangerous, and went for a couple years without talking to my mom. Now that I have kids who are young adults, I can't imagine having them just drop off the face of the map like that....but I did it myself.

I can see that having parents who pushed him in a direction that didn't fit his personality probably helped to make him into the sort of person who could do the things he did. His folks were very driven- and that is the kind of person he became as well. He was driven to pursue a totally different direction, but I can still his parents mark on him.

Today I drove to Barnes & Noble and bought "Into the Wild". I'm sure Alex would have thought the whole thing hopelessly bourgeois.

This book hits closer to home than I expected. My oldest son took off for 10 years in much the same way as Alex with two main differences. First, he survived. Second, he would call us about once a month. "Hi Dad. I'm in (pick a city)." The entire time we considered the probability of the call saying they wanted us to come and identify the body. Fortunately it didn't happen. I can only grieve for Alex's parents.

So I read the first 5 chapters and forced myself to quit. I want to keep pace with the group.

We can always second guess what might have been. Jim Gallien offered the advice and help he could, then believed Alex would come to his senses and hike out. I can't blame him in any way.

Alex reminds me somewhat of Timothy Treadwell, the Grizzly Man. I don't think Alex is quite as crazy, but something isn't quite right with him. There is a term in psychiatry called "la belle indifference" (beautiful indifference) which describes a patient who has an abnormal lack of concern about his or her afflictions or disabilities. Alex seems indifferent to the danger and consequences of his undertakings.

Doc

I think you are right, Dogwoodgirl. Alex was very determined to go on his adventure and not much would have dissuaded him.
I think most of us experience so period of rebellion against our parents. Actually, I think it is programmed in our DNA. It is part of the internal systems that propel us to go out on our own and establish ourselves separate from our parent.
I also believe that most of us are willing to take far more chances when we are young. Perhaps there is a gender difference and boys tend to take more chances than girls (don't know if that's nature or nurture?)
Oldgentleman, most of us have taken off on some kind of adventure after our education. Mine was working in Colorado for a summer. For some it is the military. For others it is college away. For your son, it lasted a little longer than for others (glad he returned in one piece).
Doc, I don't know if Alex quite fits "la belle indifference". He seemed to be quite aware of the risks and willing to accept them. Of course at that age, most of us are invincible and engage in risky behavior. (i.e. driving too fast, drugs and alcohol, pushing legal limits and other things.)

Dan

Chapter 2- The Stampede Trail

This chapter finds Alex Supertramp, aka Chris McCandless, dead in a bus on the stampede trail.

What do you think of this style of writing where the author gives us the ending in chapter two and then spends the rest of the book painting the backdrop? Would you rather have the ending remain a mystery? Or is the mystery "how did this happen"?

I seems to me that Krakauer's style is a bit dry and newspaperish. What do you think of the flowery Jack London and Leo Tolstoy quotes juxtaposed next to Krakauer's dry style?

Isn't it interesting that Alex idealized Jack London, an author who spent little time in the outdoors and died an overweight drunk at a young age?

Dan

I think the mystery is definitely "how did this happen?" Krakauer's role seems to be that of "investigative reporter."

Too bad Alex didn't idealize Sig Olson or Calvin Rutstrum -- might have made a difference.

You are right Barb; Alex could have picked better authors to idealize.

In the third chapter we learn about Alex's connections to Wayne Westerburg and Carthage, SD. What attracted the two men two each other? On the surface they seem very different, but do they share the same wanderlust? To me, running a custom combine crew is the modern equivalent of a cattle drive. Was there something about Wayne's flaunting of authority (making and selling descramblers) that matched with Alex?

We also get some insight into Chris's school background and lifestyle. Since he considered school a waste of time, why did he stay and get such good grades? What drove the contempt he held for his parents?

Does it seem strange that Chris is at the same time a congenial storyteller who enjoys human interaction and, at the same time, a loner who lived in a "monkish room" in Atlanta, took solo road trips, and would eventually die alone in the wild? I kind of relate to that myself. I really enjoy human interaction an am considered by most to be quite outgoing. On the other hand, I enjoy time alone, especially outdoors hunting, fishing or camping. It seems to recharge my batteries. I really enjoyed my first solo boundary waters trip this year. I have often been a bit puzzled by this seeming contradiction in my personality, but see a similar strain in Alex.

Any others feel this way?

Dan

I just picked up the book yesterday and went through the first five chapters last night. I don't know if Alex was flaunting authority. It seemed to me that if authority fit into his plans he went with it and if it didn't he went with his plans anyway. I also don't think he was "beautifully indifferent". He takes time to make sure (or at least attempt) that he meets his needs.

I enjoy interaction but nothing can surpass some of those short or long periods of solitude one experiences when camping. The amount of this solitude varies from person to person. Overall, we are social creatures to one extent or another.

There are a lot of contradictions in his personality, certainly. Part of that may just be being young, trying on many different ways of being...hard to be sure. I've noticed that I can be quite the chameleon, myself, so maybe that's part of it as well- "protective coloration", trying to resemble the people you are surrounded by. Even more of a reason to be alone, you have a better chance of figuring out who you are when you aren't trying to be like others.

I agree that Sig Olson would have been a better literary icon to model himself after!

As faaar as Wayne and Alex, one of the attractions may have been that they were both intelligewnt, fairly educated men making a go of it in a traditionally pretty redneck line of work?

Mongo; I think you are right. I chose the wrong word; Alex didn't "flaunt" authority; he just bristled at some of the control exerted (or attempted to be exerted) on him by authority.

Dogwoodgirl; good points about "protective coloration". But I do think Alex truly enjoyed both socialization and solitude. I also think you are right about the attractions between Wayne and Alex. They were both intelligent but chose to live in environments that were more "rough edged".

Is this a good way to proceed? I noticed we have not had too many comments posted lately. Is there a better way? Does anyone else have comments about the first five chapters?

I've never been involved in an "on-line book club" so welcome any and all suggestions.

Dan

I've read through chapter 9. I can identify with Alex in many ways. I'm considered a "highly sociable misanthrope" by family and friends, so the sociable loner, Alex or Ruess or any of the others, appeals to me, although I lacked their courage and commitment. I just settle for the 2 week wilderness vacation, but for me it's usually just one week.

I wonder if Alex was really planning to go back to Carthage in the fall, or if he just told them that to make parting easier, the way he pretended to be settling down to his parents after graduating from college.

I finally was able to dig this book out of the attic where it was since we last moved. I think I read this 10 years or so ago, and I although I remember the story, I was suprised what I had forgot from some of his early tramping. I found it strange that he would give away the 25,000 to a good cause. It would be interesting to know more about his thoughts. Why would he give all this money to a good cause, but also not consider the peace corp or other good use of time? Or was he just trying to rid himself of control from his parents, or possibly material wealth to make his tramp experience all the more real. I have read over the years in the paper about a guy who runs an advertising firm in Minneapolis who takes off on the rails and lives like in the summer. Of course, he isn't giving his money away before each trip. As the chapters moved on, as much as Chris gave away the money and even burned some cash, he also buried goods for later retrieval. He is certainly unsettled in his tramping. He is definetly trying to get something out of his system. I was also suprised by his anti government sentiment. This isn't usually something that a kid of his age has from his background. This sentiment is something you expect more from a person who lives in the woods in solitude or small isolated communities. Maybe he feels this is a necessary attitude to have to tramp around free. Or maybe it is tied back to his fathers work for the government and a polarization toward his father. Adopting a new name is probably not that uncommon. I am also reading a biography of Bob Dylan. While Dylan took on a new name and made up an upbringing at time which better fit what he wanted to do or portray, Chris too was taking on another identity. But I get the sense and so did the people who ran into him, that he was real despite hiding his real upbringing.

CaptnDan wrote:
"Isn't it interesting that Alex idealized Jack London, an author who spent little time in the outdoors and died an overweight drunk at a young age?"

Others have commented that Calvin Rustrum and Sig Olsen would have been better role models.

I think people are confusing the artist with the art. London may have had serious personality problems, but he sure told a good tale. I am re-reading the short stories, and they stir the blood and excite the imagination. We mustn't confuse the artist with the art. And of course London was writing fiction. The role model was not London himself but London's fictional character(s).

We have to remember that most of the great artists of the American West wrote and painted from comfortable surroundings in the East. For example, Frederick Remington's studio was in Ridgefield, Connecticut but was recreated at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming in 1973.

Doc

Anyone still reading? Life got busy so I'm just getting back to the book.

Yup. Finished it, actually. I'm hoping to go see the movie if it comes to Duluth. I spent some time up north hiking the SHT, then work got busy and I had to get the garden tucked away for winter. But, I'm still here.

I finished it too. I plan to see the movie. I liked most of the book, can't sau I "enjoyed" it. I thought Krakauer got into his own story more than I thought necessary, although that part was worth reading too.

Krakauer's personal story started me wondering why people do the crazy things they do. I can't imagine he was enjoying himself during his ordeal. I know I've been in situations that are much more fun talking about then they were doing. A group of us were at a paddle-in campsite on Kinzua Reservoir in Pennsylvania. On the way out, there were 25-30 mph tail winds and 2-3 foot waves and whitecaps. Half the time we were surfing (it was a tailwind) and half the time in danger of broaching. We were in open solo canoes. I confess I was uneasy to say the least. An eagle was feeding on shore, and one didn't dare stop paddling to take a picture or even take time to watch.

Anyway, to this day, my friends and I still talk about the "epic" trip that continues to form a bond among us, and we speak fondly of it. At the time, however, I would have given anything to be somewhere else.

Doc

I have also finished the book. I wouldn't say the Chris was a thrill seeker or a survivalist. He seems to fall somewhere in between. You mix into the his own personal ideology and family life and you get a pretty complex individual. Unfortunately his demise came as a result of a plant and not the environment or an animal.

Old Gentleman, I do agree that Krakauer's story was to involved but if he hadn't been overinvolved personally, I don't think the book would ever had been written.

I went to see the movie last night....has anyone else seen it? I thought Sean Penn did a fairly decent job adapting the story for the screen, which is a difficult job. Thoughts on the movie, anyone?

I'm hoping to see it today before it leaves town. More later.