i read the book a couple weeks ago.
it is not great literature, but its an ok read. in the end i was not sure if i thought he was an idiot or if he was mentally ill. i think i ended up pitying him more than anything.
i read the book a couple weeks ago.
it is not great literature, but its an ok read. in the end i was not sure if i thought he was an idiot or if he was mentally ill. i think i ended up pitying him more than anything.
See the movie.
Whenever my wife acts like I am crazy for running when it is very cold, or talk about my desire to skydive, scuba, etc, etc, I always reply, " Better to Die trying to LIVE than to Live waiting to DIE." I'm sure that most here would agree.
Not sure I agree wrote:
Pope T-Bag II wrote:At least he lived. More than most can say.
Well if you define "living" as sitting out in a bus in the middle of nowhere eating berries, starving and hating people then sure. By that measure, so did Ted Kasczinsky
Mostly, I'd say, he died
--------------------------------------------
i agree.
he really was not even in the "middle of nowhere." he never got that far. he ended up in an abandoned bus about 20 miles from a town and was in area dotted with cabins that locals lived in in the summer or used for hunting.
think about it, he was LESS than a marathons distance from help. he was only about a 6 hour WALK from a town. the guy even failed at getting to the middle of nowhere.
he got trapped on the other side of a river, had he been smart enough to walk just a few miles downstream, who would have found a way to cross it and get to the other side.
it appears from his notes he let himself get so weak from starvation, and possibly the seeds he was eating, before he decided "gee maybe i should try and get some help."
i just dont see much that is romantic about a mentally ill guy (or a fool, not sure which) starving to death in a forest. it was just sad.
i can see how people think mccandless was just an idiot or maybe even mentally ill but thats just from one perspective. the point can be made that he was pushing the limits which can be seen as romantic i guess. i got the impression that he was tired of doing things the way he was supposed to and approached life in an unconvetional manner. the fact that he was able to turn down a life that seemed so promising by society's standard for something he wanted to do is whats admirable. i do think he had a respect for the environment that he was living in and didn't underestimate it like so many people think he did. he knew it wasn't going to be easy and he knew the smallest mistake in the alaskan wilderness could prove fatal. accidents are accidents and nobody is perfect. for the length of time he was out there is almost seemed that odds were something was going to go wrong.
pogo is Slovak, not smart like Borat
...and now we'll have all kinds of fruitcakes wandering out onto Stampede Trail and getting rescued when they run out food. Sigh.
One of the fascinating things about "Into the Wild" is the extreme polarity of reactions among readers (or viewers) to McCandless' lifestyle. As a senior in college myself, I understood his decision to leave society. I didn't view it as heroic; he had severe family problems that affected his ability to trust and develop relationships with people. His spartan lifestyle was easier, or at least more gratifying, than attempting to live the kind of life that was expected of him.
Is he a hero? No. Should we harangue him for eschewing society and dying alone? No. Mere survival isn't difficult or unique. Conversely, isolating yourself and dying alone doesn't prove some transcendent ideal. I think Penn did a good job keeping the tension between this dichotomy in the film, although it did become a bit sentimental and "survivalist" through the denouement, which remains my major cavil with the film. Certainly a worthy read for non-fiction, and one of the better movies of the past year.
Not sure I agree wrote:
Pope T-Bag II wrote:At least he lived. More than most can say.
Well if you define "living" as sitting out in a bus in the middle of nowhere eating berries, starving and hating people then sure. By that measure, so did Ted Kasczinsky
Mostly, I'd say, he died
I would take that over sitting in an office in the middle of another cookie cutter concrete shit hole eating McDonalds, getting fat and hating having to buy one more thing to keep up with my neighbors. What Ted Kasczinsky did to other people and the suffering he caused them is dispicable. But other than that it seemed like he had life pretty sweet. But of course your free to disagree with me.
Don't get me wrong, McCandless (sp?)story is tragic, but I don't think he died in vain either. The key is finding a balance, and that's pretty tough to do.
Pope T-Bag II wrote:
I would take that over sitting in an office in the middle of another cookie cutter concrete shit hole eating McDonalds, getting fat and hating having to buy one more thing to keep up with my neighbors.
It's not an either-or situation. You don't to reject society and humanity to live. But he was just a screwed up kid who like most kids had an idea in his head that nobody could shake him of. it is too bad he had to learn wisdom the hard way
man, i watched this movie last night and i've got to say that i'm still feeling depressed today. very moving film but not neccesarily in a good way...i don't think i'd watch it again. i thought this movie would make me want to pack up and quit my job - it actaully had the opposite effect.
Haven't seen the film, but love Love LOVE the soundtrack. Granted I'm a bigtime PJ and Ed Ved fan, but still. I'm in the process of buying a house and I keep thinking of the line "everyone I come across in cages they've bought," thinking how I'll never be able to afford the long vacations I used to take to random places. Kind of depressing.
see the movie, i don't think you'll feel so bad about the house after that..
I just saw the movie yesterday. I loved it. But it certainly didn't make me want to live in the wild or abandon society. It's true that people treat each other terribly and I can certainly see why McCandless was disgusted by modern society at times.
But the film showed that McCandless was really just running from relationships. Many drifters like to romanticize the nomadic life like their is some kind of spiritual truth to be found by wandering from one casual relationship to another. While it's good that such a lifestyle often means that you aren't trying to control anyone, it also means you aren't really there for anyone. As much as society and family sucks sometimes, I think the greater spiritual truth can be found by sticking by people, despite the things we don't like about them. And that's what McCandless learned I think in his final few days, according to the film at least.
anybody else think that 16 year old hippie was hot?
i'd hit it!
literati wrote:
One of the fascinating things about "Into the Wild" is the extreme polarity of reactions among readers (or viewers) to McCandless' lifestyle. As a senior in college myself, I understood his decision to leave society. I didn't view it as heroic; he had severe family problems that affected his ability to trust and develop relationships with people. His spartan lifestyle was easier, or at least more gratifying, than attempting to live the kind of life that was expected of him.
Is he a hero? No. Should we harangue him for eschewing society and dying alone? No. Mere survival isn't difficult or unique. Conversely, isolating yourself and dying alone doesn't prove some transcendent ideal. I think Penn did a good job keeping the tension between this dichotomy in the film, although it did become a bit sentimental and "survivalist" through the denouement, which remains my major cavil with the film. Certainly a worthy read for non-fiction, and one of the better movies of the past year.
harangue...eschewing...dichotomy...denouement...cavil...
What pompous, self-inflated language...wow, you must be one heck of a film critic...
You can get away with one or two of those words--gives your text some weight--but all of them make it seem like you're working a bit too hard...big words are not the cornerstone to good writing (or thought)...
I liked the book and the movie. I can definitely relate to the urge people have to drop it all and disappear. I've found the idea appealing but not for the same reasons as McCandless. I would never do it though, too many commitments that I can't imagine abandoning. I think people that dream of dropping out of society don't realize how lonely it can be. I would guess that people that have attempted to drop out didn't last long as they missed stability and their relationships too much.
I started a thread about the movie the other day that got deleted.
Here's my analysis: the movie sucked. Anyone who "learned" anything from it is a total moron. Furthermore, anyone who got all depressed after seeing it should seek counseling because they have a mind weaker than a wet napkin.
There you go, jerks.
ignorant poster wrote:
harangue...eschewing...dichotomy...denouement...cavil...
What pompous, self-inflated language...wow, you must be one heck of a film critic...
You can get away with one or two of those words--gives your text some weight--but all of them make it seem like you're working a bit too hard...big words are not the cornerstone to good writing (or thought)...
Man, you must not have too large of a vocabulary. "Big words", Ha! Good one Cleitus. You learn'd him good.
A bunch of college nimrods who think they have it tough because mommy and daddy paid their way through school and now (GASP!) they have to make a living on their own...."I want to drop out of society", they say, well kids -- you were never really IN society. Or at least not in any way that mattered or made society any better. Starving in a bus 20 miles from town isn't noble, it's stupid. Get a grip!