Answer TWO of
the following:
Q1: Krakauer
prefaces every chapter with quotes, some from the books McCandless read, and
others from books which the author feels mirror McCandless’ journey. Discuss a
specific quote that you feel helps illustrate the larger themes in that
chapter. Where do we see a connection between life and literature in McCandless’
life?
Q2: In Chapter
Three, Westerberg writes that McCandless was “extremely ethical. He set pretty
high standards for himself” (18). How does this seem to balance with the young
man who lies to his parents, leaves for Alaska without telling anyone (or ever
speaking to his family again), and refuses to follow the rules of society? Is
he a con man, who plays different roles for different people? Or does he simply
define ethics differently from the average citizen (or from his parents)?
Q3: Does
McCandless have a fully-formed philosophy of life as Candide does? Or do you
feel he’s still working towards it by Chapter Five of the book? If he does, is
it more like Candide’s notion that “everything happens for the best,” or does
it more resemble Martin’s view that “the point of the world is to drive us mad”?
Q4: McCandless,
after virtually starving on his journey in the Grand Canyon, he writes that “his
spirit is soaring,” and “It is the experiences, the memories, the great
triumphant joy of living to the fullest extent in which real meaning if found”
(37). What do you think he finds by living ‘on the road’? Why is this life more
fulfilling for him than what he had before? Is he simply fleeing responsibility
and expectations, or does this explain his actual philosophy of life?
3. (Third time I've written this XP) oddly enough, he has very little in common with Candide. His journey, for one, is much more tame. He also doesn't have a specific goal or really even a philosophy. More like a wish list. To live off the land. To not be indebted to society or held up by their standards. And whatever he's searching for seems to be perpetually somewhere far away from wherever he rests his head.
ReplyDelete4. I think he's drunk off of the possibility of these philosophies he favors. And the fact that hes, for the first time in his life, truly living through the act of surviving. He's probably all kinds of cocky after what he's gone through with so little to actually live with. I know I'd probably strut a bit after somehow managing to survive nature like he has.
Sorry...did your earlier ones get erased? Write it on Word and copy and paste so you don't lose it.
DeleteYes, he doesn't want to be indebted to anyone--his parents or his friends. He has a need to be totally self-sufficient, and yet as other travelers show, this is no longer possible in our world. So in a way, he wants to go back in time and going "into the wild" is the closest thing to a time machine for him. Of course, there's a danger in seeing one place is a cure-all for all your problems, or even as the ultimate destination. In a sense, he's made a metaphor a real place, and it can never be what he expects it to be. The question remains, would he have been satisfied with the manner of his death? Was that, too, part of his philosophy?
3. I don't think Mccandleuss has a fully-formed philosophy like Candide aside from everything will be better once he is away from people. So I believe he is still working in it towards chapter 5. Saying that I believe that he dislikes America as it is and has Martin's views on the "civil" world. Yet has a Candide view when it comes to the wild.
ReplyDelete4. To some degree I believe that he is dalerious from lack of food for to long. Though I know he is proud to be taking care of himself. Given he did have to work for his degree, since he was so well off, he never had to worry about working day to day to survive like he is now. So I believe he does have some since of triumph over living totally on his own.
Yes, he is a combination of both: he is Martin when it comes to society/civilization, but Candide when it comes to Nature. He thinks society hurts him and torments him, whereas Nature nurtures and protects. So it's quite ironic that he dies alone in Nature. I think in a way he would have wanted it this way, though his final note somewhat contradicts this.
DeleteMarlee Lyle,
ReplyDelete4. Mccandleuss liked the thought of having to survive in Alaskan Bush. He headed out lacking the essential requirements to stay alive in my perception but he wanted the CHALLENGE for himself. I believe he found this fulfilling because this was something he had to take on by himself in which he was giving so much he no longer wanted the "easy". He shows a since actual philosophy as he leaves his home and doesn't use his degree and sets out to where he is now just trying to survive.
3. Mccandleuss shows a different sense of philosophy as Candide did. Mccandleuss knew that he had to make a change to get to the "better life" while Candide continued to do the same hoping for a better life in return.
Yes, for him it was a challenge--maybe even a game. How long could he go without eating anything but berries? How far could he walk in a day? Etc. And this is a great mental and physical challenge that few people put themselves to these days. And yet, by focusing only on these challenges, are there other challenges he is deliberately avoiding--the challenge of building relationships? Accepting responsibilities? Forging a philosophy/identity not cribbed from his favorite books?
DeleteQ1: “I wanted movement and not a calm course of existence. I wanted excitement and danger and the chance to sacrifice myself for my love. I felt in myself a superabundance of energy which found no outlet in our quiet life.” – Leo Tolstoy (pg. 15). This quote in chapter three speaks about the type of spirit he is. He didn’t want to live in a boring life were there isn’t much to do. He wants to live his life the way he wants not the way everyone has told him to live. He would rather go and live in the wild instead of living in society. He looks for the beauty in the world, through his journey.
ReplyDeleteQ4: He thinks even though I might not have food, and might die but at least my spirit is soaring. Having left behind all the possessions in society to fulfill the want to be like London. London is his favorite, he wrote a book called Call of the Wild where he went out into the wild but ends up dying, McCandless doesn’t know all thinks is he did it so I can to. When McCandless goes into the Alaska wilderness he doesn’t realizes what is about to happen to him as a person. After a while he realizes this isn’t what he thought leaving behind society would be like.
Bailey Copeland
Yes, you make a good point: how much of his philosophy is simply based on a young man's quest for activity and avoiding responsibility/boredom? To him, the wild represents everything that is free and uninhibited. And we appreciate that side of him, but we also wonder whether he's expecting too much of Nature and too little of Life.
DeleteQ2: Mccandleuss abandons the normal constructs of a capitalist society as if he is striving to reach a more ethical or morally fulfilled life. In his experience, events in his life seem to create this reaction in him, not from an altruistic motivation to seek the greater good, but rather as a reaction that is rooted in anger towards specific individuals that he thinks have failed to live ethical lives. Perhaps he treats his parents so poorly because he finds them guilty of living the very type of life that he is so vehemently against, maybe they are the source of his anger towards society.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I think that Mccandleuss is similar to Candide in that they both believe that there is a "best possible world." Candide thought that he was in the best of all possible worlds and Mccandleuss is searching for what he thinks will be the best of all possible worlds. In this, they are both optimists. I think that there is no one best possible world because ultimately there is only one world, the one in which we all live together, and this world can be both heaven and hell at any possible time. I do think that Candide's philosophy at the end of his story is more similar to what Mccandleuss feels at this point, this idea that working hard is an ethical means to a happy or more fulfilled life.
Yes, we'll see why he hates his parents soon enough, and you can judge whether or not he's justified. But he does believe that they represent the lazy, indifferent life of far too many Americans. He seems to worry that people become tied up in their possessions and their pursuit of wealth, and ignore the beauty all around them. He seems to want to experience it all, everywhere, hence his "itchy feet." However, he places blind trust in the Road and that it, and not society, offers the perfect world and El Dorado.
DeleteEh, my comment didn't post for some reason. And it was really good :(
ReplyDeleteOh well...
Q2: The reader gets the notion that Chris is a very selfish person for abandoning his life and not telling anyone where he was going. He is quite selfish, making his parents worry about him for two years. However, in the grand scheme of things, he isn't necessarily in the wrong for becoming a nomad, roaming the country in search of ...something. Chris was an independent young man perfectly capable of making his own decisions, and choosing his own path in life. Contrary to the layman belief, not everyone needs to go to school for seventeen years, get a diploma, sit behind a desk for thirty more years, get married, have children, etc. But everyone does have to die one day. Like most people, Chris is very aware that his life shouldn't go to waste. So this young, extremely intelligent, capitalist (according to his mother Billie) goes out into the country to live his own life as he pleases.
Q4: If you've read On The Road by Jack Kerouac, anything by Jack London, or hell even the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, you know that this sense of adventure, rebellion, freedom, and the urge to spread our wings has been apart of American culture since a bunch of uppity Bostonian's threw British tea into Boston harbor. Krakauer in chapters 8 and 9 details the stories of a few other men who had decided to trek the United States on their own volition, and died, but more specifically when, on the brink of death, decided they had made a mistake. Chris ended up doing the same thing with his note we see in chapter one. He realizes that it isn't a joke anymore, that he's going to die. However, the thing to take away from it is, he lived and died on his own terms. We shouldn't criticize him for that.
Sorry it got erased! I recommend not writing them on here the first time, but cut and paste from Word just in case.
DeleteYes, he lived on his own terms and wanted to experience life with the thrill of death. And yet, is there something selfish is risking your life this way, especially when being part of nature doesn't require foolhardiness. We see this in the story of many other travelers such as Ruess, McGunn, etc., who throw themselves heedlessly into danger simply to experience something greater. And yet, most of them seemed to have been genuinely surprised when danger met them head-on. Since all of these travelers are quite young, too, I wonder how much of this is psychology/youth talking and how much is actually philosophy? Do we give them too much credit to see them as a modern-day sages? Or do we judge them too harshly since we're not willing to live this way ourselves?
Question 2:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I'm saying that we don't have any responsibilities to other people and our environment. We can't all dive into Civil Disobedience like Chris McCandless does--that would destabilize society. I know that however much I fantasize about packing up my car and driving away, actually doing so would be much harder. For one--who would take care of my pets? But...what obligations *did* McCandless have towards his parents? Was it really so evil, his running away without their permission? He was an adult. We can't exactly call him an indifferent or selfish person--he stayed in touch with the friends he made on the road. He seemed to believe in keeping only the bonds he chose, not those which were thrust upon him at birth. As an adopted daughter, I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Question Three--
In so many ways the things McCandless was quoted as saying comes across like the outbursts of smug, privileged young people who think all their complaints about the world are original. We roll our eyes at guys like him all the time. We might have rolled our eyes at Christopher McCandless if he didn't try his best to live up to those ideals he preached. He did have a philosophy for his life--but, like all philosophies, it was flawed. That doesn't make it any less brave.
In many ways, I'm intensely jealous of this character. I don't think he was a con man and I don't think he was insane to do what he did. I have to choke back the urge to run away all the time. Chiefly, its fear that holds me back, so when an opportunity for adventure comes up I try to ask myself, "What would I do if I *was* someone who was brave enough to try this?" I think think that's who 'Alex' is--just the person Chris McCandless wanted to be, the vision of himself who could be brave enough to say 'yes' to adventure, even when it scared him.
Great responses...however, consider Q1 from a parent's perspective. He licked to pick and choose his responsibilities, but a parent can't choose--they will always love and be devoted to their children (unless they're monsters). He willingly toyed with that bond and used it to hurt them (we'll learn why later, and see if it's justifiable), which speaks more of pettiness to me than true liberation. I think he was too young to realize that every connection you make with other people has deep repercussions, and the only way not to carry emotional baggage is not to make friends at all. He hurt many people on his adventure of the self, and I think he begins to realize this at the end (but no spoilers!)
Delete