Into the Wild Blog #2

I feel that Chris was very aware of the fact that he was unprepared. When he had gotten into the truck with Gallien he was questioned about his materials and Gallien even offered to take him to the city and buy him good equipment but 'Alex' refused. I think that he truly thought that he had all he needed to survive for a while. Chris' story makes him sound pretty depressed and would make the average person lean into thinking that he just wanted to kill himself; however, I take the approach that he just wanted to live on his own and try to exist differently than the average person.

I think that giving away the ending at the beginning was a good choice for this book. I would usually ditch a book if I was told the ending through the narrator or a person it wouldn't matter because I get the feeling that all my anticipation is for nothing. However, in this particular story knowing that Chris was found dead in the back of a bus seems to make me want to know why. Why did he die? Why was he in the bus? Why was he even in Alaska? Krakauer made a good decision by putting that Chris McCandless had died on his journey in the author's note. I think that because it is nonfiction it could persuade many not to read it and even I didn't want to know anything about it, yet when I found out that he had died it put a small amount of interest in me to help me read through the book.

S.O.S I NEED YOUR HELP. I AM INJURED, NEAR DEATH, AND TOO WEAK TO HIKE OUT OF HERE. I AM ALL ALONE, THIS IS NO JOKE. IN THE NAME OF GOD, PLEASE REMAIN TO SAVE ME. I AM OUT COLLECTING BERRIES CLOSE BY AND SHALL RETURN THIS EVENING. THANK YOU, CHRIS MCCANDLESS, AUGUST? (page 12).

This note found on the bus confused me because I knew that the people who found the body were the same who read the note. What i wanted to know was, why would the note be on the door when he had returned? If I wrote a note and left it on my door as I was leaving I would take it off when I returned because I wouldn't need it, but maybe he was just trying to catch someone's attention while he was asleep. I don't think it is possible to understand his logic.

Into the Wild Blog#1

I think that what McCandless did was both admirable and idiotic. He had made a decision to live off the land and see if he could live how people used to and I admire the courage he had to make such a stupid decision. Living off of the land is something I used to think would be easy considering that before we had houses and electronics lives were spent outdoors and those very people knew how to survive harsh weather among other circumstances. Then I discovered how difficult it was for them and that we haven't been raised for that type of living. It was rather normal to live like that for a short while but it was neurotic to choose such a cold area because there are other areas with much more to eat and better chances of surviving. I think that McCandless was doing some soul searching to see if he had led his life on the right path because he was clearly having some doubts about his life choices. I have family and friends whom have hiked journeys because they want to prove that they can. I feel that in some ways it is just a way to show that you are 'manly'. However, when you choose such an area that you would have trouble finding food and possibly your way out I feel that it may just be a stupid idea. It does not appear that he had used his brain very much when he made the decision to live off the land in a cold, less traveled, seemingly foodless area. I really think that it is hard to make a full opinion on McCandless and his ways because no one truly knows why he did it.