Into the Wild: the Conclusion

So today is the march for life, so a lot of students are out. Because of this I am allowing my students to have a reading day. I think reading is important, and if we don’t model it for them, they see no reason to do it, so there I am, in my chair, front of the room, reading with them. I just finished Into the Wild for the second time, and I’m nearly crying. There are few surprises in the book, especially after having already read it, but there is still something that speaks to the reader, particularly if the reader feels for Chris McCandless.

As the cover states, in April of 1992, Chris McCandless walked into the Alaskan Wilderness after tramping around the country for two years. His body was found four months later. The mystery that builds is not a question of what happened to McCandless as much as why did it happen, and why did he do it. The story of McCandless has resonated with my students, but a large number of them cannot fathom why a man would do these things; the first answer is almost always “mental illness”. What could inspire a man to leave his family, give up his money and most of his belongings, for some grand dream of … something? Krakauer looks to the story of Chris, the people he met along his “quest”, the journal he wrote throughout, as well as the accounts of other men who’ve gone on similar journeys to try to get an answer; he goes so far as to tell his own story of hubris in trying to climb The Devil’s Thumb.

I have to say I admire what McCandless did. I could not leave my wife, or abandon my family the way he does; I also, however, see this as one of the downsides of relationship in general. I am big on freedom and choosing ones own path, but with that comes the realization, at least for me, that I must give up some of my freedoms for other things. McCandless simply does not do this, and the reason most would disagree with him is because it is easier for them to identify with the victims of this choice: the family and friends that are left behind. By becoming angry with McCandless for being selfish in his decision only supports the selfish views of the people that say he is selfish. “How could he do that do his family” could easily be argued with “how could his family prevent him from doing what he needed to do.”

I don’t think I would ever go off into the wild to live by myself, on my own, or even could. I would however love to find out how to live a bit more independently, and I don’t think my wife would completely disagree. We like having access to people, but don’t like having them around all the time, and McCandless, at his roots, believed the same thing (as witnessed in his constant relationships and repeated returns to society).

I would love being able to live independently; without a need for a job, or so many of the requirements that we really seem to put upon ourselves. And I, like the man, Rosellini, from the book, believe that humans may have gone too far (at least Americans) in that we can no longer live solely off the land. We have become a powerful tribe that needs the people around them to survive. I don’t like needing; I’ve always preferred wanting.