Into the wild

As of 05.03.2015, there are 2,249 reviews of "Into The Wild", with 489, or 22%, being negative, leaving 1,760 as positive. With so many reviews, another one either gushing with praise or heaping contempt would be at most a redundancy, and at worst a waste of my time as well as the reader of this review.To fully appreciate this book as Krakauer wrote it (and as Christopher would have as well), the reader should ideally be pre-possessed with a sense of spirituality of some form, and an intellect that is open to perspectives other than their own. The mind that is closed to concepts unfamiliar to them, or so pragmatic in their life-view that deviations from common sense cannot be reconciled with the world beyond our five senses will be ill-suited to this recounting of an incredible journey of a soul; the awakening, the flowering of, and (where McCandless leaves 99.99% of us behind) the implementation of exploring the world through the eyes of a curious and life-loving ascetic.This book is about the journey and evolution of a human soul. Christopher McCandless was a modern day John Muir, Jack London, George Mallory, Henry David Thoreau. Just as these men were misunderstood in their day, so to is Alex in ours. (I shall call him Alex in favor of his given name- I do so in tribute to his spirit.). It is an unfortunate component of human beings to fear, mock, disparage and/or otherwise criticize that which they don't understand. Lesser minds revert to childish mannerisms when confronted with the amazing searcher born Christopher Johnson McCandless. In opting to call himself Alexander Supertramp, Christopher baptized himself as the owner of his own soul, setting free the constrictions placed upon and expected of the young man born Christopher Johnson McCandless. As Alex, his experience was his own. He had the wisdom to realize this amazing gift of life. That realization is not unique; many of us feel this way. And this is where Into The Wild becomes more than a recitation of a young man's journey.Where Alex, along with Muir, London, et al. transcend the common man is in the action of embracing life and squeezing every moment of this lovely existence, whereas most of us stop at the point of simply acknowledging the gift of life and, bowing our heads, return to the self-imposed drudgery we accept as a yoke. This acceptance is bred into us from birth, and the mechanisms for seeing beyond the veil of this world are closed to all but the most inquisitive, intrepid and soulful beings. Alex went into the wild, but not just the Alaskan wild, but the 'wild' journey of learning what it means to be truly alive.Let us pretend every person born is presented a new bicycle on a certain day of a certain age. This bike is promised to transport them to strange unknown lands and present them with a vividness of experience not found in the world of the unsat upon bike. But the caveat presented is that with the promise of such wondrous experience comes the potential of danger and loss of life. When presented with this bike, and the conditions explained, the vast majority of human beings will opt out of the ride for fear of that potential danger and possible death. Alex was not afraid of the bike, and like his forebears of renown, pedaled hard and fast, and as a result lived a richer life in his twenty odd years than millions, nay, billions, of those that passed on the offer. I myself sat upon the bike, but like so many, and to my sorrow, hopped off shortly thereafter and slipped on the yoke of the common ox.I dismiss en masse' the ignorance of those claiming Alex was an unprepared fool and got what he deserved. There is a surprisingly large compendium cataloging his errors. He didn't bring a map. He had no compass. He didn't bring enough food. The list goes on and on. And in one sense, these people are correct. But then, these are people so afraid of death they are unwilling to live. They define life as a good job, a nice car and vacation memories. Krakauer deftly and brilliantly defines how Alex did not accept a life with vacation memories; he wanted life itself to be the vacation. As Hunter S. Thompson said, “You bought the ticket, now take the ride”. Alex did just that, and though his ride ended in an early death, who are we to define and restrict his search for a rich and vast experience? Who are we, safe in our homes and chained to a job, to criticize a man for having the stones to lay it all on the line?Was it foolish of John Muir to climb 100 feet up to the swaying branches of a Douglas Fir and ride out a wild mountain storm? By the parameters of the yoked, it was. But to those rare individuals like Muir, (and Alex) to revel in the action of life and, oh so importantly, to put his own life on the line for the experience and nothing more; well, there you will find the world of Alexander Supertramp.Into The Wild is more than a book. More than a story. It is a treatise on how to truly live, and if one can shed the programming of this construct for even the few short hours of this read, then that bike might be waiting, eager for you to hop on board.

NARRATIVE ARC AND PARALLEL STRUCTURE– IN A NON-FICTION NOVELWhen Jon Krakaur wrote an account of the untimely death of a young man who went into the wilds of Alaska with little more than his wits, he was faced with the daunting task of how he would write the story. In this creative non-fiction story, Krakaur used craft techniques that he could use in keeping a reader interested, particularly where most readers would know the ending before the story even began. Krakaur had already reported about Christopher Johnson McCandless’ fateful quest in Outside magazine. McCandless obviously examined the structure of any story, exposition, rising action, crisis, climax and denouncement, or resolution, and began to form how best to tell McCandless’ tragic story. He borrows the narrative arc technique from fiction, and uses parallel structure, interspersing several small stories, each with a different protagonist and antagonist, but with a common theme running through each, that ties the resolution together.Krakaur’s story has a quasi-linear plot, with characters and setting, rising action, with conflicts and complications, and finally a resolution, where the ultimate question that had plagued the character from the start is resolved—except there are two main characters in this story, a story of layered structure, similar to Emily Bronte’s epic story, Wuthering Heights—McCandless, who, prior to his death finds that true happiness can only be found in sharing it, (Krakaur, 189) and Krakaur himself, who tells the story of his investigation and resolves the mystery of McCandless death that had been plaguing him for some time; poison sweet pea berries actually killed McCandless, not starvation from inexperience; and at the end, the restless look in his eyes was replaced with a look of serenity and peace. (Krakaur, 198-99).From start to finish, the story is simply about this educated young man from a well-to-do Washington D.C. family who hitchhiked to Alaska in April of 1992, walked into the Alaskan forest with a small caliber hunting rifle, and minimal provisions, and died of what appeared to be starvation after surviving several months in the wild. The readers simply thought McCandless an imprudent, idealist who was ill prepared to meet the challenge. Krakaur wrote, “McCandless was ridiculously ill prepared [] he had no business heading into any wilderness … [there was] only one word for the guy: incompetent.” (Krakaur, 177). In researching, and investigating this case for a novel, Krakaur found out differently.Having been a similar wild youth, Krakaur wanted to show the reader “Why” some men hear the call of the wild, and do things that most others would be satisfied simply dreaming about. McCandless’ story was larger than life, and the perfect vehicle for Krakaur to propound his answer to the question. Although ostensibly about McCandless, this story is Krakaur’s memoir—his memory’s truth, stating: “I was haunted by the particulars of the boy’s starvation and by vague unsettling parallels in his life, and those of my own”(Krakaur, Author’s note, p.2). He uses parallel structure to answer the resolution to an age old question, and the death of one young man—who found out too late, that “Happiness [is] only real when [it’s] shared”. (Krakaur, 189).In using the stories of various other explorers, including his own, Krakaur proposes his theory, injecting it into the story as a resolution to the question that he poses in the beginning, why would someone want to walk deep into the bush and live off the land for a few months. (Krakaur, 4). Krakaur injects the question again through one of his characters, the boy’s mother, Billie: “I just don’t know why he had to take those kind of chances…” (Krakaur, 132). Thus, the reader is compelled to read on to find the answer, the resolution, that arrived after the death of the boy (climax of the story), and into the denouncement (resolution).Krakaur begins his story in medias res (Krakaur, 3) and McCandless is dropped off by Gallion, an man with some experience in Alaska, and rising action builds almost immediately from the introduction of these characters where he remarks:Still, Gallien was concerned. Alex admitted that the only food inhis pack was a ten-pound bag of rice. His gear seemed exceedingly minimalfor the harsh conditions of the interior, which in April still lay buried underthe winter snowpack. Alex’s cheap leather hiking boots were neither waterproof nor well insulated. His rifle was onl .22 caliber, a bore too small to rely on if heexpected to kill large animals like moose and caribou, which he would have toeat if he hoped to remain very long in the county. He had no ax, no bug dope,no snowshoes, no compass. The only navigational aid in his possession was atattered state road map he’d scrounged at a gas station. (Krakaur, 5).This sets up the complications and conflict posed by man against nature, albeit not the main focus of the story. The action continues to rise throughout the author’s creative use of setting as he describes the land McCandless attempts to enter as ominous and remote. He writes: “A hundred miles out of Fairbanks the highway begins to climb into the foothills of the Alaska Range… the Stampede Trail … seldom traveled, [] isn’t even marked on most road maps of Alaska… in the middle of trackless wilderness north of Mt. McKinley.” (Krakaur, 5).The story then jumps back to the preparations made by McCandless prior to his trek into the wild Alaska forest, breaking into the scenes of his troubled stay in the wild, and after describing the details of his short adult life, and death, it follows with Krakaur’s own memoir of not only his investigation (a layered technique) but the parallel story of his own youth, attempting to climb an impossible summit, and the stories of other persons who appeared to be equally imprudent.Krakaur’s character begins to emerge in Chapter 8, where he examines the criticism he received from readers after the story he wrote about McCandless. “The prevailing Alaska wisdom held that McCandless was simply one more dreamy half-cocked greenhorn who went into the country expecting to find answers to all his problems and instead found only mosquitoes and a lonely death.” (Krakaur, 72). Krakaur then descends into a series of several parallel stories of other explorers to show the reader why this theory of foolhardy youth is not the case in McCandless’ death. “Dozens of marginal characters have marched off into the Alaska wilds over the years never to reappear. A few have lodged firmly in the state’s collective memory.” (Krakaur, 72). He then tells the stories of counterculture idealists, military leaders, wealthy academics, writers, and photographers, like Rossellini, John Mallon Waterman, Carl McCunn, and Everett Reuss, with varying stories, some similar, others in contrast to McCandless. Reuss wrote: “I shall always be a lone wanderer, of the wilderness. God knows how the trail lures me… the lone trail is the best…I’ll never stop wandering… And when it comes to die, I’ll find the loneliest, most desolate, spot there is.” (Krakaur: Reuss, 91).But Krakaur recognizes that McCandless was no idealist, no crackpot, nor foolhardy wanderer who took chances with his life, nor failed to appreciate the risks. McCandless writes: “If this adventure proves fatal and you don’t ever hear from me again I want you to know you are a great man. I now walk into the wild.” (Krakaur, 133-34). Having read the other parallel stories that ended in disaster for most, the reader is now enticed to find out why. It was his own portion of the book that was his memoir, that Krakaur feeds the reader a resolution to the story behind the death of McCandless.I was twenty three, younger than McCandless, when he walkedinto the Alaska bush. My reasoning, if one can call it that, wasenflamed with the scattershot passions of youth and a literary dietoverly rich in the works of Nietzsche, Keroac, and John Menlove Edwards, the later a deeply troubled writer and psychiatrist who,before putting an end to his life with a cyanide capsule in 1958,had been one of the preeminent British rock climbers of the day.Edwards regarded rock climbing as a “Psycho-neurotic tendency”;he climbed not for sport, but to find refuge from the inner tormentthat framed his existence. (Krakauer, 135).Krakauer allows the reader to draw its own conclusion but only after he sets up these parallel stories to draw the comparison. He further exalts McCandless’ obsession to go into the wilderness as not simply a youthful whim, but much more. He presents the reader with his own Alaskan wilderness story, replete with inner thoughts, and an epiphany, that strongly suggests the resolution the reader should find in the denoument of McCandless’ story. Although the grueling story of Krakauer’s experience to cross treacherous terrain to climb an icy face of Devil’s Thumb, seemed much more dangerous an ordeal than that which McCandless put himself through, the author completes the narrative arc quite effectively by drawing a resolution in parallel story of his feat. Comparing the “skewed relationships” each had with their fathers, the “similar intensity, similar heedlessness, and similar agitation of the soul”, the reader is satisfied that McCandless died from a freakish accident, and was driven to the wilderness not by a death wish but by some deep seated desire to accomplish some impossible feat that would help fix his broken life. (Krakauer, 155). The reader is compelled to believe McCandless, if he survived, would feel the same way as Krakauer, “I suffered from hubris, perhaps, and an appealing innocence, certainly, but I wasn’t suicidal;” and as the parallel story implies, neither was McCandless. (Krakauer,155). Thus, the narrative arc is complete, with the resolution.____________________Krakauer, Jon. Into The Wild. Random House. New York. 1996.Bronte, Emily. Wuthering Heights. The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.New York. 2010.

Whatever you think about the subject of the book, Krakauer's telling of the story, weaving in his own and parallel narratives of young men gripped by a desire to test themselves by walking into the wild, is so masterful that it would be hard not to be mesmerized. When addressing the question of whether McCandless was suicidal, the author draws on his own adventure climbing Devil's Thumb:"At that stage of my youth, death remained as abstract a concept as non-Euclidean geometry or marriage. I didn’t yet appreciate its terrible finality or the havoc it could wreak on those who’d entrusted the deceased with their hearts. I was stirred by the dark mystery of mortality. I couldn’t resist stealing up to the edge of doom and peering over the brink. The hint of what was concealed in those shadows terrified me, but I caught sight of something in the glimpse, some forbidden and elemental riddle that was no less compelling than the sweet, hidden petals of a woman’s sex. In my case— and, I believe, in the case of Chris McCandless— that was a very different thing from wanting to die."The quotations from Thoreau to Tolstoy to Jack London (usually sections found highlighted by Chris McCandless) place what could have been a pathetic, self-absorbed adventure gone terribly wrong into a much larger context, making it all start to make sense by the end of the book."...suddenly you were on your own, you had to learn to walk by yourself. There was no one around, neither family nor people whose judgment you respected. At such a time you felt the need of committing yourself to something absolute— life or truth or beauty— of being ruled by it in place of the man-made rules that had been discarded. You needed to surrender to some such ultimate purpose more fully, more unreservedly than you had ever done in the old familiar, peaceful days, in the old life that was now abolished and gone for good."BORIS PASTERNAK, DOCTOR ZHIVAGO PASSAGE HIGHLIGHTED IN ONE OF THE BOOKS FOUND WITH CHRIS MCCANDLESS’S REMAINS."I do not share McCandless's obsession with "the wild" but like most of us with a Y chromosome, I can relate at some primitive level. Our species evolved because of our extraordinary curiosity and desire to roam. Our ancestors all walked out of Africa only a few hundred thousand years ago and we have been walking ever since. The idea that there is nothing untamed left to explore or experience offends us somehow. McCandless took this idea to a ridiculous, tragic extreme, but it's hard not to respect the spirit driving him even if we can shake our heads at his naïveté.There are more questions than answers about this young man and his demise - did he realize he wasn't really in the wild after all but a few miles from a major highway? was he the one who vandalized and trashed the nearby well-stocked cabins? what exactly did he eat that may have so suddenly incapacitated him after he had survived so long on his own wits (and firearms)? had he survived, would he have returned home and reconciled with his family, having answered whatever burning question he had to answer on his own?I feel that Krakauer is inviting us into a crime scene. We have a body, some clues, but so many more questions. What Krakauer excels at developing is motive, taking us into the mind of this young man (who the author annoyingly refers to as a "boy" although he was approaching his mid-twenties) and walking us through his final days.It's a fascinating, gripping read. If I could give it 6 starts, I would.

I read Joh Krakauer's other mountaineering books Into Thin Air ...5 stars and Eiger Dreams 4 stars. I like him as an author, so I bought Into The Wild.Into The Wild is a true story, 209 pages of interesting comment mainly about Chris McCandless a young college graduate who withdrew totally from his parents and a lot of society, gave $25,000 to Charity, dumped his car and headed to the deep wilderness of Alaska. He was looking to find the enjoyment of living off the land with as little outside help as possible. The book reads fast and is a joy to read.Ill give you some tidbits to wet your appetite without ruining the story.Krakauer traces Chris's route through infrequent letters, postcards and interviews with some of the people Chris "Alex" met. The few friends he made liked young Chris who changed his name to Alex Supertramp. "Alex" was intelligent, a college grad, an avid book reader who had major ideas of freedom in a wilderness without civilization. He liked authors like Jack London, Thoreau and Tolstoy and authors who liked simple nature without the strangulation of civilization.Many thought "Alex' had a death wish to go into deep wilderness Alaska alone and very unprepared with very limited supplies, no heavy guns and little food. He had a big bag of rice and ate native plants, berries and the small game he could get. He does shoot a small moose but much of the meat spoils as he didn't know how to make jerky. Alex was no woodsman and very inexperienced. He becomes trapped and cant get out. Krakauer shows he may have poisoned himself accidently eating the wrong part of the wild potato plant. This alkaloid part would not let his starving body metabolize the limited food he could get. We see poor Chris "Alex" losing massive amounts of weight and strength. He lasts over 100 days and tries to get help,knows he is dieing, and dies in an old broken down, gutted bus in the middle of nowhere.He had no US geological maps and was only 6 miles from a few cabins that may have had some food and 2 miles from a easier wade through a fast running potentially lethal river. Very poor almost no planning.The reader develops empathy for poor Chris "Alex", his parents, sister and the few friends he meets on his journey. I felt sorry for the young man and could understand his wanting to see the beauty of nature in deep Alaska by himself but not his lack of planning and complete abandoning of his family. INMO the kid had serious issues but was not suicidal.Jon Krakauer gives his perspective having climbed the difficult Devils Thumb in Alaska. Also about his earlier years as a framing carpenter and comparing his earlier life with young Chris. Having read about this in another of his books, this part was a little redundant.I won't ruin the sad ending for you. Another great book by Joh Krakauer and proudly added to our family library. 4 1/2 stars

Jon Krakauer gives a boy found in Alaska a name in Into the Wild and gives his audience a harsh dose of reality through this excruciating story. After taking interest in the “puzzling circumstances” of Christopher’s situation Krakauer made it his job to tell his story since he was no longer able to because it was one worth hearing. It brings into question the idea of forgiveness, family, and finding our own path. How do we deal with this freedom of the world and do we lose ourselves when we give over to it? Does having this amount of freedom ultimately force people, like Christopher, to end up alone?In Krakauer’s book the end happens at the beginning, the audience knows the unfortunate fate of Chris McCandless, but it is this painful event that makes the curiosity of wondering what happened all the more alluring. There is an attachment to him by knowing his story and knowing that his family misunderstood him, and he wanted “disappear for a while” to which they weren’t even originally concerned about. Much like many people in this world, Chris felt alone in a sea of people, things didn’t mean anything when they weren’t coming from a place of understanding.Even though that’s how Krakauer expresses Chris’ mindset to be his parents were “terribly concerned over Chris’ vanishing act” and were doing everything to find him. Do we all not know how loved we truly are until it’s too late? Do we even discover then that there were people who cared that we left behind? Living a life on independence and flying by his wit was ultimately what brought Chris to his tragic end, alone in Alaska, though free to do whatever he pleases just at what cost? Instead, Chris did not want to be found and changed his name, got rid of his college fund, and disappeared. In a time now where many people want to be free and have nothing tying them down, this vanishing act is quite plausible and not knowing who they may be leaving behind.The structure of this story skips between Chris, his family, and after he’s already passed. The passage of time expresses the understanding of the whole story rather than just the one person (Chris), but everyone else who was affected around him. One action, one person, one decision that alters the reality of many people not just the singular. All these small moments like working for a McDonalds, meeting Franz, these people remember him even after he’s gone. His impact, though at the time may have seemed minute, still leaves an impression on those around him. When Franz learned what happened to the boy he “renounced the Lord”, all because of the passing of Chris. While on his journey to self-discovery, Chris may have not known his actions meant anything to anyone, instead there’s the irony that he changed people’s after he’d already gone.From there it goes a bit slower, after the initial blow of Chris’ passing there is a lull watching his journey. Krakauer could be outlining the sad reality that’s how freedom is, boring, and much duller than one may believe. Although, it’s more convincing that some stories just drag a bit in the middle. Once Krakauer brings in his own life to the story where his father attempts suicide, it clarifies the concern that for Chris what he was doing was “very different thing from wanting to die.” It brings forth the question of: does this want for freedom ultimately lead to demise because to be free is to be dead? Even though Chris was in “relative proximity from the bus to civilization, for all practical purposes [he] was cut off from the rest of the world” so within reach but he was too far gone down this path to turn back. He didn’t want to know that he was close to civilization. To reach ultimate freedom, did Chris have to give up his life?Into the Wild is an expression of warning in terms of what can happen by the decisions people make. A domino effect of one’s choices can change so many people’s lives, but ultimately if one is on a path to ultimate freedom there may only be one option to truly release humanity into a world that is entirely their own, death but at the cost of ending up alone, changing lives he will never know.

This was an excellent book about an unconventional young man who rejected modern society. Despite a happy childhood and loving family, he rebelled and decided to live life in the wild. Guided by books by Thoreau and London among others, this intelligent young man traveled the country hitchhiking and camping. Along the way, he met a few individuals whose lives he touched and attempted to get him to settle down and contact his parents, which he refused to do. He decided that he was going to Alaska to live off the land. That turned into the biggest mistake of his life. Impulsively, he did little preparation, nor did he study the route, climate or other factors required. Alaska is like few states and many perish. He joined their number, only learning that lesson at the very end. A sad, but interesting book that keeps you gripped even though you know the outcome. It was so sad for the family to discover. The author had first published this as an article, which became the most popular one. I'm glad he chose to write a book about this. Some people are stubborn and never learn, McCandless did when it was far too late and didn't listen when others tried to help.

Into The Wild- Jon KrakauerDov GuggenheimWhen a teenager picks up a book that is seemingly on his reading level, the suspected genre is usually either fiction, non-fiction, or science fiction. One would also suspect the book to be one storyline, a plot that involves a main character, a conflict, and how the conflict was resolved. "Into The Wild" is absolutely none of this. Into the wild does have a main character, Christopher McCandless, who decides to leave a life with many advantages, lots of money, and a college degree, to go into the wild. But that is the only similarity. From case studies, to the exciting twists and turns of a rebellious young adult's life, and people he meets on his journey, the part biography, part non-fiction, part case study book "Into The Wild" is anything but a normal book."Into The Wild" is a book relating to the story of Christopher McCandless(who changes his name to Alex Supertramp), a well-to-do man who recently graduated from Emory University. His father, Walt, always pressures him to be perfect, and Christopher hates his father and everything about him, like his constant, imprudent chase of material happiness, and having two simultaneous relationships- one with his ex-wife, and one with Christopher's mother, Billie. After some time, Christopher donates all of his money, leaves a family that loves him, and leaves behind almost all of his possessions to leave to an Alaskan wilderness with just a gun, some bullets, some rice, and some basic survival books. He meets many people along the way, including a woman named Jan, who becomes his mother figure( her son had also abandoned her- she encourages Christopher to go back home, or at least tell his parents what he's up to and accept some items for well-being- take this passage as an example of her personality- "Have you let your people know what you're up to? Does your mom know you're going to Alaska? Does your dad know?... I'd keep at it until he'd change the subject, though- because of what happened between me and my own son. He's out there somewhere, and I'd want someone looking after him like I looked after Alex), a man named Ronald, who takes him in as a son and gives him work, shelter, food, and other living qualities, and other certain charecters. Christopher is always moving, and he dies over one hundred days after he left. Many people judge this whole ordeal negatively, but Krakauer makes sure to mention in his author's note "I will leave it to the reader to form his or her own opinion of Chris McCandless"- that you should have your opinion of this whole episode.This book is a very unique book, so that being said, it's memorable, and the content of this book can be perceived as instructive. The whole kid running away from home storyline and the multiple opinions and interviews definitely portray some instructive points regarding rebellious actions. That same storyline is also very controversial. This book is a real live story of a real kid running away from home and trying to survive in the wilderness with basically nothing, and this garnered a lot of opinions of Chris, mostly negative. So although maybe this whole situation is hard to imagine, it's very possible we'll know (or become) someone like this. But the book itself was written very well and portrayed in a fairly unbiased manner, leaving yourself to make an opinion of your own.Another reason this book is so good is that even though there is very little suspense( anybody can figure out in the beginning of the book that in the end, Christopher dies) the book is so well written that the whole story line is very gripping. Krakauer attempts to go back in the past and see what made Chris perish.There a few negatives to the book, though. First off, it's confusing. The whole story constantly is in flux, changing characters, scene, and point of view. It's hard to keep pace, but if you do, you'll understand the book the way it's meant to be. The problem is, if you don't, you might get some wrong ideas, and those are never good. Also, while generally in the whole book Krakauer wrote very well, including all the details, I felt as if that he didn't fully explain why Chris hated his parents so much that he abandoned his life. In fact, he almost made Chris seem as if he was a kid who wanted nothing to do with his parents for no good reason, and if Chris was as smart as he was, I'm sure there was a reason- this lack of detail can lead you to think Chris made a very dumb decision in leaving, which many people do, but Krakauer doesn't. Had he further detailed Chris's relationship with his parents, and why it was so bad, I'm sure it would be easier to see why Chris left.This book, though a real, non-fiction, story, can teach a lesson- but which lesson is being taught by the book will vary from reader to reader. Chris obviously wanted to leave his family, and it's mentioned that he left in response to his father's imprudence. He leaves behind everything he knows, and meets people along his journey, but eventually dies. Different studies are brought in that are similar to this story. So what lesson is to be taught from this whole book( which is really a lot of different, relating stories, in one binding.)? That should you act rebelliously, bring more items and be better prepared and educated? That you should not act rebelliously at all? Krakauer insists Chris did nothing wrong, but others say it was foolish and arrogant of him to ditch everything and go into the wild. What's your opinion? Was it Chris's fault he died? Or did nature simply roll some bad dice on his turn? Different lessons and opinions can be formed from such a deep, controversial, real life topic.In my personal opinion, this book was a great book and taught me a lot. Many people, including myself, have this nagging feeling once in awhile that they should just pick up and leave, start a new life somewhere else as a new person. This book talks about different cases in which, to a degree, this happened. It taught me that you can go into the wild on your own, but you need to be very well educated on where you're going, camping, survival, etc., and also that not everyone can do it. But again, this book can be understood in several different manners. This is a book that should be read with an open mind, being that it is a confusing, but deep, book. That being said, unless you have completed your pursuit of happiness and that you are completely happy with how your life is and you want your life to stay exactly how it is, every single teenager with a good reading comprehension should read this book. It'll change how you perceive a lot of things in life, including that little rebellious phase teenagers go through that adults like to call the adolescent phase.

Great book

Ya había visto la película y me encantó, así como su BSO, que es fantástica. El libro me ha gustado mucho, cuenta más sobre la personalidad de Chris y sobre sus vivencias, además de otras historias que el escritor nos cuenta y que aporta mucho a nivel personal. Es un libro que emociona y me ha hecho llorar en varios pasajes, no sé si por temas personales o es algo que a los que les ha gustado el libro les ha pasado, pero es así, sobre todo al final, cuando sus padres van a visitar el sitio donde su hijo murió. Me gustaría ir allí algún día. Puedo entender la personalidad de Chris, se parece a una persona importante para mí que murió e igual por eso me emociona tanto. También me han gustado mucho las diversas citas de diversos autores, sobre todo de Pasternak de Dr. Zhivago. Volveré a ver la película de nuevo, que por cierto, refleja muy bien el libro.

Acquistato in inglese perché preferisco leggere i libri nella loro lingua originale se la conosco. Bellissima lettura, riletto più volte.

Spannend en avontuurlijk, ook dramatisch.

Absolument à lire en VO, ce livre vous fera découvrir à la fois un écrivain dont le style est énergétique et captivante et une biographie surprenant.Indispensable pour creuser l'histoire narrée par le film de Sean Penn (Into the Wild). Pour accéder aux ressources mobilisées par Krakauer dans l'écriture de "Into the wild" je vous conseil de voir aussi le livre d'images "Back to the wild" (à commander sur Amazon.com).Par contre j'ai été très déçu par The Beautiful Story of Christopher McCandless and the Unauthorized Look at the Motion Picture Into the Wild que n'a rien avoir ni avec le livre de Krakauer ni avec le film... s'agit simplement d'une compilation d'articles de Wikipedia....Bref, "Into the wild" de Krakauer vous introduira dans une communauté de lecteurs que se laisse interrogé par une vie hors cadre comme celle de Chris McCandless.

A sad, inspiring tragedy. Chris walked his dream. I loved the story but also feel a deep sadness for his life lost and the people hurt by his loss. He set out with youthful exuberance matched with significant competence. However, he found out too late that we stand on the shoulder of giants and are weak in our own right.If he survived, he would have faded into history. Now, we meet him because he died.Nonetheless, he lived. He did not cower from his endeavor. This book chronicles his life by not simply making him a hero but also examining his weaknesses. Sure, he is a protagonist for Krakauer. But, he is not deified. He is shown to be somebody that came face to face with reality in a sad tragic end but at least he saw reality, instead of simply living in a dream of Netflix and suburbia.