To those who think he was stupid…
-
zwolf — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 06:58 AM)
In what way was what he did "important"? And how was it something "worth dying for?"
You make this guy out to be some great hero, but heroes do things for others. They put their lives on the line rescuing someone from a fire, or fighting off something that would cause someone harm, or something of the sort something of
benefit
to the world. Those things can be worth dying for. If this had happened to him while searching for a lost child in the wilderness or something, then, that'd be different. But McCandless did nothing of any benefit to anyone. He wasn't trying to do anything noble. In fact, he inspired others to imitate his foolishness and they died, too. And he left grieving friends and family.
This is not a "hero." And he's not a "martyr" that would imply he died for a cause, sacrificed himself to try making things better for others. But he didn't. This was no more than a mentally ill young man who threw his life away doing something that had no real point, and which he wasn't even prepared for. He wasn't even good at roughing it he gave a moose a slow, painful death and then wasted all the meat because he didn't know what he was doing. There's really nothing admirable about any of it. Even if he'd succeeded, he wasn't doing anything "heroic" he was just
camping.
It's not courageous as much as it is foolish.
Why people see this guy's story as "inspirational" is puzzling. There are things worth sacrificing your life for, but what McCandless did is far from it. He threw it away in exchange for nothing. He did himself harm and no one else any good. There's nothing here to admire. It's a sad story of a sick boy who
could
have done something with his life but wasted it instead, miserably and foolishly. -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 04:36 PM)
Well your opinion is quite popular that's for sure. This is because most of humanity is more like Chris' parents and less like Chris. This is a bad thing because you are not
living
life if you are like his parents. Chris,
lived
his life before dying, which is what few people do nowadays.
He threw it away in exchange for nothing.
His intention was to throw himself into the world he and everyone else was robbed of. He did that, enjoyed his experience and then died a happy man. So to correct you I would say he committed to a high risk/ high reward situation.
that would imply he died for a cause,
He did die for a cause, he didn't know it would become something bigger like a book or a film. He did it for himself, but the message behind his story is that people need to wake up and free themselves. It takes a lot of courage to do what he did. -
jajceboy — 10 years ago(September 12, 2015 05:22 AM)
He lived his life the way he wanted to live it, and died loving the things he did.
I think it's quite inspiring.
Many of us dream to do something similar, to escape the rules of the society and be free. But for must of us it stays a dream.We are afraid of stepping out of our comfort zone. He actually dared to risk everything and do it
True it didn't turn out the way he expected it to but he was willing to risk it.
And he did die for a cause. -
the_evil_emcee — 10 years ago(September 15, 2015 01:45 PM)
The thing you are forgetting is he didn't do this for anyone but himself. Therefore he did this for selfish reasons not altruistic reasons. Even in the movie it is shown that he cared less for others than he did for himself. He didn't know he was going to die or even think he was going to die. He was planning on being back in August to help with the grain harvest. He went in overconfident and naive.
If you base your entire opinion on McCandless on just what the movie shows then you're only getting a third of the story. If you base your opinion on just Krakauer's book and the movie then you're only getting half the story. Both have created events that never happened. Both have left out things that did happen.
Remember this. IF he had not died and if Krakauer had not written his book then he would have never impacted your life. If he had walked out across the bridge which is 1/2 a mile from the bus you would have never have heard of him and you wouldn't be praising him as the Thoreau or London of our times.
There have been dozens of articles written debunking the heroism of McCandless. If you chose to ignore them then you are just as naive as he was. -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(September 15, 2015 05:21 PM)
If you scroll up like three comments, you will see that I am well aware he did it for himself.
he didn't know it would become something bigger like a book or a film. He did it for himself,
This doesn't make him selfish. This means he cares about his life. Which again, few people actually care about living otherwise they would be doing something similar to what he did. How you misunderstood him caring for other people less is beyond me, when he is shown being kind and helping others along his journey (ie. the old man). There haven't been articles debunking his
"heroism"
. There have been articles debunking aspects of the film. If you care to refute this, please share an article with us. -
caulkins69 — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 05:26 PM)
Here is one:
http://www.adn.com/article/20130920/beatification-chris-mccandless-thieving-poacher-saint -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 06:14 PM)
Thanks for the link. First of all, whether this is a reliable source or not, the person stating these 'facts' is heavily biased against him. So that is something to note.
Now, I read the whole article. Here it is in a nutshell:
"The guy is a poacher, a bum and a thief"
Poacher? Yes, that is what humans need to do to survive, plain and simple. beep the rules?" says Chris? Yes, better to live the way nature intended than to abide by the rules of the satanic tyrants.
Bum? Sure? Label it what you want, doesn't make a difference.
Thief? Accusation, with no evidence. Just bias.
Mentally ill? Accusation, with no evidence. Just bias. -
movieliker1 — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 02:58 AM)
He lived his life the way he wanted to live it, and died loving the things he did.
I think it's quite inspiring.
He lived his life being a irresponsible, immature, inconsiderate, selfish, baby. He completely abandoned the people who loved him (his brothers and sisters) and killed himself in the process. If you are inspired by this, you are as big a fool as he was. -
zwolf — 10 years ago(September 17, 2015 09:49 AM)
Well your opinion is quite popular that's for sure.
Ever consider the possibility that's for good reason?
This is because most of humanity is more like Chris' parents and less like Chris. This is a bad thing because you are not living life if you are like his parents. Chris, lived his life before dying, which is what few people do nowadays.
Chris was unhappy with his life and tried to escape it and died begging for help because he screwed up. This guy was never happy inside himself that's why he kept trying to seek something else. You're not "living life" if you're not comfortable with yourself. And if you're not happy inside yourself, you're not going to find it by trying to change your external surroundings. All Chris did was re-locate the source of his problems himself. He kept trying to change external situations, and that only works as a distraction.
I've seen Chris's parents in documentaries, and I have very little in common with them. The world's not divided so neatly that you're either a "Chris" or a "Chris's parents."
I
am
living life because I'm very happy doing what I'm doing. That's really all there is to it. You don't have to be off being a hobo to be happy; you just have to accept who you are and get along with yourself. Going out in the woods hunting and gathering would only be taking up more of the free time I use enjoying other things. If you're not good company for yourself, you'll always be bored and discontent, even if you flee into the woods or whatever. Because
you'll
still be there. Changing your name to "Alexander Supertramp" isn't going to change it. The best the external world can give you is a distraction it's not going to make your inner life more worthwhile. Chris wasn't "living" he was running from life, and then he was dying.
I know a lot of people believe a lot of "spiritual" horses***, but the truth is, this life is all there is, and there's no "greater purpose" to it. And, the big secret that a lot of people don't get is,
you really don't need one.
If you need there to be "meaning," you'll never be happy, anyway, because you'll still be avoiding how things really are. If you don't treasure the time you have on this earth, and take reasonable steps to preserve it, then you're throwing it away. Chris was willing to die because his life was not valuable to him. He failed to make it so. He
romanticized
throwing it away because he'd given it such a cheap price tag. He didn't even want to be who he was he kept rejecting everything, from his family, to his name, to his accomplishments, to his identity. He kept trying to turn it into something else. And that's about as far from "living your life" as you can get.
Losing
your life is not
living
it. That's like saying "the best writers never pick up a pen" it's absurd.
His intention was to throw himself into the world he and everyone else was robbed of. He did that, enjoyed his experience and then died a happy man. So to correct you I would say he committed to a high risk/ high reward situation.
The only world that was robbed from him was another 50+ years of life he could have enjoyed, if he'd placed any value on it. He died a desperate man, not a happy one. Starvation is a miserable way to go, and it's not much of a "reward." Especially since he only got to have any real fun doing it for such a brief period of time; he lived there for 113 days which is a very brief period and considering he lost half his body weight during that span, there couldn't have been more than a couple of weeks that weren't miserable and desperate. He wrote as much in that half-assed "journal" he kept (which makes me wonder how introspective he even was what introspective person doesn't
write?
). He barely wrote anything and almost all that was there was regret he's lonely, he's scared, in great jeopardy, wish I hadn't killed the moose, etc. People are imposing some "romantic adventure" on something that he'd probably admit was a huge mistake. What was his final summation - "Happiness is only real when shared," right? And he took himself out of any situation where he could share it. Is that not an admission that he screwed up?
You
think he won. But I think Chris realized at the end that he lost. People aren't seeing that, and are foolishly wanting to re-create his mistake. They think they "know" him, but it's romanticized b.s. because they're not really considering it with any real depth.
If he really enjoyed spending time in the woods, he'd do what most outdoorsmen do he'd make sure he had the skills and knowledge needed to survive there,
so he could keep doing it.
Chris didn't value his life enough to even take a map. It was a waste. It's very strange that so many people seem to envy this guy, when there are plenty of other people who do similar things but
succeed
at them.
Chris McCandless is, absurdly, seen as a romantic hero because he's the one who
died
doing it. People flock around and make pilgrimages to -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(September 17, 2015 06:30 PM)
This guy was never happy inside himself
I honestly can in no way find why you're saying this, when almost the whole movie he was running around laughing and smiling like a child. Discovering new things about life. He
was
unhappy when he was stuck in society, with garbage parents. Then he left, and was happy. The entire movie was about having fun exploring the world and being free. That simple. There is a correlation, someone who is educated knows that the economic trap called society is going to be a negative force on your life in every outcome. Chris knew this because he bothered to read books.
I know a lot of people believe a lot of "spiritual" horses***, but the truth is, this life is all there is, and there's no "greater purpose" to it.
This is a common new-age fallacy, and is simply not true. Regardless living free to do what you want is better than living as a slave with limitations.
He didn't even want to be who he was he kept rejecting everything, from his family, to his name, to his accomplishments, to his identity.
Exactly, he didn't want to be someone who somebody else told him to be. He wanted to go out and form his own identity.
It's like the cult around Kurt Cobain
Yeah because he's a hero to millions for just reasons?
Look man, I appreciate the time you put into giving your opinions on everything. But their will always be people arguing for him, and people arguing against him. The point is if you're educated enough about the way the world works you'll understand why Chris did what he did, and praise him for it. Because it is courageous and many people are in very relatable situations where they are also unhappy being slaves and like to entertain the idea of leaving and living like he did.
BTW, most people are against Chris because most people that live in modern first world countries are brainwashed into fearing nature and death, while taught to value money, possessions and luxuries. So your viewpoint is not popular for good reason. -
zwolf — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 10:53 AM)
I honestly can in no way find why you're saying this, when almost the whole movie he was running around laughing and smiling like a child.
Because it's
a movie.
It's not quite that way in the book. Anybody can fictionalize an event and put their own spin on it. Which is what Sean Penn did.
Discovering new things about life. He was unhappy when he was stuck in society, with garbage parents. Then he left, and was happy. The entire movie was about having fun exploring the world and being free. That simple. There is a correlation, someone who is educated knows that the economic trap called society is going to be a negative force on your life in every outcome. Chris knew this because he bothered to read books.
There are a lot of things in books that aren't necessarily true. I've read thousands of books, but I don't get my truth from them. Chris had a bunch of untested ideas in his head. As far as "economic traps," nothing'll trap people like poverty. It's all well and good for a guy whose parents gave him everything to reject it and then go out and subsequently die, but what about people who don't have those opportunities? They're not all living wonderfully happy lives just because they have no possessions.
One reason I'm so anti-Chris-McCandless-myth is, I have an old girlfriend who spent years as a nomadic biker. She was "free" as you can get and she'd be the first to tell you she's happier now that she settled down and found some stability and peace. She was a runaway because she was escaping abuse. Chris had an unpleasant life with his parents, but he also had opportunties to get a college education and escape that. She wishes she'd had the same.
This cult built around McCandless is a
dream.
It's an idealized dream, built around a guy who died so he can't debunk it although he'd probably like to.
This is a common new-age fallacy, and is simply not true. Regardless living free to do what you want is better than living as a slave with limitations.
New-age tends to be spiritual. I'm anything but. Spirituality is primitive superstition. But, if you want real limitations, narrow down your options. Chris did. He died from his limitations. You do realize he got
trapped
there, right? He left notes, begging for help, in a place nobody could come because he'd isolated himself there and couldn't get out.
And yet you keep telling me about freedom, and slaves with limitations do you really understand what this dude got himself into? You're buying a fiction created by a movie. Read the book. The book's not totally honest, either, because the author put a slant on it, but it's more to-truth than the movie which might as well be about a character that Sean Penn just made up.
Exactly, he didn't want to be someone who somebody else told him to be. He wanted to go out and form his own identity.
And in the end he signed his real name because he realized it was a mistake. He never had to be what anyone else told him to be, nobody does but he went about it in a naive, simpleminded, and ultimately-shallow way. He didn't face himself, he just ran from himself. Right into a pit.
Yeah because he's a hero to millions for just reasons?
I like Kurt Cobain, and was into Nirvana long before
Nevermind
came out but he wasn't a hero. He was a junkie. He made bad decisions and died from them. I like the guy, I think he's interesting and made good music, but making a hero of him is a big mistake. Since when is self-indulgence a thing to admire? What kind of values revere wasting one's potential? That's the problem with Kurt (who at least actually
did things
and created something before he died) and Chris (who didn't even do that).
Look man, I appreciate the time you put into giving your opinions on everything. But their will always be people arguing for him, and people arguing against him.
Yeah, I know that. I'm just saying people should question why they're making a hero of this guy.
The point is if you're educated enough about the way the world works you'll understand why Chris did what he did, and praise him for it. Because it is courageous and many people are in very relatable situations where they are also unhappy being slaves and like to entertain the idea of leaving and living like he did.
I'm almost 50 and have done a lot of stuff, read a lot of books, and done a lot of living, thinking, and writing, so I know a good bit about how the world works. I can understand why he did what he did, but I also understand it was a mistake. That's proven by the way it ended which was a
very avoidable ending.
First off, you're assuming that everyone who doesn't do what he did is a "slave." That's an incorrect assumption. Different things make different people happy. If you're happy with your life, then you're not a "slave," no matter how you're living it. Earning a living is not "slavery." If you consider that to be slavery, then having to hunt and gather is another form of slavery, too that's gonna take up mo -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 07:15 PM)
Wow. Haha.
I think you make good points, and you sound educated. I do agree with you that the film was romanticized and played up to make cinema. But Chris' sister confirmed that she liked the movie and that it was a pretty accurate representation of how he was.
Even if it wasn't accurate, this creation (this movie) in combination with Chris' legacy is inspiring. It's inspiring to people who are in unfortunate situations like Chris', and want to do something about it. Adventurous or not. With reckless abandon or with caution. That's the beauty of art and film-making. It doesn't have to be real to inspire.
Now we're from different generations, so that's probably why we don't agree on a few things here. But the reality is we
are
all slaves, and there's nothing good about it. If you can convince yourself to enjoy it or at the very least put up with it, that's a shame. Especially if the slave-owners are extremely immoral and selfish, while spending their free time dabbling in the occult and Satanism.
Contrary to popular belief, there is objective right and wrong. The New-age deception has done a good job of making people believe that morality is subjective, and can be made up, that is also a shame. Apparently Chris had a stern set of principals on things like ethics, and was an idealist. This is the way it is supposed to be, because with the dramatic decline in ethics, our culture has gone to sh*t. He couldn't put up with it anymore, and I don't blame him. Good people like that just don't fit into society anymore. So you're right I am pretty adamant about what's good and bad, because it can be learned it's not something that's personal to each person.
His story made him out to be a little naive and reckless, yes. I think that is actually meant be part of the appeal of the film. Youthful and blinded by ambition. At least I found that appealing and inspiring.
The last picture he ever took, was of himself smiling with a sign saying how good of a life he had. So there can't be any speculation there because it's hard evidence. He was happy and fulfilled when he died. He left his real name because he was being respectful to his parents, so they could identify his body and his family would have closure.
As for ol' Kurt, it's kind of the same thing. Some people like him, some people don't. He was a junkie yes, but nobodies perfect, he had a stomach ailment and was in desperate need for something to make the pain stop. Illegal opiates are the same thing as prescription opiates. He made good music, did what he loved, and was a social revolutionary. Chris was also a kind of a social revolutionary, he didn't create anything but you don't need to create anything to live a good life and leave a legacy.
People who are less fortunate and can't afford luxuries, would be grateful for the bare necessities. They only want what they need. At least in untainted third world countries. In first world countries people are greedy and want what they don't need. Chris demonstrated life with the bare minimum.
How about appreciating what you have, and where you're at, instead of scorning it?
You can appreciate what you have while scorning greed.
He wasn't even as stupid as people are making him out to be, he survived well all the way up to a point where he made a wrong seasonal judgement. That's quite understandable to me, I think people need to cut him some slack, he did pretty good for someone supposedly naive. -
movieliker1 — 10 years ago(September 24, 2015 08:31 AM)
No, "ljshorts". It is not really a matter of opinion. "zwolf" is correct and you are wrong.
Chris McCandless was no hero or martyr. He was just stupid. He was a selfish, sadistic, stupid fool.
According to his journals and notes, he never intended to die. He tried to do something that was dangerous and he was grossly unprepared. There was no reason for him to die. There was a cable crossing for him to use to cross the raging river within three miles of his bus. And there was a town or outpost within three miles of his bus. But he had no idea because he was so ill prepared.
He had family that loved and cared about him. We can understand him not wanting to communicate with his parents. But he had brothers and sisters one that he was particularly close to. How do you think they felt not being able to communicate with him for two/three years? That is just sadistic.
You can try to sugar-coat it anyway you want to but, Chris McCandless was no hero or martyr. He was just a selfish, sadistic, irresponsible, stupid fool.
