Blog #30: Nature Writing Comparison

1. Analyze specific qualities that make a person fit to successfully pursue extreme adventures in the natural world, but also could potentially lead to disaster.
I think one of the main qualities is confidence. I think people in both books knew what they wanted to do and their confidence got the best of them. I'd say that in "Into the Wild", Chris was more of a cocky person who was sort of like, "Yeah, man, this is going to go on so well that it's just going to be great." In the beginning of "Into thin Air", I got the impression that the person talking was more like, "We had the stuff, it was possible, but on that tragic day." I suppose it was more of a dramatic storytelling. Anyways, before I get too off topic, confidence, definitely. In both situations, there was this huge thought that went, "What the hell? Really?" and both people/groups still went on to accomplish it. It's sort of hard to explain, I hope all these examples give you my idea. Another thing that makes a person fit to go on extreme adventures is keeping in mind, at least understanding and being realistic, about what could happen to themselves. They call extreme adventures extreme because, well, it's extreme, there are dire consequences for any mistake. In reality, you have to have complete motivation and dedication to risk your life fulfilling this adventurous plan you have. I think after a while though, after you've done something for a while, you start getting sort of clumsy with it. Like Randy said, you've been doing something for so long and sometimes you just slip up on precautions.

2. Describe specific connections between both Into Thin Air and Into the Wild and your experiences in the many aspects of MSB.
Oh, I had the determination, definitely. I think one thing I experienced that can relate to this book is dedication. I remember when I was working lat nights on the calendar, I was like, "Sleep, just a few hours, just a little." but I knew I would fall asleep completely if I did that. Instead, I heated up a cup of tea and just kept at it. I planned on accomplishing a portion and I accomplished it before I went to bed. I think it is actually because I can't sleep well knowing that there is homework due, it just doesn't work that way for me. I think on a larger near death scale, Chris and the group who climbed Mt. Everest have felt the feeling of wanting to give up. I know that feeling of not being able to accomplish something, and it is a horrible feeling. In both novels, giving up didn't just mean giving up the journey, it meant giving up their life. In my case, I had to accomplish getting the stuff in the calendar done because I knew I could do it, but I also knew it would take long hours of working non-stop. In the end, whether they felt accomplished or not, I honestly think that is for them to decide. We can give our input on what we think of his actions, but it is really the person who did it that has the say in it. For example, some people started complaining about their MSB project and saying they had no time. I told them how long I had to dedicate myself to the calendar and they said it was easy when, in my opinion, no one could do that kind of job as well as I did. Haha, I guess this is where the cockiness comes in.

Honors History Blog #4

1. Discuss your successes as an honors student this past semester.
I think that there is definitely a difference between being and honors student and not being one. When it came to Math or Biology, I didn't really see the huge difference, the new material was already challenging enough, but Humanities was a different story. I don't know the experience decaf had, but one of the things that was difficult about honors if the extra reading. I'm not a strong reader and I don't pick up on a lot of symbolism or extra tid bits. Even so, this semester got me thinking a little more about literature and the messages it carries. There are still a lot of techniques I can't quite decipher, but I can understand an overall idea of the story. I like how your interpretation of a story could be anything because there really is no right answer. That use to be a weakness of mine. In math, there is always a right answer, like how one plus one obviously equals two, but in english it wasn't like that. I do wish that tests would become more like that instead of like, "What was the message you got out of the reading?" "Um, I think the author is showing that individuals can be successful." "WRONG, he's talking about college." I think in the end, the main success I had was understanding interpretations in books. I admit, I didn't really like reading some of the books, but "Into the Wild" and the supplementary reading got me thinking about what I thought of those people.

2. Discuss what you might have done differently if you do this past semester of honors over again.
I'm not sure what I would have done differently. I think I took honors well this year, I think it was actually effective. I can see how it's more challenging, like how we had to write an evaluative essay versus what the rest of the class had to write. One of the things I would've done differently is maybe be a little more choosy with my books. I want to enjoy reading something and be asked what I think about it. We did that for "Enrique's Journey" in Lori's class, I think, and I thought that was the greatest thing ever. Another thing we had in Lori's class that I enjoyed was those half class discussion groups. I'm probably going on a tangent, but I thought it might be a good suggestion. Anyways, I can't really think about what I could do better. I could do my essays better, but that is sort of a self process I'm trying to wort out myself. It is a mix up of learning how to use the loop and incorporating evidence.

3. Discuss your goals for honors in the second semester.
I'd like to see how much honors has to offer for the next semester. This semester, it was more about testing the waters. I remember telling my mom that there was no way college could be harder then this year because there was so much things to get done. This semester, I was actually disappointed at how much work we had to do because it was all coming too fast. I productively scheduled my time and I barely finished everything. I'd really like to have more time to accomplish work I'm actually proud of because honestly, if I look back on this school year so far, I know we did a lot but I have a hard time remembering what, excluding the calendar. One of my goals is to learn about the loops better because I think it is an amazing tool that actually makes sense in writing. It's a good way to display your ideas and to show your level of thinking without confusing a reader. I'm relatively good with organizing my ideas, but sometimes people have a hard time connecting the points. I think that's another thing I should work on, connecting points in my writing.

4. If you could choose any parts of literature and history for our honors work, what would you pick and why?
Truthfully, I forgot all the writing we did. This question made me look back at the work I've done because none of it was memorable for me. I think the honors writing #2 was pretty interesting. Being put in the shoes of someone who is trying to get someone else elected is an odd situation. In a sense, we all sort of try and persuade someone to our side, but doing it for someone else it much harder. You have to know what you're talking about and make sure to bash the competition a little while you're at it. I didn't really like my "Beloved" essay, but I did enjoy the "Dying for Dixie" reading because it had those aspects that makes you go, "What the heck is going on with these people here…" I think talking about that reading was one of the interesting things about the first novel essay we did. Being able to compare a book to an observation by someone who has visited the area gives you two perspectives, which I liked. Even so, I would have hoped to put a little more of my opinion into it and make it less like this persuasive essay talking about the messages in the book because I think behavior would've been interesting. To be able to compare the people of the past to the people in the same area now a day brings you to the reality of how people act and how behaviors are passed down from parent to child.

I mostly disagree with the person who said, “nothing positive at all about Chris McCandless’ lifestyle or wilderness doctrine …surviving a near death experience does not make you a better human it makes you damn lucky” because I think certain aspects of Chris's life were admirable. He pursued a new lifestyle, experienced something beyond his knowledge, and stood in the shoes of thousands of people who suffer from starvation. I also believe it is possible for you to become a better person by going through struggles and a near death experience. However, I don't think his choices and actions are completely positive. He didn't really consider his family and he passed up an oppurtunity to help others more in the long run.

In my opinion, Chris McCandless did many things that can be seen as admirable. He set out on a journey, pursued a dream of his, and became a whole new person. McCandless went through Arizona, California, Alaska, and all sorts of other places experiencing new things. People who experience new things and are open to being adventurous is something I personally admire because you meet different people, learn about different cultures, and know how it is to be in someone else's shoes. Pursuing a dream was also something I found inspiring because many people live their whole lives not experiencing what they really want to do. I look at his determination like college, many people drop out but for the people who stick in there, they earn their degree. Chris is seen as someone who "stuck in there" and lived out his travels and I'm sure he felt accomplished in his own way which would sort of symbolize "his degree". I think it was admirable of him to look at the world and say, "I'm not going to go to college, I want to pursue something else." because society strongly hints, "If you go to college and get a good education and good grades, you will become successful." so it makes you think, "Wait, why doesn't he take the sure fire way to becoming successful?" He found his own self success and it's noble of him to go down route with an unknown future, a risky investment.

Furthermore, I feel that a near death experience can make someone a better person
In the letter, the writer said, “...surviving a near death experience does not make you a better human it makes you damn lucky” and I disagree with that. I think a near death experience, like any experience, has potential of teaching someone how they can become a better person. In Chris's case, I think he did learn how to become a better person and appreciate things more. Even in scary situations when I feel like I'm going to die, I would have realizations or some idea that makes me handle a problem better. I think it's human nature for people to look back on their life when a near death experience occurs because no one wants to pass on thinking they have no finished something. It's sort of like they are more motivated to do things because they don't know how much time they have left to actually do them. Like in chapter sixteen, Chris wanted to return to his family, the people he wanted to get away from. "Maybe he was prepared to forgive their imperfections; maybe he was even prepared to forgive some of his own." So yes, I think it is possible to take a near death experience as a kick in the rear to get life back on track and feel better about yourself or others.

However, I don't think everything Chris McCandless did was positive and admirable. One of the things that I questioned was why he would go out into the wilderness not fully prepared. His cockiness in telling the driver who drove him into the wilderness "I'll be fine." was one of those actions that made me think, "Can you at least decently prepare yourself knowledge-wise?" I think there are ways to experience the optimistic side of life without having to put yourself in so much obvious danger. For example, you can go sky diving without having to think, "This company obviously doesn't have a license for this kind of work, but I'm going to be outgoing and dangerous and go anyways." This is the part where I kind of think he was "damn lucky". I felt that his recklessness led him to an outcome that he probably didn't want to be in. He wanted to help other people. He donated $25,000 in savings to charity, he experienced the starvation that many go through everyday, and he became an old man's "son". I feel like he could've impacted the world more by using this knowledge to make a difference.

He also seemed to solely focus on himself. He helped other people, he was a hard worker, and he stayed in touch with friends. I find this positive, yes, but he was pretty rude to some, for example, when he worked at that fast food place in chapter five. Wearing socks with shoes was courtesy, being more productive on busy days would've been helpful, and walking out the door when he quit is just plain rude. He made the people at the restaurant irritated and he didn't shower. To me, he acted as if he was the only one there and the other people didn't matter unless they made a point to learn about him or help him in his journey. He seemed to treat people who helped him, like Ronald A. Franz, a lot better then people who tried to get him to do things that needed to be done, like Lori Zarza from the restaurant. Another thing that always gets me is that he had a family that loved him. There are many parents out there like his parents, Billie and Walt, and there are plenty more kids who would've loved the support his family gave. I thought it was irresponsible and rude of him to leave a family hanging, hardly sending any letters, and hardly contact them in general when they haven't done anything to deserve that kind of treatment.

Overall, the thing that I take from Chris McCandless as admirable is the struggles he worked through and the ambition he had. I don't fully agree with his actions, but the way he accomplished things, I think, was motivating. He was a hard worker and did jobs many other people didn't want to do, and touched the lives of the people he met, giving hope to some who thought it was hopeless. Those were the things that inspired me and it made me want to become a more productive, social, and powerful person. Although, his overall feelings still confuses me, like in chapter four where he said he loved his car then wrote "This piece of shit has been abandoned. Whoever can get it out of here can have it." when it stopped working. He kept in touch with people he just met versus his family who were probably terribly worried about him. I think he wanted to have a fresh new start at life, but didn't consider the people that made him a part of their life, the people who still keep him in their hearts today.

Blog #28 Nature Writing Draft

Do you feel, as one letter writer did, that there is “nothing positive at all about Chris McCandless’ lifestyle or wilderness doctrine …surviving a near death experience does not make you a better human it makes you damn lucky” (116); or do you see something admirable or noble in his struggles and adventures?

Paragraph 1: I think I see a little of both
I mostly disagree with the person who said, “nothing positive at all about Chris McCandless’ lifestyle or wilderness doctrine …surviving a near death experience does not make you a better human it makes you damn lucky”. I think it was admirable of Chris to pursue a new lifestyle and experience how it is to be homeless. I believe it is possible for you to become a better person by going through struggles and a near death experience. However, I don't think his choices and actions are completely positive. He didn't really consider his family and he passed up an oppurtunity to help others more in the long run.

Paragraph 2: Experiencing was admirable because he went out to do what he wanted. Things symbolic to him, was able to let them go.
In my opinion, Chris McCandles did many things that can be seen as admirable. He set out on a journey, persued a dream of his, and became a whole new person. Persuing a dream itself makes people automatically assume, "Oh, he was so strong willed and so motivated for accomplishing this." That is sort of what I thought, that idea actually popped into my head as soon as I read the summary. I look at his determination like college, many people drop out but for the people who stick in there, they earn their degree. Chris is seen as someone who "stuck in there" and lived out his travels and I'm sure he felt accomplished on his way which would sort of symbolize "his degree". He took a different route and chose not to stick to a category of education. I think it was admirable of him to look at the world and say, "I'm not going to go to college, I want to pursue something else." because society strongly hints, "If you go to college and get a good education and good grades, you will become successful." so it makes you think, "Wait, why doesn't he take the sure fire way to becoming successful?" Even so, how I see it, he went through the steps of college but the steps were different and he accomplished something different that may not be recognized by everyone.

Paragraph 3: I could see that near death experience can make someone a better person
In the letter, the writer said, “...surviving a near death experience does not make you a better human it makes you damn lucky” and I disagree with that. I think a near death experience, like any experience, has potential of teaching someone how they can become a better person. In Chris's case, I think he did learn how to become a better person and appreciate things more. Even in scary situations when I feel like I'm going to die, I would have realizations or some idea that makes me handle a problem better. I think it's human nature for people to really look back on their life when a near death experience occurs, because then they nit pick what they could have done better or problems they want to solve before their time runs out. It's sort of like they are more motivated to do things because many people then think, "Oh gosh, something can happen to me any day and I don't want to die with this on my back." So yes, I think it is possible to take a near death experience as a kick in the rear to get life back on track and feel better about yourself or others.

Paragraph 4: However, I agree with the writer and feel like Chris was a little wreckless/ unprepared/ a little cocky
However, I don't think everything Chris McCandles did was positive and admirable. One of the things that I questioned was why he would go out into the wilderness not fully prepared. I think there are ways to experience the optimistic side of life without having to put yourself in so much obvious danger. For example, you can go sky diving without having to think, "This company obviously doesn't have insurance, but I'm going to be outgoing and dangerous and go anyways." This is the part where I kind of think he was "damn lucky". I suppose I'm more of the orderly type, I just felt that his recklessness led him to an outcome that he probably didn't want to be in. He wanted to help other people. He donated college funds to charity, he experienced starvation, I think he wanted to influence the world but in my opinion, his personality could've gotten so much farther and made him so much more content. I sort of feel he cut himself short by being cocky and unprepared.

Paragraph 5: I feel like he was too focused on himself and left a very promising life. Would've made a bigger impact if he took advantage of his life.
Furthermore, he seemed to solely focus on himself. He helped other people, her was a hard worker, and he stayed in touch with friends. I find this positive, yes, but he was pretty rude to some, for example, when he worked at that fast food place. Wearing shoes was courtesy, being more productive on busy days would've been helpful, and walking out the door when he quit is just plain rude. He made the people at the restaurant irritated, he didn't shower and just went into work, and to me, he seemed to split people into categories of priority. Another thing that always gets me is that he had a family that loved him and his future was certain through his hard work. It is difficult to understand why he felt the way he did or act the way he did so my opinions are sort of all over the place. But the attitude he had towards some people and his way of evaluating success wasn't something I'd consider admirable.

Paragraph 6: Experiencing was admirable because he went out to do what he wanted.
Overall, I think his struggles and journey was admirable. I don't fully agree with his actions, but the way he accomplished things, I think, was motivating. He was a hard worker and did jobs many other people didn't want to do. He touched the lives of the people he met and gave hope to some who thought it was hopeless. Those were the things that inspired me and it mada me want to become a more productive and social person. But his overall feelings always confused me like when he said he loved his car then wrote an angry note on his car when the engine was no longer working. He kept in touch with people he just met versus his family who were probably terribly worried about him and trusted him to be okay. I think he wanted to have a fresh new start at life, but didn't consider people that made him a part of their life.

2. Krakauer observes that it is not “unusual for a young man to be drawn to a pursuit considered reckless by his elders.” Explain whether McCandless would agree with Krakauer.
This is a tough question, I'm really not sure. Chris's personality was a little hard to catch onto. In my personal opinion, I think McCandles followed this phrase well but he wouldn't admit he did. He seems like the type of person who wanted to do things for himself, wanted to create an own story for himself. For someone to say, "Oh, a lot of people do this." I think he would've argues how he was different and did different things then most people. I think that's how people are in general. I think they want to be different then others, but it's only natural for them to share some sort of the same pattern. I guess it somewhat like that who rebellion thing. When someone tells you not to do something, if it's an elder or just anyone in general, most people have this automatic guard that says, "Well, why?" Anyways, I think McCandles followed this but he just wouldn't say he did and argue that he accomplished different things.


3. Do you feel, as one letter writer did, that there is “nothing positive at all about Chris McCandless’ lifestyle or wilderness doctrine …surviving a near death experience does not make you a better human it makes you damn lucky” (116); or do you see something admirable or noble in his struggles and adventures? Was he justified in the pain he brought to family and friends in choosing his own solitary course in life?
In a sense, I sort of agree with the person who said that, but I also think what he did was admirable. I agree with the person who said, that there is “nothing positive at all about Chris McCandless’ lifestyle or wilderness doctrine …surviving a near death experience does not make you a better human it makes you damn lucky” because I found it sort of ridiculous that he would go out into the wilderness knowing that he was obviously unprepared. In the past, there have been situations where people survive like that. The thing is, their mistake, whether it was not packing enough food or not estimating problems in traveling, should be something the people of the future learn from. I suppose it's interesting that he wanted to go through what people n the past have done, but to experience life a little more, I would have thought he would prepare himself better. The life with his family wasn't a survival situaiton, he had everything he needed. I would have taken advantage of what good fortune was brought to me and worked hard to make it in the world. Then, instead of making mistakes of people in the past, I would prepare myself to travel to different places and gain more knowledge, adding onto the knowledge already in the world.

I don't know, I just have a lot of mixed up thoughts about this. I do find his bravery and confidence admirable, but it seems to have more worth to himself alone. Maybe it was his dream to die beautifully and have a story about himself.

If he didn't like his family, there was that old man who loved his company, I don't know why he wouldn't stay and keep him company for his last years. In a way, he was really doing things for himself which really, in my opinion, gives self satisfaction. But, if you were going to pull people into your life, work for them, live with them, befriend them, why would you just be like, "Oh, staying with you just isn't my calling." I believe that the pain he caused his family was not justified at all. He didn't come into contact with them much. They bought him a car and offered to pay for the remaining amount of his college, he should be grateful. They took care of him and I am CERTAIN it probably wasn't easy. He goes away seeking peace for himself, I suppose, but doesn't prepare himself at all when it is pretty obvious you will not make it. I guess the word for him would be spontaneus, but to me, he was reckless and didn't seem to understand the good fortune around him. The person who said he was just lucky, I would sort of agree, but sold himself well. He was educated, he was nice, he was hardworking, he played himself off as a good person.

In the end, I understand the message that people usually try harder and can change when they are put in front of a tough decision. I think it was in some movie about how this guy came who wanted to save the earth and he was actually saving it by destroying all humans. At the end, he understood that at moments when the world would end, people could change and he didn't have to kill everyone. That's sort of how I think it. I guess Chris was brought to the brink when he had to fend for himself and I do think that makes you a better informed human when you experience things, but I don't really see how he applies that to people around him. For example, some people wonder why dying for your country in a war is admirable. Yes, I find it admirable, but it's like people who died in the war versus people who survived the war. In the war, may be mean to say, but it is possible for some to die without even coming in contact with any opposition. Is it more admirable because he lost his life versus someone who may have fought and survived to tell the tale?

I know I'm probably going on a huge tangent, but it's what I think about Chris. I think it he was just... a little stubborn. He was so well educated and could change people's lives, but in the end, it was about his own peace. I'm more of a literal person who likes to personally hear life stories and hardships. Maybe that's just me. His bravery into going out in the wild on his own is interesting, but his unpreperation makes you go, "...Why?"

Blog #26

We are selling our calendar (: