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?"