Into the Wild

Very good book took back there To the bus

NARRATIVE ARC AND PARALLEL STRUCTURE– IN A NON-FICTION NOVEL When 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 in his pack was a ten-pound bag of rice. His gear seemed exceedingly minimal for the harsh conditions of the interior, which in April still lay buried under the 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 he expected to kill large animals like moose and caribou, which he would have to eat 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 a tattered 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 walked into the Alaska bush. My reasoning, if one can call it that, was enflamed with the scattershot passions of youth and a literary diet overly 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 torment that 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.

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

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.

この本を読んでいなくても アラスカの荒野のバスの中で餓死した若者の話を誰しも一度は聞いた事があるんじゃないだろうか。 多くの人の反応は『だからどうした？』『自殺でしょ？』と言ったもので なぜ彼がそこに至ったかについて深く探ろうとは思わない。 にも関わらず、彼の死は今だに多くの人々を惹きつけ 毎年バスへの巡礼者は後を絶たない。 その彼、Chris McCandlessの人生の旅の過程を追い 同じように荒野に消えた若者たちや 著者であるKrakauer本人の体験を交えて分析したノンフィクションである。 内容を読んで感じるのは、McCandlessの異常なまでの純粋さ。 人間社会の曖昧さや人間の弱さ、狡さを決して受け入れず 理想としての平等性、公平性が現実世界に実現しない事に激しく憤り やがて過度の純粋性を求めるあまり荒野での一人暮らしを目指す。 友人や恩人の忠告を受け入れ、あるいは省みる事なく 自分の信じた道を突き進み、やがて自らを苦境に追い込んでいく。 彼は旅の過程で様々な人間に出会い、驚くほど多くの人に影響を与える。 彼と交わった人の多くは彼の頭の良さ、純粋さ、勤勉さに感銘を受け、彼への支援を惜しまない。 彼には人々にそうさせる魅力、カリスマ性が備わっていたのだろう。 だが、そのような暖かさや人情に触れたにも関わらず、 結局彼は人間社会を許す事ができず、誰も彼が荒野に行くのを止める事は出来なかった。 彼が心に一体どのような闇を抱えていたのか その点については本書を読んでも完全には明らかにならない。 そして現在、いまだに多くの若者が彼の生き方に共感し 全米各地からはるばるアラスカの荒野にまで足を運び 彼がいた場所や空気、見たであろう風景を共有したいと願う。 それはまるで現代に現れ、彼らのために殉死した新たな救世主を慕う信者のようだ。 彼は死ぬ直前に『Happiness only real when shared』というメッセージを残している。 著者が言うように、これは彼が放浪の末ようやく人間社会や文明を許し そこに戻る決心を示したものかも知れない。 そうだとすれば、運命はなんと非情というか、それとも皮肉というべきか 漸く純粋な魂が救われたその直後に彼の命を奪い去ってしまった事になる。 これは純粋な魂の鎮魂歌と言えるノンフィクションである。

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.

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.