Reply #11: The book/movie have haunted me for a while

[mreilly]

I don't think you're a bad person for despising the movie. I have some problems with it as well.

I don't agree with the actions taken by Chris McCandless or his outlook towards society and definitions of "freedom" (I'd rather free my mind while holding down a full-time job which feeds, clothes and shelters my family and I as opposed to freeing my body and spending the better part of my days looking for food and shelter) but perhaps because I'm a parent of three I haven't been able to get this story out of my head since reading the book & seeing the movie.

I wouldn't say I even like the story per se - something about a smart kid dying of starvation alone in the woods in some filthy bus seems particularly poignant - but it's definitely a memorable one that leaves an impact. However I disagree with the way McCandless has been painted by Krakauer and Sean Penn. I don't think McCandless was a bad guy but I also don't believe he was a role model to be celebrated. I think he left his family in a lot of pain and bewilderment by rejecting them and disappearing, and I also suppose I find his antagonism towards conventional society somewhat juvenile and nihilistic; the rants of a teenager who never knew adversity or hardship. I'm somewhat amazed and a bit dismayed that McCandless seems to have some sort of cult following, some of whom have even journeyed to Alaska to hike in and visit the old bus in which he died. That just seems very, very creepy to me.

After reading a lot of stuff online on the subject, I don't believe McCandless died of toxic poisoning from seeds or fungus or anything like that. I think he simply starved to death. His body wasn't bringing in sufficient calories to support the calories he was burning foraging for food, wood, water and such. I also think it's possible he may have unconsciously let himself die due to self-loathing.

However, it seems to me the entire "McCandless was a hero" outlook hinges on the fact Penn and Krakauer need to reject the starvation scenario in favor of something else that makes McCandless look less green and naive. Ergo, in their view he must have accidentally poisoned himself. They seem to want to promote the idea that "It isn't that Chris didn't know what he was doing or wanted to die; he merely mistook one kind of seed for another." Maybe they're acting out of good intentions and an honest belief in this theory, but the whole deal smacks of revisionism and sensationalism to me.