This term, I signed up for an English Class called Literature of Travel and Discovery, and one of our mandatory books was Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer. I had previously read Krakauer's book, Into Thin Air, before, and quite enjoyed it. I knew that Krakauer was more famous for writing Into the Wild, so I expected it to be even better than Into Thin Air. Unfortunately, I was disappointed that I did not enjoy Into the Wild nearly as much, as it was a very bland, biased novel.

While reading Into the Wild, I found that there were many issues with its anticlimactic, uninteresting plot. Primarily, I feel that the life story of Chris McCandless doesn't really have enough engaging material for an entire book. A good chunk of the novel ends up being about other people who participated in similar "disappearance[s] into nature." In the blurb on the front cover of the novel, the audience is already told the McCandless dies during his journey, which automatically takes away most of the suspense from the novel. Personally, as a reader, I do not feel compelled to read a novel when I already know how the narrative concludes. The entire book revolves around Krakauer's desperate attempt to justify McCandless's journey because Krakauer himself had embarked on a similar voyage when he was around the same age. Krakauer spends so much time romanticizing the parallels between McCandless's life and his own that I feel that he wastes a lot of the novel trying to 'connect' himself to McCandless.

Rather than trying to formulate an interesting story, Krakauer uses Into the Wild as an opportunity to convince readers that Chris wasn't just some foolish teenager ignorantly seeking adventure in the dangerous wilderness of Alaska; that somehow because of Chris's well-educated and privileged background, he was intellectually and morally superior to the many other individuals who have embarked on similar journeys. Those who side with McCandless argue that he was courageous to pursue his life philosophy and beliefs to the end, to act on his dissatisfaction with society, spend his life free from the restraints of civilization and consumer culture and attain happiness before his death.

However, I found myself unable to empathize with Chris McCandless. I think that he was not much more than a privileged, selfish, and undeniably intelligent person who threw his life away and nearly destroyed his family and the lives of others who loved him because of his "issue" with obligations, authority, and the fact that his father had previously had a secret second family. In my view, McCandless was just as much of a nutcase as any other pilgrim, driven by a moral absolutism that agitated his soul and drove him to ridiculous extremes. The fact that McCandless voluntarily enters the wilderness with almost nothing illustrates that McCandless was probably a little crazy.

While some contend that Chris was courageous for following his life philosophy to his death and achieving joy, I believe that he just fled from his problems with his family and society by cutting off real relationships. McCandless would have been more courageous to stay, to try to work out his soured relationship with his father and to actively fight against the materialism he denounced. Rather than running away into the wild, McCandless could be called brave if he had remained in society and fought to eradicate the corrupt, American materialism he despised. Moreover, by not mentioning his departure to Alaska to his family, McCandless is being selfish and causes them to suffer great pain and hysteria. During his journey, McCandless does not go into complete isolation and does meet, work, and live temporarily with others such as Jan Burres, Wayne Westerburg, and Ronald A. Franz. As soon as McCandless establishes a seemingly good relationship with these people, he abruptly slips out of their lives: "painlessly", in his opinion, but not-so-painlessly in their opinion. Somehow, McCandless completely charms all the people he encounters on his Alaskan quest; in fact, Ronald Franz loves McCandless so much that Franz wishes to adopt him as his son. McCandless not only refuses to be adopted, but he also later writes a didactic letter to Franz, urging and actually convincing the poor eighty-year-old man to spend eight months at McCandless's abandoned campsite. When McCandless dies, Franz withdraws his church membership and resumes drinking excessively. McCandless's voyage was clearly selfish because he neglected the feelings of those who cared about him. He walked away from people who loved him, made friends with people who came to love him, and walked away from all of that to escape "into the wild".

Overall Rating: 6.5/10

In general, I did not enjoy Into the Wild because it lacked suspense and had a dull plot and a foolish protagonist. For me, Krakauer failed to portray McCandless in a forgiving light, and I believe he spent too many pages trying to draw parallels between himself and McCandless. I feel that McCandless's story is extremely similar to the story of many others who went into the wilderness, and there is nothing particularly special nor exceptional about McCandless that makes him worthy of an entire novel. I do not think the novel itself is worthy of so much attention either. Overall, I would highly recommend reading Into Thin Air over Into the Wild. If you are still interested in (or required to like I was) reading Into the Wild, you can find the pdf version of the novel here.