Book Review - Into the Wild

I finally read the book Into the Wild, though reluctant because the character in the movie pissed me off.
Well, the character in the movie was slightly mis-portrayed. What appears to be going into the wilds of Alaska with absolutely no experience and blatant disregard is not quite true. I think what pissed most people off was that he mis-identified some plants which ended up stopping his body's ability to absorb nutrients from food. It appears to be that he correctly identified the plant, but there was nothing written about the dangers of eating a part of the plant he had to start consuming. He was eating wild potato, but during the summer they dry up and he started eating another part of the potato, which was impossible to know would be bad for him since it was though edible and there was no record, save one rare account from a couple hundred years back, of it being an inhibitor. While some of my opinion of Chris McCandless has changed, I still don't care for him.
I think that his death was inevitable. Not because he was ill prepared - he spent his childhood backpacking, he learned how to hunt and prepare animals - not because he was an idiot - he was actually very intelligent and had street smarts - it was because he had such a chip on his shoulder of anything that society touches, that even had he survived this time he'd have gone bigger and badder, if you will, next time with the same disregard for precaution and general backcountry safety. Strangely, while he found that society produced nothing but putrid consumables, he loved and consumed books. A bit of a contradiction. Anyhow, what ultimately ended up killing him was assuming past experience and forgoing normal caution that backcountry people consider essential - maps, compass, knowledge of the area or getting local's knowledge. I mean you don't go surf some spot because you saw that it had big waves. You ask local's for their knowledge or you go with a local till you have sufficient knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of the break and whatnot. But these types of things pissed him off so he avoided them, believing because he survived a close call in Mexico for a month, that he could do it again in Alaska. AND he almost did. Had he asked local's about the river flows or bought a proper map he'd have made it out. BUT that would have just confirmed his misplaced faith in himself and he would've eventually pushed too far.
That's not to say that I liked him aside from that. I can't say how I'd feel had I actually met him, but from what I read (the author seemed to really like Chris, seeing himself in him, and therefore wrote a very positive spin on the kid), I felt like he was someone whom would irk me. What I think drew most people to him was his passion and unwavering vision of going into Alaska. A strong passion for any purpose seems to really polarize people. They either get swept up in it or absolutely hate it. There are a lot of things that I could see a little piece of myself in with Chris, though he was extremely radical in them. I think that goes for a lot of people, and this is why I think he charmed so many people along his spiral. However, his hatred of his parents seemed to be a bit undeserved and he really seemed like a dick most of the time. I've mentioned holes in buckets throughout my blog and he definitely had a huge one. He just did stupid shit because something didn't go his way or annoyed him. He loved his car, but abandoned it in the desert cause the battery died. He wanted to see how far he could go to being alone (in ways, that's what my Amazon trip was), but he used people at times or sometimes put up with the system (working) while at other times damned the system (burning his cash). What it all boils down to is that he was confused combined with high intellect. Meaning, he was high and mighty and able to justify all the jackass things he did, but they were still jackass things he did. A polished turd is still a turd.
I'm all for seeing how self reliant you can be. I think his idea of spending the summer in the Alaska backcountry by himself, living off the land, is in itself commendable. If that's what he needs to do, good, however, unless you're an asshole, break yourself in with some smaller undertakings, use essential things like survey maps, and ALWAYS have a contingency plan.

Bottom line is that, even though Chris seems to be an endearing asshole, the book is still good. I enjoyed the read and there are many additional stories and questions about society that run parallel that are enjoyable. There was one question that Chris raised that particularly stood out to me. There were some people in his book that wanted him to get a law degree. He was so passionate about change and they suggested this so that he could make a change from inside the system. He didn't see it this way, and I think he may be right. That's what's always suggested. In a way, it's really saying, "don't make waves". The thing is that trying to change it from the inside is the safe way to go. The safe way is never really a way that results in much. It also validates that the system works. "It's not flawed cause look it can compromise". It's a naive way of thinking though. Not to mention the fact that that it's built in that if the system must compromise at some point you must comprise at some point. I had trouble looking back at the big changes in societies throughout history and I had trouble thinking of large changes that came about by people following the system. Peaceful and hostile protest, revolutions, civil wars. These are results of going out of the system. The problem is that to make waves is dangerous and most of those people end up dead or in jail. And that's it - that's why we always suggest making the changes from the inside. We don't want the people we care about to get hurt. We'd rather see them compromise their beliefs then dead or in jail.