If I am ever in the (un)fortunate situation in which I can choose what my last words or message may be, I would want those closest to me how much they mean to me, and that I don't see my death as a tragedy because my life was cut short. From what I have experienced, I believe i've lived a good, abeit short, life. I wouldn't be scared to die, but I would be scared of who I would leave behind. When I'm alive, I know there is someone helping out those who I love, but if I'm gone, they might not have that person they need. It scares me that the people I leave behind would be alone. I suppose I would want to tell my loved ones not to grieve my death, but to know that death isn't necessarily the end. It may be the end of life as we know it, but no one knows what lies beyond death. So I'd like to leave on a positive note, with a hopeful outlook on my life and my loved ones' futures.
I see Chris' last words that he had a good life and that God blessed all is similar to what I would say, except I would show a bit more attention towards those closest to me. I wouldn't want to leave this world without addressing my family and friends directly, because these are the people primarily responsible for my excellent life.
That being said, I would never ever ever seek out a dangerous situation like Chris did. I could go on an adventure like his, but I would never cut off contact from my loved ones like he did. Putting myself in Carine's shoes, I would be sick with worry every day for Chris. I would be happy for him, because he was doing what he wished, but I would want to talk to him to make sure he was okay
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Men Who Don't Fit In
The Men Who Don't Fit In* |
Robert W. Service |
This is a poem by Robert W. Service that I think fits the way that Christ led his life up until his death. I italicized the lines that I feel brought an especially powerful resemblance to Chris' story.
There's a race of men that don't fit in,
A race that can't stay still;
So they break the hearts of kith and kin, And they roam the world at will.
They range the field and they rove the flood,
And they climb the mountain's crest;
Theirs is the curse of the gypsy blood,
And they don't know how to rest.
If they just went straight they might go far;
They are strong and brave and true;
But they're always tired of the things that are, And they want the strange and new.
They say: "Could I find my proper groove,
What a deep mark I would make!"
So they chop and change, and each fresh move
Is only a fresh mistake. - This is where I feel Service diverges from Chris' story a bit.
And each forgets, as he strips and runs
With a brilliant, fitful pace,
It's the steady, quiet, plodding ones
Who win in the lifelong race.
And each forgets that his youth has fled,
Forgets that his prime is past,
Till he stands one day, with a hope that's dead,
In the glare of the truth at last.
He has failed, he has failed; he has missed his chance;
He has just done things by half.
Life's been a jolly good joke on him,
And now is the time to laugh.
Ha, ha! He is one of the Legion Lost;
He was never meant to win;
He's a rolling stone, and it's bred in the bone;
He's a man who won't fit in.
I think that Chris had that bit of gypsy blood in him and that he was drawn to new experiences, but I feel that Chris never had the regrets that the man in the end of the poem had. The key differents between Chris and the man in the poem is that Chris loved to roam, but he also did it deliberately. Service makes it seem as if the man in his poem had no choice in his destiny. I also see Chris as much more enlightened about how connected everyone is to each other. Of course, Service died almost forty years befor Chris did, and the world was different back then than it was for Chris, but when reading about Chris and his story, this poem always popped up in my mind.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Conformity and Nonconformity
This blog is in response to the class discussion about whether or not I am personally a conformist or nonconformist. If being a conformist means I believe social norms, then I am not a conformist. I do not believe with many popularly held beliefs, and I am in fact very opinionated, I just monitor myself in order to not cause more trouble by voicing my opinion instead of keeping quiet. My opinions are my own, and I often choose to not comply with many things, mostly noteably writing format or debating in class. I think the easiest way to be successful in society is to follow the rules, good and bad. Nonconformity will make you a target in many ways, like being attacked for your ideals, interests, or even appearance. The big question facing non conformity is whether or not the social risk of nonconformity is worth taking, and what do you get for being a nonconformist? Nonconformity seems to allow more personal freedom to develop yourself by your own terms, as well as the ability to live by your own standards. How can I go about being the nonconformist that I am? Completely opposing what I do not believe is a poor choice, because both myself and my opposition is hindered by my tenacity. Being young and nonconformist is much harder that being older and nonconformist, because there is already the stigma that you are a bellicous individual that will oppose set boundaries just to oppose them. Is it easier to be a nonconformist in your youth or as an older person? Some nonconformity is expected in youth, but is it seen in a more drastic light as an older person? I'm not sure because I myself haven't experienced independence yet, but I have encountered opposition to myself expressing my opinions and beliefs as I see fit. Whatever the case, natural opposition to society will be harshly received by society, even if the rewards of nonconformity are appealing. But the appeals of conformity are also intriquing. You will naturally be well-received if you give in to conformist ideals, and you will be included into society if you conform. The possibility of living a life with other people, even if that means living by their standards, is extremely appealing to me. I love spending time with people, but sometimes I hate the monotony and irrelevance of things like school or work. I don't think I would ever do what Chris McCandless did, but I admire his courage and tenacity in standing up for what he believed. So I guess if I had to categorize myself, I'd be a closet nonconformist, because my opinions are my own and I will fight for them, but I see no problem with doing that while fitting into society.
Did Chris Have Regrets?
Going into his travels, its obvious that Chris was trying to escape his family and society, but how critical is Chris of himself? Did he acknowledge his side of his abrasive relationship with his father? Did he recognize that his family would be deeply hurt by his disappearance? Did he recognize how he affected the people he met? How self-critical was he of his actions?
I see Chris' attitude towards his father is so much more complex that any of his other relationships. They were close, yet they hurt each other greatly through misunderstanding the other. Chris obviously blames his father for the disconnect between them, but does he see himself at fault too? Personally, Chris seems to be less hard on himself when it comes to his relationship with his father. Rainey hits it on the head when he says in the movie that "kids are hard on their parents." Chris seems to reserve a special judgement for his father, and the hurt seems to be worse due to the fact that they are family, like in Sherman Alexie's "Every Little Hurricane." I think that Chris also knew that his family would take his actions in different ways. he seemed to know that Carine would understand his actions, his mother would be scared of his actions and their ramifications, and his dad would be angry at how "thoughtless" Chris was being. I think Chris had carefully considered how his actions would affect his family, but he lacked sympathy for how his parents would react.
Chris undoubtedly had a deep connection with many people on his journeys, such as the Burreses, Westerberg, and Franz, but did he know the kind of emotional scarring his death could have? I think he knew of the emotional ties they had, but I also think that his death was such an abstract thought that its full ramifications escaped his thoughts. His only crime was being too young to recognize how much his death would affect those closest to him. He isn't responsible for his death, because what happened could have happened to anyone in his situation, yet his lack of experience offers an easy culprit for his death. I wonder if it is a matter of not comprehending death completely, or seeing a cause so vividly that you would die for it. Chris didn't want too die, but did death phase him in his journey? The threat of dying seemed to only add to the vigor in which he pursued his journey. He took minimal supplies with him to add to the experience of going into the wild. Though he romanticized his journey, I believe that his only regret was not making it out to convey the true meaning of his Alaskan odyssey, and his death is by no means a result of his only inability or lack of intelligence, but a result of a cruel twist of fate.
I see Chris' attitude towards his father is so much more complex that any of his other relationships. They were close, yet they hurt each other greatly through misunderstanding the other. Chris obviously blames his father for the disconnect between them, but does he see himself at fault too? Personally, Chris seems to be less hard on himself when it comes to his relationship with his father. Rainey hits it on the head when he says in the movie that "kids are hard on their parents." Chris seems to reserve a special judgement for his father, and the hurt seems to be worse due to the fact that they are family, like in Sherman Alexie's "Every Little Hurricane." I think that Chris also knew that his family would take his actions in different ways. he seemed to know that Carine would understand his actions, his mother would be scared of his actions and their ramifications, and his dad would be angry at how "thoughtless" Chris was being. I think Chris had carefully considered how his actions would affect his family, but he lacked sympathy for how his parents would react.
Chris undoubtedly had a deep connection with many people on his journeys, such as the Burreses, Westerberg, and Franz, but did he know the kind of emotional scarring his death could have? I think he knew of the emotional ties they had, but I also think that his death was such an abstract thought that its full ramifications escaped his thoughts. His only crime was being too young to recognize how much his death would affect those closest to him. He isn't responsible for his death, because what happened could have happened to anyone in his situation, yet his lack of experience offers an easy culprit for his death. I wonder if it is a matter of not comprehending death completely, or seeing a cause so vividly that you would die for it. Chris didn't want too die, but did death phase him in his journey? The threat of dying seemed to only add to the vigor in which he pursued his journey. He took minimal supplies with him to add to the experience of going into the wild. Though he romanticized his journey, I believe that his only regret was not making it out to convey the true meaning of his Alaskan odyssey, and his death is by no means a result of his only inability or lack of intelligence, but a result of a cruel twist of fate.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Chris' Actions: Male vs Female Perception
As I said in my latest post, those who went through similar experiences to Chris, such as Ruess, Treadwell, or Krakauer, are all men. Is gender a key role in understanding, or condoning, Chris' actions? Do men have a natural empathy for Chris, or are women just more reasonable.
I believe that one of the most driving factors in a man's life is the desire to stand, and thrive, as an individual. You can see all the time how men want to seperate from the pack and be successful, independent, and love every minute of it. Being able to be mysterious and misunderstood is just another drive for men. the romantic (if that is even the right word. I feel uncomfortable using it) idea of jetting off and living by oneself in the wilderness is something that appeals to most men. Is the desire to seperate oneself from the rest of humanity a natural thing? You never see a woman with plans of world domination or the need to be remembered. I think that Chris has such a definitive role in the world that guys can't help but envy, and possibly hate, him for it. As long as you are remembered and played by your own rules, you are a successful man. This is why you see many guys admire Chris.
Women are more difficult to interpret. Not because they are women, but because I am utterly inept and have no experience in thinking as a woman. But it is noteworthy to understand that women are far more social that men are. Guys don't go to the bathroom together, or send their friends of to ask the girl they like out. Women tend to trust others more that men trust others, which is why you see many girls heartbroken over a one week relationship. To naturally trust and rely on others is a beautiful thing, something that guys often struggle with, but this trust means individualism and independence can be an immovable object looming over a woman's life. If you asked a guy how long he would last in the woods alone and then as a girl how long she would survive, I bet you ten bucks that on average, the guy would think he would survive longer. Not to say that women are incapable, but guys naturally see themselves as self-reliant. I don't mean to offend anyone, and I am making some huge generalizations, but women see others as more vital to survival than men. this is why Chris McCandless could be received by women as a reckless kind of guy. You may hear, "why would he leave his family?" or, "How could he do that to his friends?" from girls more than guys. Then again, Im just a teenage guy, what do I know about girls? These are just my thoughts on the matter.
I believe that one of the most driving factors in a man's life is the desire to stand, and thrive, as an individual. You can see all the time how men want to seperate from the pack and be successful, independent, and love every minute of it. Being able to be mysterious and misunderstood is just another drive for men. the romantic (if that is even the right word. I feel uncomfortable using it) idea of jetting off and living by oneself in the wilderness is something that appeals to most men. Is the desire to seperate oneself from the rest of humanity a natural thing? You never see a woman with plans of world domination or the need to be remembered. I think that Chris has such a definitive role in the world that guys can't help but envy, and possibly hate, him for it. As long as you are remembered and played by your own rules, you are a successful man. This is why you see many guys admire Chris.
Women are more difficult to interpret. Not because they are women, but because I am utterly inept and have no experience in thinking as a woman. But it is noteworthy to understand that women are far more social that men are. Guys don't go to the bathroom together, or send their friends of to ask the girl they like out. Women tend to trust others more that men trust others, which is why you see many girls heartbroken over a one week relationship. To naturally trust and rely on others is a beautiful thing, something that guys often struggle with, but this trust means individualism and independence can be an immovable object looming over a woman's life. If you asked a guy how long he would last in the woods alone and then as a girl how long she would survive, I bet you ten bucks that on average, the guy would think he would survive longer. Not to say that women are incapable, but guys naturally see themselves as self-reliant. I don't mean to offend anyone, and I am making some huge generalizations, but women see others as more vital to survival than men. this is why Chris McCandless could be received by women as a reckless kind of guy. You may hear, "why would he leave his family?" or, "How could he do that to his friends?" from girls more than guys. Then again, Im just a teenage guy, what do I know about girls? These are just my thoughts on the matter.
Is John Krakauer a Credible Source?
There is no doubt that John Krakauer has experieced some of the trials and the emotions that Chris McCandless went through, but is he a credible source for McCandless' biography of sorts? Does Krakauer's experience destroy any chance that he may view McCandless objectively? Obviously, Krakauer acknowledges that Chris was a trouble young man and full of angst, but does he give due credit to Chris' family? Throughout the book, I feel that Krakauer dismiss many of the emotional arguments that Chris' family and friends have in favor of Chris' own emotional turmoil. In this regard, I feel that Krakauer cannot view the effects that Chris' actions had on his famlily, nor can he adequately encompass their emotions as weel as he could if he had not experienced the same things as Chris.
Even though Krakauer is partial towards Chris, I believe that this favor is well placed. Judging from Krakauer's experiences on the Stikine Ice Cap, he knows the feelings that Chris had on his odessey. Krakauer seems to give insight into the kind of mind that would neglect human company in favor of danger, nature, and isolation. Knowing the motives that drove Krakauer, his adolescent focus on climbing, makes Chris' hazy high school and college years become more understandable, if not reasonable. With Krakauer's own fatherly troubles, Chris' relationship with Walt also becomes more clear. His line that "male authority aroused in me a medley of corked fury and hunger to please" in incredibly insightful as to how Chris viewed his father and other men, possibly Westerberg. The emotional connection between Krakauer and McCandless is palpable and insightfull to say the least, but did it convey Chris' story in the most accurate way?
Was Krakauer the best man for the job? Would Westerberg or Carine have been about to offer a much more emotional and insightful sorry? I don't think so. I believe that Chris was such a mysterious and confusing person that knowing him personally made him all the more mysterious. Krakauer knows the experiences that Chris went through, and knows the emotion tied to is. Those closest to Chris, I believe, didn't see the side of Chris that saw his Alaskan adventure as reasonable and vital. Maybe there was a duality in his identity divided between what people see and what is there when Kris is alone. Krakauer can identify with both of these identities like only a few others can. Ruess, McCunn, Waterman, Rosellini, Tolstoy, Thoreau, or even Timothy Treadwell could have given insight much like Krakauer, because they all experienced the drive that Chris had to go into the wild. Interestly enough, they are all men, but that will be my next journal.
Even though Krakauer is partial towards Chris, I believe that this favor is well placed. Judging from Krakauer's experiences on the Stikine Ice Cap, he knows the feelings that Chris had on his odessey. Krakauer seems to give insight into the kind of mind that would neglect human company in favor of danger, nature, and isolation. Knowing the motives that drove Krakauer, his adolescent focus on climbing, makes Chris' hazy high school and college years become more understandable, if not reasonable. With Krakauer's own fatherly troubles, Chris' relationship with Walt also becomes more clear. His line that "male authority aroused in me a medley of corked fury and hunger to please" in incredibly insightful as to how Chris viewed his father and other men, possibly Westerberg. The emotional connection between Krakauer and McCandless is palpable and insightfull to say the least, but did it convey Chris' story in the most accurate way?
Was Krakauer the best man for the job? Would Westerberg or Carine have been about to offer a much more emotional and insightful sorry? I don't think so. I believe that Chris was such a mysterious and confusing person that knowing him personally made him all the more mysterious. Krakauer knows the experiences that Chris went through, and knows the emotion tied to is. Those closest to Chris, I believe, didn't see the side of Chris that saw his Alaskan adventure as reasonable and vital. Maybe there was a duality in his identity divided between what people see and what is there when Kris is alone. Krakauer can identify with both of these identities like only a few others can. Ruess, McCunn, Waterman, Rosellini, Tolstoy, Thoreau, or even Timothy Treadwell could have given insight much like Krakauer, because they all experienced the drive that Chris had to go into the wild. Interestly enough, they are all men, but that will be my next journal.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Benefits of Minimalism
Throughout Chris' Journey around the American West, he continuously shows how a minimalist lifestyle is often the most rewarding. He places a lack of importance on many objects, like his Datsun, canoe, and money, insisting that traveling economically makes his experience more rewarding? But how does this minimalism make life more rewarding? Perhaps it puts happiness in perspective, and accentuates the fact that material possessions cannot make life enjoyable. Maybe the denying of certain things makes having them periodically so much more enjoyable. Westerberg repeatedly said that Chris always cleared his plate when he ate. This suggests that Chris was either extremely hungry, savored the food immensely, or both. This denial of certain things puts the focus of life on a different plane of existence. Instead of taking the objects he denies for granted, denying those objects makes them so much more beautiful and precious. Maybe this is one of the reasons that Chris is so critical of his family, and society in general. Chris chose to deny materials as much as possible because that made him see life though a different, more distinct view. In the previous pictures I posted, Chris is seen with a recently shot porcupine. The look of euphoria on his face shows how much he appreciated and revered the gift of the porcupine. Why would Chris so vehemently oppose materialistic society then? Is it because materials become the focus of life in our society, because we judge each other's worth by their materials, or because these materials bring the true beauty of life so far out of focus that people go there whole lives without any glimpse of the joy that Chris loved so much. Though I agree with Chris' about minimalism, I don't think he tried very hard to convince others to follow his own righteous path. He reached out to Franz, but expressed that he was skeptical that Franz would follow. He never revealed to Westerberg or Jan Burres his ideals, and he was a stone wall when it came to his family. I would like to read more into Chris' life with his family. What exactly caused his change in demeanor after high school and during college. Does he blame his parents for this? Does he see his parents as the embodiment of the materialism he hates? That shall be the topic of my next post. Lots to think about...
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Photos of Chris on his Alaskan Adventure
Christopher's equal treatment of the complacent and the impoverished
Journal Post #2 - 1/4/2012
After reading the first fifty pages of Into the Wild, one of the most curious pieces of Chris' personality is his thoughts towards people and society. Obviously he rejects materialism and commercialism and those who Chris correlates with capitalism, like his parents, but he is extremely sociable amongst other tramps and vagabonds. Is this because of their rejection of societal confines, or because he feels more comfortable with people in economic distress? Why then is he so attached to Westerberg? I think that he rejected any contact with his parents and family, yet kept in contact with the Burres and Westerberg, because his family reminded him of all things wrong with society and that the people he met on the road reminded him of all things good about people. One thing that Chris never fails to mention is the kindness of the people he meets through his journey. It seems as if Chris enjoyed talking with the other tramps immensely, and that the feeling was mutual with most everyone he met. How could he maintain such strong relationships with other tramps but be so detached from his parents and other complacent members of society, such as his fellow employees at the McDonalds in Bullhead. I believe that Chris tried to treat all people with respect, but he reserved his best treatment for those in economic distress. I think this is true because he spend two months in Bullhead, more than in most other places, but he never grew to have a relationship with any of his co-workers. Was this because he was uncomfortable with being a contributing member of a society he didn't want to be a part of? Or was it because he didn't take the time to reach out to any of the complacent workers? Chris seems to now be a social outcast. He is too far seperated from society to ever identify with it for very long. That is why he can connect so well with other tramps and Westerberg, because they are also disconnected from the hypocritical mainstream society that Chris left. But is this inability to rejoin society deliberate or subconcious? Chris is obviously uncomfortable with working, but he still maintains a minimalist lifestyle. When he takes his socks off immediately after work, i see that as a deliberate rejection of society. He may recognize that he is somewhat dependent, but he also shows his tenacious drive to sever himself from social standards. That is why he admires other tramps so much, because they do what they can with what they have. Chris deliberately rejects society, but he also rejects the tramp society as well. He rarely accepts handouts, and is mostly nomadic throughout his dealings with other tramps, and he makes a point to camp farther away from other tramps at Oh-My-God Springs. IT seems taht Chris is attempting to severe ties with minimalist tramps as well. he sees the beauty in the personalities of tramps, but he also distances himself from them. Throughout all of his dealings, his goal is primarily self-exploration and adventure, but is he selfish or selfless when going through with his goal? He recognizes the relationships he has, but does he recognize the emotion tied to those relationships? Lots to think about...
After reading the first fifty pages of Into the Wild, one of the most curious pieces of Chris' personality is his thoughts towards people and society. Obviously he rejects materialism and commercialism and those who Chris correlates with capitalism, like his parents, but he is extremely sociable amongst other tramps and vagabonds. Is this because of their rejection of societal confines, or because he feels more comfortable with people in economic distress? Why then is he so attached to Westerberg? I think that he rejected any contact with his parents and family, yet kept in contact with the Burres and Westerberg, because his family reminded him of all things wrong with society and that the people he met on the road reminded him of all things good about people. One thing that Chris never fails to mention is the kindness of the people he meets through his journey. It seems as if Chris enjoyed talking with the other tramps immensely, and that the feeling was mutual with most everyone he met. How could he maintain such strong relationships with other tramps but be so detached from his parents and other complacent members of society, such as his fellow employees at the McDonalds in Bullhead. I believe that Chris tried to treat all people with respect, but he reserved his best treatment for those in economic distress. I think this is true because he spend two months in Bullhead, more than in most other places, but he never grew to have a relationship with any of his co-workers. Was this because he was uncomfortable with being a contributing member of a society he didn't want to be a part of? Or was it because he didn't take the time to reach out to any of the complacent workers? Chris seems to now be a social outcast. He is too far seperated from society to ever identify with it for very long. That is why he can connect so well with other tramps and Westerberg, because they are also disconnected from the hypocritical mainstream society that Chris left. But is this inability to rejoin society deliberate or subconcious? Chris is obviously uncomfortable with working, but he still maintains a minimalist lifestyle. When he takes his socks off immediately after work, i see that as a deliberate rejection of society. He may recognize that he is somewhat dependent, but he also shows his tenacious drive to sever himself from social standards. That is why he admires other tramps so much, because they do what they can with what they have. Chris deliberately rejects society, but he also rejects the tramp society as well. He rarely accepts handouts, and is mostly nomadic throughout his dealings with other tramps, and he makes a point to camp farther away from other tramps at Oh-My-God Springs. IT seems taht Chris is attempting to severe ties with minimalist tramps as well. he sees the beauty in the personalities of tramps, but he also distances himself from them. Throughout all of his dealings, his goal is primarily self-exploration and adventure, but is he selfish or selfless when going through with his goal? He recognizes the relationships he has, but does he recognize the emotion tied to those relationships? Lots to think about...
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Journal Entry #1 - "Death of an Innocent"
After reading Jon Krakauer's article "Death of an Innocent" about the journey of Chris McCandless, I must admit, I am awfully intrigued by McCandless' motives that drove him to reject almost every aspect of society. His actions have an almost paradoxical selfishness that i struggle to really understand. Is he acting out of a selfish need to escape social subjectivity, or is he selflessly rejecting material possesssion? Is he an innocent, ignorant kid? or is he deliberately rejecting both good and bad social burden, despite his responsibility to his family and friends? lots to think about...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)