supertramp

in the past few months i recently read "into the wild" by jon krakauer and just this past week finally saw the sean penn film adaptation of the book.

i've had some thoughts on the subject of christopher mccandless for quite a while. he's become a bit of a cult hero since his death and in my life i've known more than a few followers.

i will start to say that i genuinely loved both the book and the movie.definitely struck a few chords.it elicits *quite* the reaction out of me but the problem is that my reactions are so strong yet so bipolar in depth. i'm still wrapping my head around it all in order to come to my final conclusion (though i suppose people are complicated and it is useless to lump a person's story into such black and white definitive terms anyway).

if you're reading this and don't know much about the subject--the very bare bones of the story is that an affluent 20's-something kid decides to leave behind all family and loved ones (giving away all of his money, burning all forms of identification)to buck society and more or less find and test himself in the Alaskan wilderness only to more or less die accidentally.

on one hand i LOOOOOOVVVVVVVVEEEE the themes of anti-consumerist societies, the idea of getting back to basics with nature and being an adventurer (not unlike thoreau or jack london or even jack kerouac), and the somewhat anarchist ideals of anti-establishment that Mccandless had. i love a revolutionary who abandons the system and questions authority and basically says "fuck this i don't have to live my life this way just because i'm expected to". i also love people who take chances in life. in a lot of ways his story is inspiring and there are many days i wish i could live up to some of his ideals. after all at my core i *am* an idealist in many ways.

on the other hand there's a very fine line between inspiration and stupidity/arrogance/pretentiousness. i'm not sure if he was, in reality, naive in going into the harsh wilderness so unprepared and so unassuming. it seemed like he had this completely ridiculous idea that the whole thing was just going to be easy and carefree.

there is a popular theory backed by possible clues left behind that he also had some mental disorders (be it schizophrenia or bipolar. maybe this was him trying to escape himself? in some ways Mccandless is no different than the homeless man lying under the el train that you step over on your way to work but i'm not sure that most people consider those transients heroes. there is also the drug element, but that's a whole other story. either way, there is the issue of escape.

one of my initial reactions is that Mccandless was in many ways an immature spoiled brat/selfish asshole. yes his family had problems and in many ways this was his way of rebelling and escaping. well guess what? we ALL have problems and trouble in our families and our lives and relationships in society but the far more heroic thing to do is to face your demons head on, work through your issues and get through it. running away from your problems doesn't always make the problems disappear; often it leads to deeper problems or gives provides new problems that are of of no lesser evil. in some ways his death could almost be seen as an accidental suicide-a cry for help and attention that ended badly. maybe this is fate.

another interesting aspect of his story that people seem to neglect is the fact that while a huge theme of the story is solitude and independence, Mccandless met a vast array of characters along the way who if not for meeting them and their caring for him he could not have accomplished his goal of his solitary journey in the first place; perhaps another theme.

while i am a strong believer in finding one's identity, being independent and solitary (at least for a period of time), the main point of the story to me was one of Mccandless's last entries: "happiness is only real when shared". as he spent his time in his self-imposed solitary confinement he started to learn this lesson and began to miss his family and i believe that he genuinely wanted to go back.

to me into the wild is more of a tragic cautionary tale. a LOT like wizard of oz (only the wizard of oz has its happy ending). dorothy left kansas-she wanted to escape, she went on a journey, met friends along the way-very reminiscent of those she left behind that cared for her-proven friends that she could not have gotten her to where she needed to be without-only to realize her happiness was right where she left it all along.

the only thing you have to lose is your self but sometimes you don't have to go very far to find your self either....

as a footnote-incidentally recently i watched something on pbs where there was an australian study on modern society and there has been scientific fact proven that people who live more solitary lives with less communal contact wind up with major health problems much earlier in life and die much younger.

required reading material

my dear friend jamie arehart-aka jamie awesome-aka the jamisonian- was a guest writer on another philly blog-the trouble with spikol today.


she writes about the start of the philadelphia eagles season (and i for one agree with her a thousand percent-but then again i'm a baseball/hockey kind of girl anyway)


check it out!!!


http://trouble. philadelphiaweekly. com/