Rating: 
Summary: Before There Was Everest
Review: Jon Krakauer is a curious and intriguing reporter. Again and again he shows his willingness to question common assumptions and dig for the deeper truth. It would be very easy to dismiss "Alex" as a misguided idealist and an outdoors novice. Krakauer questions these easy conclusions and discovers a deeper truth as he explores the how and why of what makes a young man with a promising future all laid out for him turn his back on civilization. It's also an intriguing exploration of the relationship between fathers and sons.
Rating: 
Summary: What Drives A Man To His Demise?
Review: Naive? Stupid? Brave? Psycho? You'll think of all of these descriptions as you follow the "hero" through his travails in the cold, lonely back country of Alaska. One thing that can be truly said is that this is a sad story.
Rating:
Summary: Lost youth - wasted life?
Review: Chris McCandless wanted an adventure. He walked into the Alaskan wilderness ill-prepared and did not come out alive. From my vantage point in northern Mn, my initial reaction to this trek was that Chris was insane, suicidal, or just plain dumb!Author Jon Krakauer, himself an adventurer, does a good job of recreating Chris' life and motivation. Krakauer's introspection and comparison of other ill-fated adventurers helps explain Chris while neither canonizing nor demonizing this young man and his wanderings. The writing does not get in the way of the story (contra another book about Alaska - The Woman Who Married a Bear - which I am also reviewing today.)
Rating: 
Summary: Not for Anyone Under 16.......
Review: We had to read this for our literature class. I've read books that aren't directed towards my age group, but this was.......weird. It is interesting as to why people think Chris McCandless went out into the wild, and to hear what his family said, but this book just drags on and on and on. It makes a better magazine article, and you've gotta love and understand nature to the fullest. It taught me that life is precious, though, but the book's saving grace is the authors talent with words.
Rating: 
Summary: Adolescent Idealism Proves Fatal
Review: The previous reviewer takes exception to McCandless being called 'a boy' at the age of twenty-four but that's exactly what he was - an over age adolescent. I mean would a mature adult call himself 'Alexander Supertramp' and scribble emphatic one liners like 'Jack London is the Man!!' or whatever? McCandless' self centered self righteousness and feckless indiference to consequences are characteristic of the kind of sheltered upper middle class boy he was. His behavior towards his parents can only be described as deliberately and maliciously cruel and his treatment of the various people who befriend him on his travels isn't much better, he accepts their help but gives little or nothing back. If it were not for the help of strangers he meets along the way his adventure would have ended much sooner than it did. Oh he was idealistic I grant you, in the half baked counter-cultural way we've had to put up with since the sixties, unlevened by any touch of realism or common sense. And that of course is what killed him. Krakauer is wrong, McCandless wasn't doing 'all right' he was living hand to mouth with no margin of safety at all. If our ancestors had been so improvident the human species would have expired millions of years ago. McCandless' basic flaw was he didn't take the Wilderness seriously, not seriously enough to adequately prepare himself by studying survival techniques, not seriously enough to dedicate himself to building up a store of food to fall back on, or even thoroughly scout his territory. He was apparently completely unaware of cabins, a ranger station and even a way to cross the flooded river all of which could be found within a six mile radius of his bus. What the heck was he doing all those months? Reading apparently and scribbling callow enthusiasms on every available surface under the impression he was being profound. What he was *not* doing was exploring his territory, locating promising food sources or preparing for emergencies - even after he discovered the flooded river blocking his intended trail out. His fecklessness killed him, which is a pity he was young after all and it is sad he should die of his youthful follies.
Rating:
Summary: ... read this. It's good!!!
Review: Into the Wild, by Jon Krakauer, is an interesting book. Though the book in non-fiction, the book not written with the help of the main character. It is the true story of Chris McCandless’ journey to Alaska and eventual death. His story is built on the accounts of the others that knew him. His journey through The United States, Canada and Mexico is one that is very challenging and only a handful would attempt. ... One of his ideas is the abandonment of modern society. When filling out a tax form he thoroughly told off the IRS. That is an act that I one day hope to be able to do. Maybe not for all my life, but perhaps living off the land for a year or so would be an experience. After all, Chris destroyed or abandoned everything he had up to that point. McCandless is a lot like Holden Caulfield from Catcher in the Rye. Both characters are trying to find their identity and are hoping their journey will give them a clue. They both had distant relationships with their parents, and are leaving a “normal” world in their journey to a stranger one. McCandless was successful in everyone’s eyes but his own. He was an honor student and was offered a membership to Cum Laude Society, which he rejected because titles are meaningless to him. He was a star athlete and had many friends. Another aspect is the accounts of others that have also gone “Into the Wild.” Of all the others mentioned, all survived and one is Jon Krakauer, himself. After all, Krakauer first wrote the article on Chris McCandless in Outside Magazine. Some people offer the idea that Chris was crazy and was pent on death from the beginning. He wrote in one letter, “If I do not return, I want you to know you are a great man.” I feel that his death was a terrible tragedy, as does Krakauer. My idea is that he was on a quest to find his identity and it was cut short.
Rating:
Summary: No pundit here, words from one who seeks
Review: I had to write in opposition to those who only know grammer, sentence structure and collect bound text. To dismiss the story on the basis of word-smithing value or academic relevance is to typify the rampant lack of "greatness" that pervades us as a people today. Yes, Chris should have gone better prepared and blah-blah-blah but rather I say that I empathize with his search for an answer to this life rift with posturing, jostling, acting for position/address/exclusiveness. He sought to find a place where love for one another as humans exist with peace as the lever to truth and real bonding to one another and all things that reside in the natural world. Write to me if you understand and as was Chris are a dreamer/idealist/lover of life.
Rating:
Summary: Krakauer overreached himself
Review: The first half of the book is good, a real page turner. The author, Krakauer, tells the intriguing story of Chris McCandless, an intelligent, passionate, personable 24 year old who died on an ill-prepared trip to Alaska. He also tells what is known about McCandless's other adventures, which he'd been having since high school. One thing I object to in the entire book is that the story is not told in sequence. The author bounces around a lot. To read the story in sequence, read the chapters in this order: 11 (family history, childhood); 12 (high school and college adventures); first part of 4; 3; rest of 4; 5; 6; 7; first part of 16 (arrives in Alaska); 1; rest of 16; 18 (final adventure starts); 2 (dead body found); 10 (finding parents); 13 (family reacts); 17 (author visits site); epilogue (parents visit site with author). The author also veers off twice in the middle of the book into the stories of other ill-prepared extreme adventurers (chapters 8 and 9), including his own story (chapters 14 and 15). Krakauer made some common mistakes: not offering balance (merely offering a new extreme to counter an extremist); not offering a real avenue out for adventuresome readers (not offering understanding); and not explaining crucial things he claims to understand (this makes him indistinguishable from a madman to people who do not understand). The remainder of my comments flesh out these points. In the second half of the book it becomes palpable that the author fears that youths with a lot of energy, ideals, and passion may well read about McCandless and go off on an extreme and ill-prepared adventures. It's also clear that Krakauer wants to address this problem. He fails miserably in this. I'm not a psych professional, but I think Krakauer makes some intelligent observations about adventurers such as McCandless. That they often have issues from childhood, largely corked conflicts with their fathers that erupt into short sighted missions of independence. He notes that an all-knowing paternalistic directing will fire anger in the children sooner or later. But the author does not seem to understand why that might be so, except as a concept of it being something silly boys do. But I can certainly understand. I find that the world of people seeks balance: if you are one extreme, at least one other person around will seek the opposite extreme. (That isn't to say that people aren't responsible for their own behavior, no just short of that. Sane people always have some control.) The "boy" goes on a dangerous, wild, independent and ill-prepared quest. Well, surprise, surprise. Krakauer, instead, follows the common route of blaming the "boy" for his death. Krakauer indulgently pities both parents in their distress. Repeatedly in the final quarter of the book, Krakauer takes to referring to the 24 year old, very independent man as "the boy." "The boy," though not expected to know about all of the tricks and tips of living rough in the Alaskan bush, incongruently is expected to, by age 24, (1) wrest himself from the decades-built monument of superiority of parenthood, (2) figure things out enough for himself to be at peace with his place in the world, and (3) to come to peace with his rigid father. Much much worse, Krakauer doesn't seem to be aware that there are parents who molest their children, who keep them way outside their optimum stimulation range, or who lie to them constantly for no defensible reason. He never questions that McCandless was simply a remarkable yet silly boy of imperfect but decent parents. Krakauer relates his own story of a rigid father and his pitiable end. He apparently extrapolates that everyone should see their parents through indulgently pitying eyes, post haste -- in fact years and years sooner than he himself did. Everyone should? Even the abused kids grown up? No, that is bad journalism. It is painful for victims to see the unfairness of this blindness to their situation. It is wrong to fail to point out the existence of such a possibility of child abuse to the rest of the readers. It is wrong to brush the reality of child abuse under the carpet as not even a possibility. Furthermore, even if McCandless was indeed simply an impulsive energetic youth with a fine childhood behind him, Krakauer is unfair for sneering at his not getting all of that maturity listed above by the age of 24. Irresponsible journalism, I say. Another mistake Krakauer made is also a mistake that even the well known psychologist, Abraham Maslow made. Maslow's hierarchy goes from survival to security to love/belonging, and then beyond. However, studies of people in crisis have revealed another step between security and love/belonging: Cognitive Functioning. Krakauer stumbles around this key step of understanding, pointing out several knowledges that could have physically saved McCandless. But he fails to explain the parents he feels he understands, he fails to explain the family conflict, he fails to explain his own understanding of his own rigid father. For that matter, he fails to explain his own ill-advised trip. Instead, he attempts to jump to the love/belonging step. The point of telling his own story in the midst of McCandless's seems to be: people who make ill-advised trips sure look silly and tragic. There is little understanding here, and only a cold suggestion that these boys don't belong and it's those who stayed at home who look good and who the author ultimately sides with. (Now don't you feel cold and left out, you young adventuresome readers?) And we're back to the first mistake Krakauer makes: the lack of balance. By presenting only a choice between pitied, almost sneered-at, rejection and homey, obedient, predictable belonging, the author becomes another absolutist minded figure to rebel against. When building understanding, love/belonging is beside the point. What would be a clear statement against taking such a premature step to love/belonging? Going back to survival!
Rating:
Summary: Wow, amazing book
Review: I found this book facinating. You are really drawing into Chris' life. For me it was a real page turner. Get it if you like real life mystery, adventure and discovery!
Rating:
Summary: shamelessly padded to the nth degree
Review: The story is an interesting one. And Krakauer is a good writer when he can stay focused on the story. Unfortunately he pads this simple story way out of proportion. It's a real insult to the reader. He adds all kinds of quotes from high falutin sources to try and make the story take on trancendent meaning, and it's just gets in the way. Also, he just assumes that everyone will fall in love with MacCandless, but that is hardly the case. He seemed like a nice enough kid, but not nice enough to justify all the praise and attention heaped on him here. If the people that MacCandless met on the road took a liking to him, then that means he was an outgoing, personable guy, not some kind of saint in training. If MacCandless was so otherworldly and saintly then the facts could have spoken for themselves, instead of having to smash the reader in the face with the conclusion over and over again. This story has all the poignancy of one of those evening news feel-good, "kitten in a tree" stories. I think this book insults MacCandless's memory more than honors it. I doubt MacCandless would have approved of this book if he had lived.
| 
