Into the Wild - Blog #5

Chris was a very complex person. He had an immense amount of traits, some positive and some negative.
Top three positive traits:
1.Determined
2.Wise
3.Social/Friendly
Chris was exceptionally determined. If the man put his mind to something, he was going to do it. It was nearly impossible to try and talk the guy out of something. Being determined can be a good trait to have. I think sometimes his determination kept him out of trouble, because he was rarely influenced.
Not only was Chris determined, he was wise. He graduated, with honors, from Emory University. He maintained straight A's throughout his school years. He made a lot of good decisions, along with some poor ones. At some times, I thought he lacked a little bit of common sense.
Chris made friends easily. People found him as likeable, and most people who came into contact with him would say they were better for having known him.
Top three negative traits:
1.Stubborn
2.Loner
3.Lack of common sense
Chris rarely ever took anything from anybody, advice or materials. When people tried to talk to him about something he didn't want to hear, he just shut his mind off.
While Chris could be social and friendly, he honestly never seemed interested in forming long term relationships with anybody. It's like he didn't want his feelings to get in the way of his mission.
For as book smart as Chris was, some of his decisions showed his lack of common sense. For example, his decisions to go into the wilderness with as little as he did, and to sever all ties with the outside world.
Above all, I think his stubborness is the strongest of his traits. People get frustrated when they read the book and realize how a few small changes to his plan could have changed his outcome. He ignored Jim Gallien's advice about being unprepared, as well as staying in touch with somebody. Doing one of those two things differently could have saved his life.



Jon Krakauer and Chris McCandless shared a connection with some similarities and some differences. The similarities can be described as follows:

1. Both Krakauer and McCandless were fascinated by Alaska; page 134
2. Both had complicatedand difficult relationships with their fathers; page 134
3. Both felt that their Alaskan adventures were "key" to changing their lives; page 135
4. Both were affected and driven by literature; McCandless read London and Tolstoy; while Krakauer read Nietzsche, Kerouac and Edwards; page 135
5. In Krakauer's own words, both were "raw youth who mistook passion for insight and acted according to an obscure, gap-ridden logic"; and "death was an abstract concept to them both"; page 155

The differences can be described as follows:
1. In Krakuer's own words,  he possessed "neither Chris McCandless' intellect nor his lofty ideals"; page 155
2. Krakauer reached his goa and realized it didn't actually change his life;  while McCandless failed; page 153
3. Krakauer survived his ordeal while McCandless obviously did not; page 153
4. Krakauer at age 23 was one year younger than McCandless; page 135
5. Krakauer realized that despite his troubled relationship with his father that his father had actually built a good life for him but that Krakauer had wrecked it; Chris never survived his ordeal or was able to reach a similar conclusion about his father; page 148