Chris McCandless: Brave, Passionate Adventurer or Ungrateful Moron?

In YouTube videos and in discussions around the topic of Chris McCandless’ adventure, I continually see two contrasting images portrayed of McCandless, neither of which I find myself able to side with. In responding to his death and the decisions that caused it, official ABC coverage of the report starts out by painting McCandless as some kind of ruthless fool who was “rejecting his identity.” That phrase does not sit right with me. First of all, who are these reporters to know anything of his real identity? Based on what I have read and learned of McCandless, his act of rebellion or maybe insanity or maybe impulsive bravery is nothing short of the perfect definition of who he really is. So there is one side to the argument that I have seen. It is the side that believes that Chris McCandless is a bored ungrateful brat with nothing better to do than “put himself to some kind of test” (ABC reporting) that would likely end badly.

            The other side to the argument is one that I find just as hard to agree with. It is the side that admires McCandless for his feat. I hear of this side mainly in discussion, and while I myself am sometimes the person to raise the point, I would not be so quick to say that I think he is brave or admirable at all. While I recognize the courage it must take to embark on this journey—even if it is his believed destiny—it is hard not to see the selfish side to his actions. Sure, he himself was passionate and determined to go off on his own into n environment he was unlikely to return from, but what about those who would miss him? What about his family, who had put time and money into his life and his future? One could argue that it was all wasted. One could also argue that good fortune like that can never be wasted, as it makes an individual more mature within their own understandings and thoughts. I am in favor of the latter. But I also must consider his other selfish actions. In a video concerning things not commonly known about Chris McCandless on YouTube, a man shares a story of a robbery in his home in the woods at the same time of McCandless’ journey. Initially believed to be a bear attack, it initially became evident that the damage done could only have been the work of a human. A disconnected stove was disconnected properly and gently, and moved outside. Other signs indicated a human’s presence in the house, leading the owner of the house to strongly believe that the intruder was McCandless. This is an example of the selfishness in his actions. Not only that, but to leave his parents without a son is considerably selfish.

            After rereading my blog, I want to say that I am decidedly not a fan of McCandless’ actions. But then I think again, and honestly, who is anyone to stop him if that is what he is sure he must do? There is so much to be unsure about in life. So much to fear, so much to worry over, so many reasons to hesitate…a part of me wants to say, if this guy is lucky enough to feel so strongly about something, get out of the way and just let him give it his best shot.

Vines

Natural Beauty pt. 1: https://vine.co/v/Mn1ejXLQtzw

Natural Beauty pt. 2: https://vine.co/v/Mn1iM0VPeeQ

Natural Beauty pt. 3: https://vine.co/v/Mn1iVeUipLT 

(copy and past links into search bar)

Ishmael Feelings

I have never read a book quite like Ishmael. Unlike 90% of books that I have read at school this year, I found myself legitimately intrigued by the ideas it brought up, and frustrated when others were not open-minded to the very plausible concepts that it presented. Something I see everyday, and something I obviously commit myself, is an obnoxious and counterproductive hypocrisy. Let me explain.

It's the easiest thing in the world to have a Harkness discussion about open-mindedness and what it takes to make a change in the world, but when it comes to TRULY opening your mind, it's unthinkable. An idea that is too far fetched is dismissed immediately, even if it may have the potential to be revolutionary. Without the power of belief to support a brave new concept, it's useless, and this is frustrating to me.

I recognize that it is difficult to truly accept a new idea, but in order to break ground I believe that it is completely necessary. While reading Ishmael, I took note of ideas and theories that were different and a little frightening. But they were detailed and logical to a convincing extent. There is so much that is unexplained in the world and in life, and Ishmael is a truly wonderful and impressively legitimate attempt to sort everything out. I applaud Daniel Quinn and his unapologetic attempt to open people's mind.

My mother once showed me this movie called The Secret. It was about the Law of Attraction, and how through the power of believing you have the potential to acquire anything you desire, whether it be wealth, relationships, fame, success, and nearly everything else. My mom showed it to me in hopes that I could turn things around for myself during a hard period of my life. I thought it was crap. I thought to myself, "how is that even possible? Of course it isn't worth a shot." But after a while I had a difficult time getting the concept out of my mind. Suddenly I wondered, "why do I have to understand everything?"

The truth is, I don't. And I can't. But books like Ishmael satisfy my hunger to try. Because of this, Ishmael is one of the best and most important books I have ever read.

Questions of Humanity

I have a very strange and particular pet peeve. I realized it when I was on a college tour over this past summer, and over the course of our last couple Reading Place classes, it has become more and more potent of an annoyance. I was getting a tour of Knox College in Illinois, when the tour guide asked one of the girls on the tour to describe her favorite book. The girl said, "I can't pick a favorite!" So the guide asked her to describe a book she liked. "Define like..." she said. 

I turned to my step-dad and whispered, "oh GOD. I hate when people do this." "Do what?" he asked. Do what? Over-complicate things like this! This girl knew what the word "like" meant, she was just being a pretentious snobby dissection-obsessed pest, or so I thought at the time. Of course I believe in digging and dissecting, but aren't some things better left alone?

In Reading Place, when we started discussing what it meant to be human, I found myself feeling the same type of frustration with some of my classmates' comments. Why must we question whether a robot is more human than an ACTUAL HUMAN?! It angered me that some people were entirely convinced that a gorilla or even a machine was more human than a legitimate human being just because it's feelings and actions appeared more similar to that of the typical human. I thought to myself, who are these people to be stripping the wild child of what she was born as, and has the right to call herself? It wasn't her fault that she was deprived of everything that nourishes our potential to act human! How could my classmates suggest that just because a monkey is better at communicating, it is more of a human? I still do not know.

I find labels constricting and upsetting at times. I'm not one of those wacko-s who goes nuts over something like the senior poll, but when it comes to defining something serious and who gets to decide who qualifies as what, I find myself easily upset and misunderstood. It is hard to take a word and define it in a way that can be a sort of qualifying test for anything or anyone trying to count as that word, so my question is, why do we have to? In our most basic understanding, we know what a human is! After that, isn't this one of those things that's better left alone?