Posted on Mon, Dec 31 2007 @ 20:06
Leave a comment

The One With The "Into the Wild" Book

I finally finished reading "Into the Wild" by John Krakauer. It took me longer than I had expected, but I guess working 10 hours a day and then being way too tired to read will kinda do that to you. But it also took me longer for a different reason; rereading certain passages more than once, even more than twice. It happens with me quite often when I read books. I'm not one of those people who finish a book in a day because their eyes flew over the page and then they can say they read it. I accept it is one way to read, but later, if you ask these people if they really got to the core of the book (and as far as I'm concerned, books you can read like that don't have a whole lot of "core" to begin with), they might have an answer, but deep down, they probably won't really know what to say. I was tempted to underline or highlight certain passages, but ended up not to. I can never really bring myself to write in books. I don't know, I guess it's just this line I don't cross, I think the only book where I really couldn't help myself was "The Call of the Wild" by Jack London. Here I just settled on dog-earing a few pages, but in most cases I didn't even do that much. The review for this book won't be too long (now, I realize that when I introduce a passage with these words, it means that it will be way too long, but in this case, I severely doubt it), mostly because I said so much in my blog about the film, and also… because literary speaking, the book, unfortunately, inclined towards the rather bad.



John Krakauer is not a writer, he is a journalist; a reporter. Supposedly a really good one, but in no way is he a writer. Grammatically, his book almost verges upon disastrous in too many places to count where I simply couldn't help but ask myself whether the man had ever gone to elementary school and studied the basics of English grammar. It's not the tenses that pose a problem for him; not in the slightest, but rather the punctuation, the basic structuring of sentences, arrangement of words and ideas bearing a reader in mind. In that aspect, his writing is not fluent at all, it is awkward, odd and unstructured. For me, who is used to great writers, it was bad enough to damage the book. That aside, proving once again that he is no writer, he does the terrible mistake of squeezing far too many filler chapters into his novel.



Now, don't get me wrong, filler chapters are a common feature, sometimes even in very good novels as they occur for a number of reasons, starting with writer's block and ending with needing to fill the desired words quota for a novel and having already delivered all of your ideas. In his case, his novel spins too often into side stories about himself, but most importantly about over a handful of other adventurers whose stories he decided to introduce because they supposedly had something relevant to Chris McCandless'. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but in my opinion they appeared to be entirely unnecessary, strenuous and uncalled for. When I bought the book, I wanted to read about Chris, about what happened to him, why and how; I wanted to understand him better, to understand what motivated him. I had no interest reading about these people, however impressive their adventures may have been, in stories spread over approximately four chapters altogether. The book is small, so I doubt it would have been a novel without these fillers so maybe that's why he did it, but for me as a reader it simply appeared that he took the easy way out. There was so much more to tell about Chris that could have filled so much space, if only he had done wider research and did not concentrate on these people (or himself).



The book is, of course, not a novel. It is a journalistic report with novelistic features and aspects (and length). Krakauer did what he did best: he reported. His writing betrayed little emotion, little depth. Maybe he did it because, in his journalistic fashion, he attempted to remain as neutral as possible, but it still rendered the book a bit awkward. The only thing that saved it and made it a very good book in spite of all these flaws is Chris. Chris' story, the provided insight into his character and the details uncovered by Krakauer that help better understand who he was and why he did what he did make this book the little treasure that it is. Even Krakauer in his awkward misfit storytelling technique could not take the charm that haunted everything to do with Chris McCandless away. The young man, his story, his adventure and his life were so extraordinary and interesting that as far as he was concerned, I couldn't put the book down. It left me with a thirst for more, a strong desire to know more about him, and an even stronger desire to retrace his steps and visit Fairbanks Bus 142. I know it's an unreal fantasy, but it exists nonetheless.



On a different note, the book painted a different image of Chris to the one we saw in the film. Firstly, it covered a lot of gaps, it explained a lot of things the film left desired for no other reason that it could not fit everything in, but it also revealed aspects of his character that simply were either not tackled or swept under the rug altogether. Firstly Sean Penn is a romanticist, and he is an artist. He will bring out the most relevant traits in his characters to tell his story and he will make sure we identify with this character in such way that, in spite of the character's numerous flaws, our loyalty will remain unwavering and it will tug at out very heart and soul. Krakauer has not the first idea how to do that and so he, once again, reported. And thanks to him I got to know the Chris that was not shown in the film. The real Chris McCandless was by far more selfish than the one Sean Penn described in his movie. The negative aspects of his parents and their relationship were increased for creative purposes, while if one reads the book, one realizes that it wasn't so black and white; that in fact his parents weren't nearly as bad and Chris wasn't nearly as good. I understand why Penn decided to avoid entering that territory, mostly because of how confining movie rules are, even to his free spirit, but Krakauer dryly reported and so he did. After reading the book, however, I have to say that I still relate to Chris, but I also understand that if Sean Penn had showed it as it was, the amount of people appreciative of the film would have been cut in about half, unfortunately. People are simply not ready for that. Chris, in real life, was far too flawed to be a hero and if people allow themselves to relate to that, they must allow themselves to recognize that we are all also too flawed to be heroes, and for most people today it is not an easy thing to recognize about themselves.



Chris' unspeakable selfishness and his denial and avoidance of intimacy and human contact weren't the least of his problems. His animosity towards authority and anyone trying to teach him or even imply he had something to learn were, among other things, what doomed him. He was a dreamer, he philosophized life when there was no need and even when everything was right before his eyes. All that came in interesting contrast with how intelligent he was and how eloquent he was. Another major contrast of his was his denial of common sense that many of those who knew him pointed out and yet his ability to be very practical and self sufficient (people who deny common sense are not practical or self sufficient, they simply exist in an illusion that they are). In another contrast, he concluded most of his philosophies from experience. Bluntly put, he did not talk shit to make himself look more intelligent than he was or to impress in philosophy. He preferred to actually experience life and know what he's talking about. I could relate to that. I could also relate to other aspects of him, some mentioned here and others not. "McCandless, in his fashion, merely took risk taking to its logical extreme," wrote John Krakauer. The only problem with it is that there is no logic in risk taking. And yet, oddly enough, in many ways, it was logic that drove Chris into the wild.



The other pearls in the book are the various quotations Krakauer included of the books that were found with Chris' body in the bus, passages Chris highlighted or underlined for whatever reason; passages that reflect the spirit within that young man. I could include them here, but it will just be too long. Instead, I will add them to my own quotation page sooner or later and hopefully will also read these books (in the case of Tolstoy, Pasternak and London, reread is more like it) soon, although finding time to read proves more and more difficult. But much like the life of Chris McCandless, reading these passages will leave you with a strong sense of desire to reflect upon your own life and the world around you; on what matters and what doesn't, on your desires and your hates, where you come from and where you're going and what have you done with your life that makes it worthwhile. Chris sneered at talkers and admired doers and that is precisely what he was. I can relate to him for that, too. He thought his desires through and then acted upon them; he was not known for unplanned decisions, in spite of what his death indicates to so many ignorant people.



My conclusion is read the book. It won't be a waste of your time.

Mood: Inspired
Listening to: Christmas songs