Talk:Christopher McCandless

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher McCandless article.
Article policies
Cleanup Taskforce article This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!
This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Theories on McCandless' Death

The article seems to make no mention of what previous posters have mentioned - that it is suspected that Chris was killed by the Indian Potato seeds, not lack of skill in hunting or incompetence. The theories regarding Chris' death were sort of tenuous but Krakauer mentioned them in his book - I wonder why the author of this article didn't include these theories? It seems to me they're important to establishing Chris as not totally incompetent and reckless. - Vyxx 23 May 2006

Perhaps those theories were omitted because there is zero (rad none, nill, zip, zilch, squat) evidence for them. Suggesting they be included, why not also include the theory that he was targetted by hostile aliens? All of the available scientific evidence is that the boy starved, because he was a semi-competent loon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

wow, talk about objective and unbiased factual focus . . . i would argue that krakauer has a few "loon"ish tendencies himself, but the new version of his book proposes a cause related to poisoning which has taken into consideration the scientific studies that have been done since the first version's publication. i see no reason why acknowledging this thesis is any worse than publishing something like "he was a semi-competent loon" - even if i wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcteach (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You will notice that I did not "publish" that he was a semi-competent loon, no matter how much the facts support that reading of Mr. Mccandles' death. I carefully kept that editorial comment here, in the discussion page. Acknowledging Krakauer's "thesis," however, is just as scientifically supported as supporting the "thesis" that Mccandles was the target of an international conspiracy of the illuminati, i.e., there is no such evidence, ie, it is crackpot material. It doesn't belong in a supposedly factual account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern - and you're right, I was out of line in criticizing the "semi-competent loon" line. That IS what the discussion page is for. That said, I stand by the argument that there's room for more than "he simply starved" as explanations for Chris's death. Chris McCandless's current popularity is partially a result of the lack of answers we have about his actual death, and a thorough encyclopedia would be remiss in not acknowledging that. Furthermore, as much as I disagree with Krakauer's opinion, the guy has studied Chris longer and in more depth than anyone else, and therefore his - and Chris's own - explanations, as captured in the book (which is itself arguably the best resource available about McCandless, even with Krakauer's bias), SHOULD be mentioned. I have no problem with these explanations being questioned or even dismissed after being mentioned, but the proof by which they've been dismissed should be similarly included.Dcteach (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I hope the current rev. does that. I wouldnote that being the biggest source or authority or studier of some phenomenon doesn't necessarily mean one's opinions are valid. After all, Velikofsky is the biggest authority there is on the collision of Saturn with the Earth, right? :) 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theories?

Why the hell do we need "theories"? The guy weighed 67 pounds at death for Gods sake. I suggest that people with alternative "theories" mostly have an axe to grind. Usually a financial one. Krakauer's and McCandless own opinions are worthless. Krakauer has a financial interest in glorifying this poor misguided kid and one could hardly expect McCandless to leave as his final testament: "What an idiot I've been!" This kid's ego got way out in front of his ability as often happens to the young. But Alaska is a particuarly unforgiving place for youthful mistakes. Blame his liberal education which made him an expert on apartheid but never taught him what it takes to stay alive. Unfortunately Vyxx, McCandless was "totally incompetent and reckless". Idealizing this poor young man and the reasons he died only encourages other people's dangerous stupidity.75.164.157.41 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)dwargo

It is somewhat unfair to say that McCandless was "totally incompetent and reckless". If I remember correctly (from Into the Wild), he studied maps of Alaska, sought advice on hunting, and carried an encyclopedia of edible wild plants. Characterizing him as "perilously arrogant" would be more accurate.Tollins2 (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding he had no maps of the location and he sought advice from hunters from the dakota's, not Alaska where it probably would have actually helped him. 216.220.15.211 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This page is very poorly written. I believe it needs to be completely rewritten (at least the Childhood and Education/Travels sections).

Grammar and spelling errors abound. This page is truly a mess.

I hope this rewrite will be OK with readers. /s/ Bigturtle aka 12.147.59.132. Bigturtle 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris did not have anything about freinds. He just wished to leave the suburbs and Live on his own and by his own for a while. He did contact them several times, and arrenged meetings even. He had no problems hunting: the lack of sugar killed him. The reason no one knew that the seeds of the potatoe are toxic is because they are just flushed out of your system with sugar, but chris had been living on mostly meat. No sugar.

It still does need re-writing, it reads like a Sunday magazine article with sentences such as "he had a large quantity of ammunition." By whose standards? (I'm not trying to be rude about the person who wrote this, just to point out what I mean) Bruiseviolet (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But mate the body does not need sugar. Only very very recently has it entered into our diet and is completely unnecessary. Our bodies can make glucose/glycogen out of pretty much anything edible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSam (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Alaskan travels?

There is a very large portion of time missing from this article. It makes no mention whatsoever of Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, or anywhere else he visited.

If you have info, with sources of course, then by all means you can add it...but please bear in mind that this person is of very minor signifigance; ie expecting anyone else to research his life may be untenable. Engr105th (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elk or moose?

There seems to be some conflict in the sources here. Chris thought it was a moose. Wachholder0 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no elk the area in question. The closest thing to a elk in this region would be a caribou, but local accounts say it was a moose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.29.171 (talk • contribs)
According to Into the Wild, two experienced hunters identified the remains of the animal as a caribou. Krakauer reported this in his original article for Outside, and Chris's "misidentification" of the animal was widely cited as an example of his incompetence. However, in IttW, Krakauer says the remains were later found "beyond all doubt" to be from a moose. -- Scott eiπ 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps something to this effect should be added to the article. Today, the article claimed that some disputed that the animal was indeed a moose, but it was. It appeared as an unsupported assertion and thus I removed the sentence. It would be swell if someone more familiar with the controversy could add something sensible. Phiwum 18:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree w/ Scott. It was Butch Killian and the other moose hunters who discovered McCandless's body in September 1992 who claimed it was a caribou. McCandless said it was a moose in his journal and this was confirmed by Krakauer in the book after he visited the site in '93. Not only did Krakauer correct what he said in the Outside piece, but, by implication, basically said the veteran AK moose guys were wrong so the sentence here shouldn't imply a mistake on McCandless's part. I'm going to fix that sentence. (This was probably written this way bc the magazine article is on-line, but the book isn't.)

I know it doesn't really count, but who is more likely to be right about the species, a demonstrably incompetent kid and a novelist, or an experienced bunch of hunters... —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSam (talk • contribs) 04:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Who took the picture of Chris alive on Stampede Trail? Did he have his own camera and took it himself? just curious, if you can help me out... Lue3378 12:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I believe Into the Wild says he took the photo himself. -SCEhardT 13:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] $24,000 in "savings"?

I know this isn't the right place to discuss, but how does anyone graduate from college with $24,000 in "life savings"? I presume his parents paid full freight, and he got no financial aide?!

Since the 80s, when Chris enrolled, tuition hikes have far outpaced inflation. I have no information about Chris's specific circumstances, but it used to be fairly easy to put yourself through many colleges by working full-time in the summer and part-time during the school year. Patrick Fitzgerald put himself through Amherst by working as a janitor and doorman.[1] Therefore if Chris worked a lot and got some help from his family, it would be fairly easy for him to leave school with money in the bank, especially since he seems to have been a rather thrifty fellow.Wachholder 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Krakauer:
"The final two years of [Chris's] college education had been paid for with a forty-thousand-dollar bequest left by a friend of the family's; more than twenty-four thousand dollars remained at the time of Chris's graduation, money his parents thought he intended to use for law school" (Into the Wild, 20). Dcteach 20:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, here's my take on it. Chris McC. was from an affluent family...and lets face it, these are the source of many....uhm..."wanderers" (hippies, back-to-nature-types, etc...and I mean no disrespect, but there is an American phenomenon of these). Here is the quote form his "Childhood" paragraph from this Wiki article:
"McCandless grew up in Annandale, Virginia, located in affluent Fairfax County. His father, Walt McCandless, worked for NASA as an antenna specialist. His mother, Wilhelmina "Billie" Johnson, was his father's secretary and later helped Walt establish and run a successful consulting company.The boldface is my addition.
...Point is, Chris McC was not in need of a job, nor was he driven to pull himself out of some sort of poverty situation. He could spend some time wandering at will, and as has happened to other priveleged youth, he could wander blindly into danger never thinking it would be his end... That $24K was probably an aside to him Engr105th (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poached

Quote:

McCandless successfully (and illegally) poached some small game

Isn't poaching by definition illegal? Can you legally poach? --Stéphane Charette 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

An egg, yes. An animal, no, by definition as you suggested. -- Atamasama 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Death

The date of death listed in the Infobox, is that of when his body was discovered. Should this be changed to the more general 'August 1992' given in the main body of the article? Dutpar 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to amend this (as best I can within the confines of Infobox formatting), but please feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. Dutpar 17:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Cultural Legacy" or unabashed promotion?

The cultural legacy section seems to go rather overboard, quoting favorable reviews of the book and movie (and not unfavorable reviews?). Seems to me that none of this is appropriate in an encyclopedia article. We can say a movie and book were made. We can say that they did well at the box office and perhaps even that they were well-received by critics if we can find a source saying so. But Wikipedia is not out to promote the movie, book or person. I suggest trimming that aspect of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phiwum (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some IP editor keeps adding unrefed non-NPOV material. Just take it out when you see it. Wachholder 03:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just plain nonsense about box office

I removed an uncited claim that there have been "sustained sold-out" theatres across the US. I found no evidence of exceptional box office performance (see, e.g., [2]). This claim seems to have come out of thin air.

What about critical acclaim? I haven't seen any cite that claims there has been widespread critical acclaim, but maybe there's a case to be made. NOTE: A proper reference would be some reliable source claiming that there has been critical acclaim, not one or two positive reviews! Phiwum 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibility of Mental Illness

I see the point in removing potentially unreliable info about McCandless' mental state, but there's a place for speculation on that front, as much as there's a place for the argument that "he was just stupid" or that "he was poisoned." Dcteach 18:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please leave my comment as is - and free of offensive racial epithets. If you disagree, post your own comment to be considered by the community.Dcteach (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Factual errors

http://www.terraincognitafilms.com/cw-sub/debunked.htm according to this article, of the possessions released to his family, one included a "map". It is continually claimed that he didn't have a map and that was the cause of his demise, so for clarity wouldn't it be pertinent to mention that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.71.9 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He didn't have a topographic map. Mr.K. (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris as a College Republican

I added Chris to the College Republican category. I couldn't find a place to include this in the text of the article, so I thought the category would do. By the way, this isn't a political thing. Yes, I know a lot of his philosophy contradicted lots of Republican philosophies, but he really was a member of the CRs. See page 123 of Into The Wild. "At Emory, he went so far as to co-found a College Republican Club." --RedShiftPA (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other source other than Into the Wild that can support this claim? 216.220.15.211 (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a true story you should wtch the movie@!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.55.8.66 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would posit that his ideas were to the right of conservative thought, as we think of it today in America.Steven (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Really you should watch the movie it will make you cry!!

I just got done watching the movie and don't recall seeing anything in it about him being a College Republican.Tom Cod (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
the movie is a fictionalized portrayal of the story, and not a reliable source. the book is more reliable. Anastrophe (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Section removed ??

I recall this article having a link to the other people mentioned in the book such as Carl McCunn. I looked at the history and someone deleted them because they thought these individuals had only a slight resemblance to Chris. Personally I think this is fairly inaccurate considering they were the subject of at least one chapter of the book each. Surely if the author thought they were relevant, they actually were.

Further, I think for an individual interested in Chris' story, the others provide a perspective to which Chris can be compared.

I would like to see the See Also section reinstated. What does everyone think? vlado4 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored it. What I see is that it was overwritten here; new text removed as POV without attribution here. --Van helsing (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)