Reflect on what your classmates discussed during the seminar. Did someone say something that changed or expanded your way of thinking? Who said something that you found profound or interesting? What was it?
I kind of thought that we focused to much on if he was arrogant and ignorant or not, and not enough on why he went into the wild. That was the main question, and it was kind of forgotten as we went on.
Sean said some good things about how McCandless didn't need material possessions and that was something i think needed more recognition as to why he lived the way he lived and why he did the things he did.
I thought it was clever when people discussed McCandless's epiphany. I never thought about his epiphany being "happiness is only real when shared with other", I simply thought this was just a realization of his. This helped to connect the dots with how he died happy.
Same as Ethan, I found what Sean had to say about Chris not being materialistic was a very important element in the story. I had personally realized that this was one of Chris's feelings but I did not connect it with his resentment of society and then further as a contributing factor of why McCandles ventured into the wild.
I think the seminar focused a lot on the death of Chris McCandless. The point was brought up that if he had never died, he wouldn't be as well known and not as many people would have heard of his story. Because his story became a novel, Chris was able to share his happiness with others. Originally when he said that "happiness is only real when shared," I didn't put these facts together. Like Julia said, the end of the book now makes more sense.
Someone made the point that Chris McCandless's relationship with his family may have greatly influenced his decision to live in the Wild. He wanted to make his own decisions for once and rebel.
Somebody mentioned how the Alaskan hunters who responded to the McCandless article thought he was very ignorant, but really he lasted longer in the wild with hardly any supplies than many of the hunters could have done. I myself thought it seemed rather ignorant of him to not be properly equipped, but with this comment in mind I understand that he wanted to live with only the essential necessities whereas the hunters bring with them heavy packs with a lot of equipment.
I liked the comment that it was fitting that Chris died in the wild (I think Ally said it), because it is where he ended up finding himself. But of course I wish he made it out so he could have followed through on his realizations. I also liked Maddy's comment about his symbolic socks. I would have never caught that but it's definitely true that there is a lot of symbolism in this book.
I liked Ollie’s comment about how Chris did not have enough respect for the wild, and treated his adventure similarly to a cross-country meet that he could push through (as opposed to understanding the consequences of being ill-prepared). I understood that Chris directed his cross-country team on difficult runs, which could act as symbolism for Chris wanting to push himself to his limits in the wild.
Relating to what Maya said, I agree that it was appropriate for Chris McCandless to die in the wild. I don't think that he would have been ashamed to die this way and so it was fitting. At one point, I think his sister, Carine, mentions something to this effect and it seems to help to bring her closure.
The seminar helped me to understand why Chris went into the wild so ill prepared. I knew he wanted to prove to himself that he could survive on very little, but I didnt understand that it was becuase he came from a wealthy family but grew up seeing people in despair.
I thought that a good point was Chris's death. If he had survived in the wild, no one would have thought anything of his experiences. The only way his views and story was remembered was because of his death. I think that it is a true statement that you have to be dead in order to be remembered in a big way. Even though Chris wanted to survive, it was more influential to die to leave his effect upon the world.
I thought the idea that it was fitting for Chris to die in the wild was interesting. Its obviously a tragedy that Chris died, but for Chris it was a fitting place to meet his end.
I liked the idea that Chris managed to die in the wild and get his story across. If he had not died, his message and beliefs would obviously not be as known and he would have just preached his whole life. In reality, he managed to die happily and achieve his end goal of sharing his beliefs, something he seemed intent on doing once he left the wild.
I second Julia- the full significance of that quote "happiness is only real when shared" had not occurred to me while reading the book. The seminar really helped me with the inclass essay and find things I missed the first time. We talked a lot about small details, but it was very clarifying for me. One thing we didn't discuss is Chris's similarities and differences with the other plp mentioned and the author himself. Why have us read those parts if we weren't going to discuss it?
I thought that it was interesting how we discussed how Alaskan hunters/campers go into the wild with a lot of gear and when Chris went into the wild and survived they called him unprepared and stupid. He survived for a long time with much less gear than most Alaskans, and yet they critiscized him.
I kind of thought that we focused to much on if he was arrogant and ignorant or not, and not enough on why he went into the wild. That was the main question, and it was kind of forgotten as we went on.
ReplyDeleteSean said some good things about how McCandless didn't need material possessions and that was something i think needed more recognition as to why he lived the way he lived and why he did the things he did.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was clever when people discussed McCandless's epiphany. I never thought about his epiphany being "happiness is only real when shared with other", I simply thought this was just a realization of his. This helped to connect the dots with how he died happy.
ReplyDeleteSame as Ethan, I found what Sean had to say about Chris not being materialistic was a very important element in the story. I had personally realized that this was one of Chris's feelings but I did not connect it with his resentment of society and then further as a contributing factor of why McCandles ventured into the wild.
ReplyDeleteI think the seminar focused a lot on the death of Chris McCandless. The point was brought up that if he had never died, he wouldn't be as well known and not as many people would have heard of his story. Because his story became a novel, Chris was able to share his happiness with others. Originally when he said that "happiness is only real when shared," I didn't put these facts together. Like Julia said, the end of the book now makes more sense.
ReplyDeleteSomeone made the point that Chris McCandless's relationship with his family may have greatly influenced his decision to live in the Wild. He wanted to make his own decisions for once and rebel.
ReplyDeleteSomebody mentioned how the Alaskan hunters who responded to the McCandless article thought he was very ignorant, but really he lasted longer in the wild with hardly any supplies than many of the hunters could have done. I myself thought it seemed rather ignorant of him to not be properly equipped, but with this comment in mind I understand that he wanted to live with only the essential necessities whereas the hunters bring with them heavy packs with a lot of equipment.
ReplyDeleteI liked the comment that it was fitting that Chris died in the wild (I think Ally said it), because it is where he ended up finding himself. But of course I wish he made it out so he could have followed through on his realizations.
ReplyDeleteI also liked Maddy's comment about his symbolic socks. I would have never caught that but it's definitely true that there is a lot of symbolism in this book.
I liked Ollie’s comment about how Chris did not have enough respect for the wild, and treated his adventure similarly to a cross-country meet that he could push through (as opposed to understanding the consequences of being ill-prepared). I understood that Chris directed his cross-country team on difficult runs, which could act as symbolism for Chris wanting to push himself to his limits in the wild.
ReplyDeleteRelating to what Maya said, I agree that it was appropriate for Chris McCandless to die in the wild. I don't think that he would have been ashamed to die this way and so it was fitting. At one point, I think his sister, Carine, mentions something to this effect and it seems to help to bring her closure.
ReplyDeleteThe seminar helped me to understand why Chris went into the wild so ill prepared. I knew he wanted to prove to himself that he could survive on very little, but I didnt understand that it was becuase he came from a wealthy family but grew up seeing people in despair.
ReplyDeleteI thought that a good point was Chris's death. If he had survived in the wild, no one would have thought anything of his experiences. The only way his views and story was remembered was because of his death. I think that it is a true statement that you have to be dead in order to be remembered in a big way. Even though Chris wanted to survive, it was more influential to die to leave his effect upon the world.
ReplyDeleteI thought the idea that it was fitting for Chris to die in the wild was interesting. Its obviously a tragedy that Chris died, but for Chris it was a fitting place to meet his end.
ReplyDeleteI liked the idea that Chris managed to die in the wild and get his story across. If he had not died, his message and beliefs would obviously not be as known and he would have just preached his whole life. In reality, he managed to die happily and achieve his end goal of sharing his beliefs, something he seemed intent on doing once he left the wild.
ReplyDeleteI second Julia- the full significance of that quote "happiness is only real when shared" had not occurred to me while reading the book. The seminar really helped me with the inclass essay and find things I missed the first time. We talked a lot about small details, but it was very clarifying for me. One thing we didn't discuss is Chris's similarities and differences with the other plp mentioned and the author himself. Why have us read those parts if we weren't going to discuss it?
ReplyDeleteI thought that it was interesting how we discussed how Alaskan hunters/campers go into the wild with a lot of gear and when Chris went into the wild and survived they called him unprepared and stupid. He survived for a long time with much less gear than most Alaskans, and yet they critiscized him.
ReplyDelete