Palisade, you realize if he had a map he's even MORE stupid?
No, I don't think that follows at all. Mind you, I don't believe he was a "hero" or a "martyr" either, but his behavior, while reckless, was fairly typical for a young man of his age and his time, and a large contribution to his fate was sheer bad luck. He didn't starve to death in the bus because he didn't know the way out, he starved in the bus because, for uncertain reasons, he
could not get out even though he knew the way.
The film omits the part about his being injured,which I believe explains why he didn't attempt a difficult hike overland. Instead, it inserts fictitious "poison plants" (which didn't exist) and which do make him look "stupid" or ignorant, or both. We don't know what the injury was (it was not a broken bone, the autopsy would have found that, but could not distinguish soft tissue injuries that much later).
I'm sure the bridge is labeled on the map and we know most of the time he was there he was able to walk. All he needed to do was walk to the bridge which would've take a few HOURS at the most!
He likely did not need the map to know the location of the park service road and the bridge; he had spent a whole month thoroughly exploring the area before he settled in the bus (I believe THAT decision was the one that ultimately led to his death: had he continued to move about, with only his sleeping bag and makeshift tent, he would not have been tempted to stay too long, until he was too weak to make the trip out and where it was far more comfortable for him to stay in the bus than attempt a difficult trek through the bush). However, the coroner's report confirmed that he had a detailed map of the area, which included the Denali National Park and its facilities, including the service road and bridge.
But there was no path to that road, as there was to the point on the Stampede Trail where Chris had originally crossed. When he found that path impassable, he went back to the bus and recorded his discouragement. He was already (this was late July) feeling weak and knew he was in danger.
However, the road and bridge were more than a "few hours" hike away,especially in midsummer. It was about a day's hike in spring, when he first arrived, and the ground was frozen. Later, when the melt occurred, and many areas were boggy, others very rocky but also slippery with moss etc., hiking through that area would have been a taxing venture even for an experienced and able-bodied hiker. You may not have lived in the subarctic, but i have, and I know that the terrain can be very challenging, especially at that time of year -- it's much better in winter, where snow cover makes snowshoeing and dog sledding (and now snowmobiling) more practical.
Depending on what his injury was -- even a shoulder injury, such as Ron Lamothe hypothesized, would have impeded his ability to walk out overland, as he would need both arms and hands to manage the rocky terrain; an ankle or knee injury would have made such trekking virtually impossible.
Like you said the river is more shallow there so he could've just waded across.
I think you misunderstood what I said. The river was not shallow and braided at the point where the park service road and bridge are located; instead, that area is deep and fast-flowing in summer (similar to the point where Chris crossed earlier). Instead, the shallower area is in the opposite direction, near the cabins which had been vandalized in early spring. If Chris had explored in that direction (possible, but not a certainty), he would have known about that area, but nothing on a map displays that aspect of the river at that point. He would still have needed to be able to walk steadily and use his body weight and shoulder/arms to manipulate a hiking stick or pole in crossing the river, though it is shallower there.
Either of these options was some miles (around 10, IIRC) away from the bus, in opposite directions. There was a dogsled path to the cabin area, which would have made footing easier, but none through the bush to the service road. That area was both boggy and rocky/hilly, requiring climbing in many spots.
Although Chris certainly knew about the service road and bridge, and probably knew about the shallow and braided area near the cabins, he may have simply felt unable to try either and pinned his hopes on rescuers coming by --something that in fact happened, but around 2 weeks after his demise.
There are too many unknowns in this story to judge how "stupid" he was. He had a great deal of wilderness camping experience over the years (this is not indicated in the film) but was not cognizant of specifically Alaskan conditions, and he had not planned his route carefully. These factors, plus some bad luck and possibly illness, injury or both, led to his death.
reply
share
movieliker1
9 years ago
Even if what you say is true palisade, he still is a victim of his own lack of preparation. Which is ultimately stupid and irresponsible. That is all we are saying.
reply
share
The_TJT
9 years ago
There are too many unknowns in this story to judge how "stupid" he was.
No there isn't. He was in wilderness during summertime, living in a bus, had a gun and river full of fish nearby. He starved to death not knowing that there was a cable bridge just few minutes walk away. That's pathetic.
The film makes him as some sort of magical hipster who is smart, charismatic and has admirable back to nature philosophy but the truth was entirely different, the film is a big romanticized lie. I suspect it was him who raided the nearby cabins in hunger, being unable to live off the nature. His 30kg after 3 months tells it all, around same weight as average holocaust survivor. Natural selection in effect.
reply
share
Fibre_Optic
9 years ago
You do know his body was found 19 days or so after his death and that's when they weighed him, at his autopsy. Do you know how much fluid and crap the body releases after death? So no a 30Kg loss of weight when weighed 19 days after his death doesn't tell us it all.
As for you suspecting him of vandalizing the cabin. Don't you mean Will Forsberg, the owner of the cabin is the person that suspects him, but who has zero evidence it was him and has just seemingly put 2 and 2 together and came up with 7.
Forsberg along with the angry ranting article of that idiot Craig Medred. Who if you read hiis article called 'The beatification of Chris McCandless: From thieving poacher into saint'. Seems to take disturbing pleasure in de-humanizing, condemning, vilifying and outright slandering a random dead person they've never met, or aren't around to stand up for themselves.
Both have done their best to peddle the myth and in Medred's case plenty of other things, again without one piece of evidence or proof. Such as the line '"McCandless was suffering from a mental illness: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, take your pick." Nothing more professional for a 'journalist' than to generalize him to a few mental illnesses, all of which are extremely different from each other.
Funnily enough Ken Kehrer, chief ranger for Denali National Park said that Chris McCandless isn’t considered a suspect by the National Park Service.
Were his actions stupid, incompetent and reckless, yes no doubt, but no more than the hundreds of others that die or go missing in the National Forests and wilderness areas around the US.
Some people just seem to want to rant, hate and vilify McCandless because a film that became popular was made about him. That's not his fault, he asked no one to hero worship him. I'm sure knowing the little bit I do about him, he'd hate the idea. Most people though are just interested in his journey and how he ended up the way he did, it's human nature to be interested & to question.
If you took from the film that it 'makes him as some sort of magical hipster who is smart, charismatic and has admirable back to nature philosophy' that's on you. I certainly didn't see or take that from it. He seemed a lost soul, maybe depressed and somehow thought that getting away from the rat race and material world for a period of time, he'd find some sort of meaning in his life and it'd somehow improve him as a person. Which might work for some but it doesn't float my boat but I can still appreciate his ideas.
As for how & why he eventually died here's probably the best & most thorough conclusion I've read.
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/how-chris-mccandless-died
reply
share
The_TJT
9 years ago
As for you suspecting him of vandalizing the cabin. Don't you mean Will Forsberg, the owner of the cabin is the person that suspects him, but who has zero evidence it was him and has just seemingly put 2 and 2 together and came up with 7.
The actual equation is 1+1=2. The fact is that the nearby cabin was looted and vandalized around same time as McCandless appeared there. Yes it could be a coincidence but that's pretty unlikely. I'd say that the odds are around 95% that it was McCandless... and higher if you consider it to be truth that he had previously looted another house and that Forsberg's cabin was never broken into before. How you see McCandless is irrelevant to the fact that he is the most likely perpetrator.
And when it comes to that article you mentioned, he does at least have a point with poaching aspect. It's not very admirable to kill a porcupine family and take pictures about it.
If more people were like McCandless then Alaskan wildlife would be in grave danger.
reply
share
movieliker1
9 years ago
Some people just seem to want to rant, hate and vilify McCandless because a film that became popular was made about him. That's not his fault, he asked no one to hero worship him. I'm sure knowing the little bit I do about him, he'd hate the idea. Most people though are just interested in his journey and how he ended up the way he did, it's human nature to be interested & to question.
If you took from the film that it 'makes him as some sort of magical hipster who is smart, charismatic and has admirable back to nature philosophy' that's on you. I certainly didn't see or take that from it. He seemed a lost soul, maybe depressed and somehow thought that getting away from the rat race and material world for a period of time, he'd find some sort of meaning in his life and it'd somehow improve him as a person. Which might work for some but it doesn't float my boat but I can still appreciate his ideas.
I don't rant, hate and vilify McCandless. I just disagree with the many that want to view him as a hero. Like the many posters on this message board and the many who make annual pilgrimages to the bus where he was found dead. I think those people are stupid fools. They seem to be woven of the same cloth that those who join cults and commit mass suicide are.
reply
share
whoanelly (1586)
4 years ago
That’s the difference between you and Chris— you’ve lived in the sub arctic and understand the terrain differences from season to season. Chris didn’t and he arrogantly chose to arrive and perhaps attempt to leave at poorly timed dates. Not following these rules put him at more serious risk than he was aware of. His naiveté is referred to often on these threads, but imo it’s not naiveté, it’s willful ignorance
reply
share