|
macherry
Sep 23, 2007, 1:44 AM
Post #26 of 83
(2413 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
yes, i would recommend the golden spruce.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Sep 23, 2007, 4:04 AM
Post #27 of 83
(2391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
coastal_climber wrote: bent_gate wrote: “Into the Wild” It was a good book... >Cam
I've read most of his books, couldn't quite get through Under the Banner of Heaven though. Funny, 'cause most of that story happened just down the road from where I live.
I'll hang with Dingus on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
el_layclimber
Sep 23, 2007, 4:15 AM
Post #28 of 83
(2389 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Posts: 550
|
More words on Krakauer, when I read Into Thin Air, I had a hard time relating to people who were so set on summiting Everest (Krakauer among them in the end). They seemed pretty shallow, but on the other hand it was interesting to hear about such extremes. The same goes for Under the Banner of Heaven. I think that what compels me about his writing is being able to have some understanding of people who I normally could not relate to, outdoorsmen or not.
|
|
|
|
|
gwendolyn
Sep 23, 2007, 4:19 AM
Post #29 of 83
(2388 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2007
Posts: 310
|
I really thought the book was compelling, both from a psychological perspective and as a little bit of a mystery (since in the book Krakauer resolves some of the questions about how he died). But as a movie I don't know. The book has a lot of vignettes and I'm not sure if will hold together as a movie. But it's a good read.
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Sep 23, 2007, 4:47 AM
Post #30 of 83
(2377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
Jeff and everyone,
Very insightful posts. Thanks for sharing your personal thoughts on the subject. They all make it clearer to me why the story has reached the level of interest it has.
And it does make me think a lot more as to why some wilderness stories are more popular or famous than others to different people. Perhaps the best writers don't underestimate the intuition of the readers.
I've heard the statement before of peoples comments on Krakauer putting himself into the stories. It makes me think of the movie "Adaptation" where the main plot of the movie is the main character (nicholas cage) trying to not insert himself into the movie adaptation he is supposed to write of someone elses book. And it turns out that it is impossible for him to not insert himself; so why not just be honest about it.
After doing so much research on something, how can you not form opinions and fill in the blanks with your own intuition and experiences. And just like when you tell a story of a friend so many times, whose story is it that you are really telling?
It's also amazing how readers can tell when stories go from emotional honesty, to something more self-serving.
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Sep 23, 2007, 12:45 PM
Post #31 of 83
(2337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Bent gate. You should read both Aron Ralstons Book and into the wild or STFU! bashing those guys without reading the books is lame. Both charecters pulled off stuff that most of the posters on this forum could not have handled in their dreams. I am a bit of a loner at times so i can relate to going off and doing stuff alone. In Ralstons case that caynon while remote was not praticularly dificult. He was a young kid and had made a few rash choices in the past but who hasen't done stupid things when they were young? That caynon trip was kosher. Moderate dificulty and well within his abilitys. In fact he hiked it one handed. Like to see the wankers on this board cut their arm off after 5 days without water, rig a rappell and then hike out 8 miles. WTF, you guys dial 911 for a feckin sprained ankle...... The kid in into the wild pulled off a bunch of amazeing adventures as well. He lived well on less resorces than any of you guys could imagin. Of course it helps to be rich in the first place to enjoy that kind of existance. The alaska thing really boiled down to some bad reserch. The guy was poisioned by a poisiones plant that his botany book eroniously listed as edible. he made a few other mistakes but that poision was a big one. Additionaly he was pissed at his parents. read the book and you would know that... Funny how a no name kid gets the chop durring a bold adventure and you all bash the crap out of him without even reading his story. A world famous climber gets the chop and its a tragedy.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Sep 23, 2007, 5:12 PM
Post #32 of 83
(2305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
bent_gate wrote: I've heard the statement before of peoples comments on Krakauer putting himself into the stories. It makes me think of the movie "Adaptation" where the main plot of the movie is the main character (nicholas cage) trying to not insert himself into the movie adaptation he is supposed to write of someone elses book. And it turns out that it is impossible for him to not insert himself; so why not just be honest about it.
I'll be honest about it, "Adaptation" sucked! And Krakeur's interjections added only literary stall of the more suspenseful story.
On another note, I recommend "Wild Trees" by Richard Preston. It's about a few daring outdoorsmen who discover giant redwoods and climb them. Very easy to relate to as a climber. Anybody else read this yet?
|
|
|
|
|
MikeSaint
Sep 23, 2007, 5:42 PM
Post #33 of 83
(2298 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2007
Posts: 426
|
Into the Wild is a great read.
My english class during senior year we read it. Soon enough it was everyones Bible. Everyone wanted to be like Chris. (I found this pretty annoying)
Chris had desirable philosophies we would all love to experience on a day to day basis.
"Move around, be nomadic, make each day a new horizon”
The best part of the book I have decided on is actually when Krakauer was writing about how he indirectly lit his tent on fire 
Im already pissed off that its a movie. Chris would not want his story to be a movie. Chris would not want to be hollywood. These types of things are what Chris was trying escape (so it seemed to me)...
As far as Ralstons story goes..
Its an incredible story of survival. The most amazing aspect is how logical and relatively calm he stays throughout the entire experience. The demonstration of mental strength and willpower I found to be very inspirational.
And.. I dont care what you say... Plenty of people, maybe even you- Go places without telling anyone.
Regardless....
Long Live the Primordial Beast
(This post was edited by MikeSaint on Sep 23, 2007, 5:45 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wildthing14
Sep 23, 2007, 7:09 PM
Post #35 of 83
(2271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2007
Posts: 50
|
erockrings wrote: ....People like McCandless are for us to admire in a way. Why do you think you climb??? Because everything else is so BORING. A temporary release from safety and structure. .
perfectly said. i've never met anyone who loved safety, structure and security and loved climbing, the risk is what makes climbing worthwhile, it's a break from the ordinary.!!
(This post was edited by wildthing14 on Sep 23, 2007, 7:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 23, 2007, 7:56 PM
Post #36 of 83
(2264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
A boig part of the attraction about Into the Wild (imo) is what I term the HD Thoreau effect.... On Walden Pond.
Who among us who has read Thoreau hasn't at least pondered doing the same?
But what most people completely fail to appreciate is this....
HD Thoreau lived on Walden Pond via HANDOUTS from ENABLERS. He did NOT support himself and he would have died the same sort of death as this kid, had he NOT BEGGED FOOD and SHELTER from his neighbors.
THAT is why the more practical among us dismiss this kid's adventures as foolhardy and completely ill-considered. Many of us felt the same way about Grand Daddy Thoreau - FOOLHARDY and unable to fend for himself.
He wrote well though!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Sep 23, 2007, 8:25 PM
Post #37 of 83
(2256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
happiegrrrl wrote: I have no problem whatsoever visualizing a translation from book to film. The book was sharply divided into scenes, the book is based almost solely on conversations/interactions people had with the guy(except for times when Krakauer imagined himself in McCandless' place, and that, I'm guessing will be portrayed as the inner dialog the McC actor has).
No no no, you're misunderstanding me. I'm sure they *could* turn it into a movie rather easily, but who would, and why? Who wants to watch a guy sit in an empty bus and write in his journal for a 90 minute time-lapse until he dies? Even with occasional hunting and foraging forays (foraging - THERE'S a crowd pleaser!), you're a little thin on events to keep the audience riveted.
I see them injecting all sorts of generic wilderness-danger type shit to spice things up. Bear encounter, near fall off a cliff, tornado, whatever you need.
In any event, I think this is a story better off read than watched, and I agree, they'll have a hard time fitting Jon's Devil's Thumb excursion into the sto-No they won't, they'll cut it.
|
|
|
|
|
wildthing14
Sep 23, 2007, 8:28 PM
Post #38 of 83
(2252 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2007
Posts: 50
|
Chris was foolhardy and he went into the wilderness totally unprepared. no questions about it. it's the idea of doing something drastic and exciting that intrigues people and causes them to admire the people, like Chris, who live a life outside of the norm.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Sep 23, 2007, 9:23 PM
Post #39 of 83
(2229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
ja1484 wrote: No no no, you're misunderstanding me. I'm sure they *could* turn it into a movie rather easily, but who would, and why? Who wants to watch a guy sit in an empty bus and write in his journal for a 90 minute time-lapse until he dies? Even with occasional hunting and foraging forays (foraging - THERE'S a crowd pleaser!), you're a little thin on events to keep the audience riveted.
I see them injecting all sorts of generic wilderness-danger type shit to spice things up. Bear encounter, near fall off a cliff, tornado, whatever you need.
In any event, I think this is a story better off read than watched, and I agree, they'll have a hard time fitting Jon's Devil's Thumb excursion into the sto-No they won't, they'll cut it.
The book has very little detail on the time spent in the bus; mostly what was surmised about his death and the events leading to it, gleaned from the journal.
The film will depict the story(as was in the book) for the entire epic, not just sitting in the bus, journaling(which, from what I understood in the book, was rather sparse).
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Sep 23, 2007, 9:29 PM
Post #40 of 83
(2226 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
happiegrrrl wrote: ja1484 wrote: No no no, you're misunderstanding me. I'm sure they *could* turn it into a movie rather easily, but who would, and why? Who wants to watch a guy sit in an empty bus and write in his journal for a 90 minute time-lapse until he dies? Even with occasional hunting and foraging forays (foraging - THERE'S a crowd pleaser!), you're a little thin on events to keep the audience riveted. I see them injecting all sorts of generic wilderness-danger type shit to spice things up. Bear encounter, near fall off a cliff, tornado, whatever you need. In any event, I think this is a story better off read than watched, and I agree, they'll have a hard time fitting Jon's Devil's Thumb excursion into the sto-No they won't, they'll cut it. The book has very little detail on the time spent in the bus; mostly what was surmised about his death and the events leading to it, gleaned from the journal. The film will depict the story(as was in the book) for the entire epic, not just sitting in the bus, journaling(which, from what I understood in the book, was rather sparse).
Have you read the book? It's been several years since I did, but if I recall correctly, it's about an even split between bus-introspection extrapolated from diary snippets and reconstruction of the events prior to this little adventure from interviews with people who met the kid on his way out there.
Neither, to my mind, seems to be smashingly entertaining big screen fare.
But then, you're not spending my money. Feel free to take it in if you want to. I ain'tcha daddy.
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Sep 23, 2007, 9:30 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Sep 23, 2007, 11:43 PM
Post #41 of 83
(2184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Wildthing, Did you read the book? As I recall Chris paid his own way. he didn't beg but worked now and then to get supplies and then lived off of dried food and the land. He did some amazeing trips on just a bag of rice and his wits and knowlege of the land. I am not suer that he was so unprepared considering how he had in the past lived off the land quite well. He made a few mistakes that compounded into a desperate situation but arguably 2 of the big ones were not his fault. The botany book that listed a poisionous plant as edible was huge! additionaly his map showed a tyrolian traverse to get back accross the river that was not in place. Those two things were the catalist INMOP. To say that someone with his survival skills was an idiot and unprepared is a bit narrow minded. How about those girls in alaska last year? We called that a tradgedy. The ocean this year was a tradgedy etc, etc. but the kid who traversed the whole country living off the land and a few hard earned meger supplies, thriveing in situations that would have spanked 99.9% of the posters on this forum crying home to mommy for a new credit card is an idiot because he got the chop in a bad situation???
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Sep 23, 2007, 11:51 PM
Post #42 of 83
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
The movie is out today, who is going to see it?
>Cam
|
|
|
|
|
stabla
Sep 23, 2007, 11:52 PM
Post #43 of 83
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: 139
|
dingus wrote: A boig part of the attraction about Into the Wild (imo) is what I term the HD Thoreau effect.... On Walden Pond. Who among us who has read Thoreau hasn't at least pondered doing the same? But what most people completely fail to appreciate is this.... HD Thoreau lived on Walden Pond via HANDOUTS from ENABLERS. He did NOT support himself and he would have died the same sort of death as this kid, had he NOT BEGGED FOOD and SHELTER from his neighbors. THAT is why the more practical among us dismiss this kid's adventures as foolhardy and completely ill-considered. Many of us felt the same way about Grand Daddy Thoreau - FOOLHARDY and unable to fend for himself. He wrote well though! DMT
However, now that i think about it I wonder how necessary communities are for sucessfully living in the wild...
Are there any "sucessful" stories of a single person with no help living sustainably in the wild for a significant amount of time?
peace
blake
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Sep 24, 2007, 12:21 AM
Post #44 of 83
(2173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
There was a guy escaped from some jail or prison who lived in the Adirondacks a year or so ago, though I think he also made some visits to civilization and had some hookup situations.
Another guy out in the woods of NY was living out there, though...he swiped some clothes out of people's summer/weekend houses. He got found out because(I think) a snowplow was doing a country road, and there he was - out there on a bike! They thought that was odd....and so the guy was tracked down and...removed from the situation.
The Shawangunk ridge was peopled by berry pickers in the early to mid 1900's, and though they lived in shacks, their subsistence was largely a lining of the land one.
And, of course, people have historically lived off the land as the US developed.
And.....there are off-the-gridders all over the place nowdaze. Hybrids, I guess. The loss of wilderness has diminished resources - potable water, available fish and wildlife, etc. There's just not the abundance that was available even 50 years ago.
Part of a subsistence lifestyle always involved taking advantage of whatever resources are available, and I'm not so sure one needs to draw the line at "No interaction with cibvilization whatsoever" to say someone is/is not living off the land.
Land just looks a little different these daze, with those satelite dishes and electrical poles out there....
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 24, 2007, 3:21 AM
Post #45 of 83
(2158 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
stabla wrote: Dingus I disagree here. I am not quite so sure HDT would have "died" without handouts. The old man was a true hardman in a time where cutting it out for yourself in the woods wasn't all to uncommon.
Nope. He lived off handouts and he was both miserly and completely ingrateful about it. Yet he had the audicity to brag about his 'economy.'
And MOST people lived on the edge of the wilderness in those days, just not on Conn.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Sep 24, 2007, 3:23 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
btreanor
Sep 24, 2007, 5:12 AM
Post #47 of 83
(2130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 121
|
(1) Anyone who has ever tried to figure themselves out and had the sense that wildness is essential to a certain self-understanding has to understand what McCandless and Treadwell were up to, even though each made any number of foolish choices. I don't aspire to be like either of these characters; I aspire to be myself. I can, nevertheless, see in them something of myself (as I can with Thoreau, Muir, Leopold, Turner, et al.).
(2) Anyone who has more than a "Bartlett's Familiar" appreciation for Henry David Thoreau knows that (a) he never hid the fact that he had associations with people in town, was living on Emerson's land, etc., (b) that he was no misanthrope and that part of these continued associations with people in and around Concord was out of an appreciation of the necessity of some level of community. I mostly lurk here, and I generally have a pretty high regard for Dingus' postngs; however, if the assumption that HDT was out for an absolute independence from others can only result from a very inattentive reading of his work. There are plenty of places where a critique of Thoreau is in order (Muir has a couple of zingers in his personal correspondence), but hypocrisy is really not one of them.
Brian
(This post was edited by btreanor on Sep 24, 2007, 5:12 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 24, 2007, 5:57 AM
Post #48 of 83
(2119 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
btreanor wrote: I mostly lurk here, and I generally have a pretty high regard for Dingus' postngs; however, if the assumption that HDT was out for an absolute independence from others can only result from a very inattentive reading of his work.
Yes I know well the pedestal this man has been placed upon. Of course you can dismiss my opinion as uneducated. But I laugh at the notion of including Muir and Thoreau in the same sentence. Not even remotely cut from the same cloth, these two men. One, a visionary. The other... a well-written bum.
But a bum nevertheless. I've waded through the works of both men. Thoreau is undoubtedly the better writer, Muir by far the better man.
Cheers though and do try not to take it so personal. I'm not criticizing you. But I do not and will not venerate Thoreau the way I was instructed to in school.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Sep 24, 2007, 5:58 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
kest2703
Sep 24, 2007, 8:02 AM
Post #49 of 83
(2106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2007
Posts: 41
|
I'd like to say that as a long time boy scout, eagle scout and so forth, i got some pretty good training (also some of the "learn the hard way" teaching) and i must say that mr. supertramp was not closely enough prepared. but who really is?
Joe Simpson, summeting sinula grande, didnt take enough gas.
Jo(h?)n Krakauer hadnt thought of that maybe he might be stuck out there too, when her burned a hole in his tent smoking in the alaskan bush (at least he had curtain rodes i thought it was a witty idea and a funny sight)
And many others... i mean there are a lot of people that admire mccandles for what he did (im one of them) and sorryly a lot of them have not even a clue of a) what you need and b) what you do out there! i mean come on, rich suburban boy wants to come down to earth? im not irch but i grew up in the suburbs, and i am proud to say i can climb, hike, backpack and iron. oh, and cook and all that stuff. but i believe most important of all, ican improvise. i enjoy solo trips through the mountains, but i dont climb alone.
so, yes, i enjoyed the book, yes i am going to watch the movie, and yes, i believe it was his choice to die out there.
and to that comparison of the two people loosing legs... your buddy wont do that new route for recognition... if he does he should rethink about switching to a more... openly distributed sport.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Sep 24, 2007, 2:12 PM
Post #50 of 83
(2093 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
kest2703 wrote: I'd like to say that as a long time boy scout, eagle scout and so forth, i got some pretty good training...i am proud to say i can climb, hike, backpack and iron. oh, and cook and all that stuff.
aww if I had a dollar for every boy scout that thought he was qualified. And wow, you can iron? Man I envy you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
