💾 Archived View for gemini.circumlunar.space › ~alchemist › gemlog › on-candless.gmi captured on 2023-07-22 at 17:27:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Today I wanted to expose some thoughts on Christopher McCandless, also known as Alex Supertramp, since his case has come once again to the media's attention this week. I am not here to talk about his story, however; I just wanna expose what I think about one of the criticisms I heard about it.
His story is well known by many, and it is also known that he was a man that died alone. It became a film, and if I recall correctly, his notes were turned into a book.
Once I was given the task of watching said movie; I didn't do it, and also wasn't interested in his story, and I remained uninterested for many years knowing that the man was a hermit of wealthy origin who, again, died alone.
As I stated above, this character returned to news this week, as it was reported that the abandoned bus where he lived his last days -- in a national park on the US state of Alaska -- was removed from there, and transported to a proper location, as many tourists attempting to find it were losing themselves in its surroundings.
With that, I stumbled upon some quick comments which gave me an overview of his story, which I was fortunate enough to read.
It might be clear by now, but I have no special respect for McCandless. And I also don't think of myself as being sufficiently knowledgeable of his story to be able to give a proper opinion on his behavior and choices.
However, I must admit that the words "irresponsibility" and "lack of preparation" come to my mind. But I also think of wit and an unshakable will to make a life change, and to discover oneself, perharps with a grain of admiration -- not for McCandless per se, but for his courage of remaining a loner on a journey of self-discovery, though I'm pushing aside the obvious information that human beings are inherently social.
What I really want to discuss here is the aspect of mutability in people's character, because it does not come without wit and good will; plus, to me, character does not seem determined by one's origin, and wisdom (which I think comes mainly from living life) is certainly the vector for its improvement.
Today I read a comment on one of the texts I read, which ridiculed McCandless by his origin being that of a wealthy family, by stating that he was spoiled. It might be true, but certainly this characteristic is not one that marked the entirety of his life.
Rather, show me what is necessary so that a man -- which spent half of his life in community and another half in isolation, having also learned to obtain his own food with his bare hands -- could become effectively independent, so that he is not known as "spoiled" anymore. Is it not enough to call McCandless independent? Is this not the opposite of being a spoiled child who everyone brings him everything he wants?
Given these circumstances, if none of the exposed are sufficient to remove this derogatory label, then let it be clear that the label is shallow in its meaning and that it determines nothing in one's character. If being spoiled is a sickness of character that is given, and not innate, then of course there is a way to fix it, and that can only be done by living and disregarding comfort, as McCandless did.