Proenneke vs. McCandless

[Sarge47]

This is strange; right after watching "Into The Wild", the story of Chris McCandless(CM), PBS was doing their annual fundraiser and showed the video: "Alone In The Wilderness"; the story of Dick Proenneke's(DP) Alaska adventure. I couldn't help but notice some similarities and some opposite things as well. I'll be posting my own viewpoint on the Blog site later, but I'm throwing this out to get the ball rolling.

Both men wanted to live in the wilds of Alaska, one made it for over 30 years, one died tragically, very young, why? What could have made the difference?

More on the Blog site of my personal viewpoint in the near future...have fun!:cool:

[palerider]

thought you was talking nascar the spelling on that is proeneke. keep in mind dick was 52 and quite a handy fella stayed put in one spot the other i do not know of so of course i cannot comment on him

do or do not there is no try

[canid]

i'm a bit inclined towards Krackauer's theory. probably not the plant he suspected, but wthout poisoning or disease, how does one starve to death while they have plenty to eat?

McCandless seemed to have known what he was doing as well as most who move to the north lands. i chalk it up to ill luck. i certainly don't think he was the fool that the papers painted him to be.

[Rick]

From what I've read, a well educated individual. Scholarships and all. He made it through the winter into the spring so he was doing something right. He obviously had some outdoor skills. I think bad luck/timing is an ever present danger. It only takes once in picking the wrong plant.

[wildWoman]

I read the book about McCandless, don't know about that other guy. According to the book, McCandless didn't really seem to have a burning interest in living in a wilderness setting. He seemed more like someone unhappy with his life, searching for something. He just pushed the envelope a bit farther than most people would dare. It's tragic that a couple of mistakes cost him his life but then, people get killed all over the place from making mistakes. There always is a lot of hype about when somebody dies out in the bush because of a bear attack, just vanishes, or something newsworthy happens. Maybe because many people prefer to imagine "wilderness" as a slightly scary place, some sort of battleground of Man vesus Nature. It really is just another environment, circumstances, where rules are a bit different than in the city. But because the majority of people is not familiar with it, accidents there make the news while dog attcs on people in the city, someone dying of food poisoning there, only get a mention if it's a slow news day.

[canid]

he had a burning desire throughout his youth to go to Alaska.

john krackauer's theory was that he had been injesting a legume toxin not previously known to occurr in the seeds of a plant with edible tubers. assays where unable to find the specific toxin in that plant, but several similar toxins occurr in related plants. i find it just as likely that he died of a consumptive disease [in the general sense, not specificaly tuberculosis].

my point being that i think he was far better prepared than many people like to admit [the alaska media seemed to make him out to be a complete idiot from the lower who shouldn't have come to the state, despite the fact that he had been living on the road, and partialy on the wilds for years previous]. i would be fast to criticise his choice of cold/wet weather gear, though with the addition of galoshes he did fine for months.

[Rick]

Maybe because many people prefer to imagine "wilderness" as a slightly scary place, some sort of battleground of Man vesus Nature.

For the vast majority, that is exactly what it is.

[canid]

i think of it more as a battle ground of nature vs nature, where at least as individuals we're reminded that we don't stand far above the fray.

[wildWoman]

I don't see it as a battleground at all, to me it's quite comparable to a city: with places where you go to get your food, others for entertainment, populated by diverse citizens who live in and commute to different areas.

I read the book about McCandless some years back, so I'm not too sure I remember it right, but I think he was on his way out and only went back to the bus because the creek was flooding with run-off and he couldn't ford it. He didn't bring a map in order to have more of a "wilderness experience" (=the great unknown), otherwise he would easily have found a few ways out. And he didn't have enough knowledge to check out the creek further upstream and downstream.
I don't know, I don't find that story so remarkable. What I like is that at least he went to explore the world and himself instead of hanging out at home and getting drunk. Things can backfire on people in all sorts of situations, it did on him, but to me that's about all there is to it.

[Rick]

WW - I know you don't see it that way and I'm sure most on here don't but for the vast majority of folks, camping = Hyatt. Wilderness = a very scary place.

[Catfish]

I haven't yet seen the movie, although I did read the book a few years back. I'm a great admirer of Krakauer's writing and thought it was well up to his usual standards.

However, am I the only one who finished it with a feeling of "Yeah? And?"

Chris McCandless decided to exchange of life of comparitive comfort to go and live in the wilderness. OK, good for him. Apparently he made some mistakes, had some bad luck and paid the ultimate price. A tragic story? Without a doubt. A remarkable story? Not so much. A story worthy of a book by a best selling writer, followed by an Oscar nominated movie? Uhm, why?

Each year millions of young (and not so young) people make risky and/or foolish decisions. Many times they get away with them, some times they do not. I'm not altogether sure what makes McCandless' life and death so remarkable that it justifies the attention bestowed on it.

Can somebody help me out?

[Rick]

I think the uniqueness of him documenting his experience with both photo and journal draws us into the person more so than just the headline that someone died. It enables us to make a connection on some level. And I think some stories just grow a life of their own. The media picks it up and it becomes a piece of American folk lore (Canadian folk lore as well, eh.). But you are correct. Beyond a good read it's just one more person that made a mistake. Not much different than the guy that fell asleep at the wheel on his way home from work.

[Chuck]

McCandles lived on a road. He may have been alone but he was on a road that took him back to where people lived. He also had a moose down. I've been on that road I have seen where he was staying. I was living less than a hundred miles from where died. To put a hundred miles in prospective I snow machined 65 miles to the Post Office once a week.

I know at least 3 people who went out built cabins with what they could get out with their dog team or snow machine and thrived for years.

McCandles was in over his head and it took him down.