The following is a profound little excerpt from Jon Krakauer’s magnificent book — Into the Wild. In this passage, Krakauer is quoting a letter written by a free-spirited young wanderer, Christopher McCandless, to an older gentleman named Ron, a kind-hearted man whom McCandless befriended during his travels.
This book was a milestone. McCandles’ adventures and Krakauer’s relation to them were fascinating and inspired me - I read it about twenty years ago - and I had been a Thoreau-o-phile before then. It was a toughly written book, too, which is its own literary style that, not only because of its subject matter and relationship to a condition of nature we’ve lost in the West, makes one feel life’s hardships more tangibly and with more of their weight than a lot of squashy literate, “literary” tracts allow (fiction and non), where it seems nothing is really at stake except perhaps the traditional “conflict followed by resolution” that anyone who went through a certain literary education has been trained to locate and find deficient if it is not present. In this vein, Cormac McCarthy said before he died that he can’t read fiction (I think he even included Proust) if it does not involve questions of life and death. Into the Wild had this quality, its writing and its subject.
On the issue of adventure vs. security, despite what I just said, I’ll be the guy here to ask the question of whether security has not gotten a bad rap in the American (U.S.) tradition, or any tradition (there are plenty of them that have scorned security), especially security one seeks when one is responsible for the welfare of others, e.g. parents. I am skeptical that all security and the seeking of enough of it in one’s life (for oneself or others) necessarily means one has precluded adventure or exposing oneself to risk, although there is plenty of deathly security, and there is a tendency in security not to upset the apple cart, and too much security of the wrong kind is definitely a form of degenerate stagnation.
Deathly security is also frequently associated with living in one place as opposed to being on the road, the assumption being that one must always be on the road to avoid deathly security. I question that too, although I see where it comes from, i.e. the idea that being always “in motion” is desirable. But it also can be a form of being completely lost.
I also don’t think the adventurers have given the “securitors” sufficient credit for providing the support system on which the adventures to some degree depend for their romantic enactments.
Nonetheless, I still admire McCandles and Krakauer and anyone who takes those kinds of risks and thus turns life into art.
I agree there is more to it than a black and white painting to the roaming/at rest scale. But I do think many "sedentary", in one place people (the vast majority of the planet), don't ever see the possible other side - and too how our evolution has conditioned us as nomads. And by that, I mean, pastoralists that followed the seasons, moved seasonally or often, as needed. I don't think, as McCandles states, you need to move each day, there is a "between". And that is good for the soul and lets in adventure and life.
Of all the styles of writing that speak to me the most, the explorers evoke real passion in me. There’s an shared understanding of life being a physical quest as well as a journey on other levels.
Compelling - and because of his passionate drive to challenge boundaries, easily seduces. If you’ve had adventures where you’ve experienced moments or more of wishing you were home in bed (see Hemingway on this), there is something so seductive in staying in one place and living a life as fulfilling, albeit ‘safer’. Which is an illusion anyway, everywhere.
As someone who has spent a prolonged amount of time away from work/school doing whatever I wish. One piece of advice here is to explore in a forward looking way! Exploration is a balance of trying out random things but trying out things that could last
He says we are wrong to think joy emanates principally from human relationships. Oh but it can! Outfitted with the right questions and a curious mind, the same person can be, every day, a new country.
The open road is not the only form of adventure, as exhilarating as it may be. Romantic and attractive, to be sure, but also may be merely reactive and a rejection of community, a forgetting that we are social beings through and through.
I think our friend Satan had a good perspective: “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.”
Some of the most community oriented people I know are the movers and adventurers. People who live to taste the vital juices of life through new experiences. Staying put usually thickens the blood and dulls your sensibilities.
Like a lot of other people, I suppose I have been lucky to savory both travel and security. I think it takes a huge amount of character, courage and commitment to settle down and make a living for oneself and for a family. The settlers life style is not any more predictable or stable than the travellers. Either ways, a life worth living is a journey.
Fun book, but silly advice. Thinking that travel is the only adventure is pretty myopic. "The very basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion for adventure." is cliché. But McCandless is dead, so much for living spirit. A little food security might have been nice.
I needed to hear this. I just got back from a 1,000k bike ride and resting my ass in my box in the sky. Thinking, "got to get back out there" (once my ass heals). But there are drawbacks to the nomadic lifestyle ... we all do tend to romanticize the grass on the other side.
thank you, always, for this space that shares the words of other’s & your own; words of poetic, philosophical, wonder and thoughts that leave me looking like the statue, The Thinker,
This book was a milestone. McCandles’ adventures and Krakauer’s relation to them were fascinating and inspired me - I read it about twenty years ago - and I had been a Thoreau-o-phile before then. It was a toughly written book, too, which is its own literary style that, not only because of its subject matter and relationship to a condition of nature we’ve lost in the West, makes one feel life’s hardships more tangibly and with more of their weight than a lot of squashy literate, “literary” tracts allow (fiction and non), where it seems nothing is really at stake except perhaps the traditional “conflict followed by resolution” that anyone who went through a certain literary education has been trained to locate and find deficient if it is not present. In this vein, Cormac McCarthy said before he died that he can’t read fiction (I think he even included Proust) if it does not involve questions of life and death. Into the Wild had this quality, its writing and its subject.
On the issue of adventure vs. security, despite what I just said, I’ll be the guy here to ask the question of whether security has not gotten a bad rap in the American (U.S.) tradition, or any tradition (there are plenty of them that have scorned security), especially security one seeks when one is responsible for the welfare of others, e.g. parents. I am skeptical that all security and the seeking of enough of it in one’s life (for oneself or others) necessarily means one has precluded adventure or exposing oneself to risk, although there is plenty of deathly security, and there is a tendency in security not to upset the apple cart, and too much security of the wrong kind is definitely a form of degenerate stagnation.
Deathly security is also frequently associated with living in one place as opposed to being on the road, the assumption being that one must always be on the road to avoid deathly security. I question that too, although I see where it comes from, i.e. the idea that being always “in motion” is desirable. But it also can be a form of being completely lost.
I also don’t think the adventurers have given the “securitors” sufficient credit for providing the support system on which the adventures to some degree depend for their romantic enactments.
Nonetheless, I still admire McCandles and Krakauer and anyone who takes those kinds of risks and thus turns life into art.
I agree there is more to it than a black and white painting to the roaming/at rest scale. But I do think many "sedentary", in one place people (the vast majority of the planet), don't ever see the possible other side - and too how our evolution has conditioned us as nomads. And by that, I mean, pastoralists that followed the seasons, moved seasonally or often, as needed. I don't think, as McCandles states, you need to move each day, there is a "between". And that is good for the soul and lets in adventure and life.
Well said
Of all the styles of writing that speak to me the most, the explorers evoke real passion in me. There’s an shared understanding of life being a physical quest as well as a journey on other levels.
Compelling - and because of his passionate drive to challenge boundaries, easily seduces. If you’ve had adventures where you’ve experienced moments or more of wishing you were home in bed (see Hemingway on this), there is something so seductive in staying in one place and living a life as fulfilling, albeit ‘safer’. Which is an illusion anyway, everywhere.
As someone who has spent a prolonged amount of time away from work/school doing whatever I wish. One piece of advice here is to explore in a forward looking way! Exploration is a balance of trying out random things but trying out things that could last
He says we are wrong to think joy emanates principally from human relationships. Oh but it can! Outfitted with the right questions and a curious mind, the same person can be, every day, a new country.
The open road is not the only form of adventure, as exhilarating as it may be. Romantic and attractive, to be sure, but also may be merely reactive and a rejection of community, a forgetting that we are social beings through and through.
I think our friend Satan had a good perspective: “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.”
Some of the most community oriented people I know are the movers and adventurers. People who live to taste the vital juices of life through new experiences. Staying put usually thickens the blood and dulls your sensibilities.
Learning exercises the mind.
and heart 🙏🏽😌
Like a lot of other people, I suppose I have been lucky to savory both travel and security. I think it takes a huge amount of character, courage and commitment to settle down and make a living for oneself and for a family. The settlers life style is not any more predictable or stable than the travellers. Either ways, a life worth living is a journey.
Fun book, but silly advice. Thinking that travel is the only adventure is pretty myopic. "The very basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion for adventure." is cliché. But McCandless is dead, so much for living spirit. A little food security might have been nice.
You sound like a great spirit. Appreciate your bloodless and bitter words.
He did die. But we will all die too. Did we choose to be adventurous and live to the fullest?
It helped me appreciate Gods words to Abraham "leave !"
P.S. Just do not eat wild potato seeds
I needed to hear this. I just got back from a 1,000k bike ride and resting my ass in my box in the sky. Thinking, "got to get back out there" (once my ass heals). But there are drawbacks to the nomadic lifestyle ... we all do tend to romanticize the grass on the other side.
thank you, always, for this space that shares the words of other’s & your own; words of poetic, philosophical, wonder and thoughts that leave me looking like the statue, The Thinker,
Thank you
Three words come to mind, just do it.
A excellent book, read it every few years.
Didn't know it was wa movie thanks for tip