I’ve just finished the book “Into the Wild” by Jon Krakauer. I saw the film and was impressed by the cinematography and story. Of course, the book delves deeper and tries to explore the rationale behind Chris McCandless’s travels; his state of mind and beliefs and eventual death by starvation in the Alaskan wilderness.
I wasn’t really too surprised that the book tried to defend what others call plain foolishness or folly especially as it was written by a fellow adventurer. McCandless was full of youthful bravado. He was idealistic and headstrong and some might say say foolish and naive. But he was also young, intelligent and fit. It’s too easy to dismiss him as an idiot.
McCandless’s idea was to walk into the Alaskan wilderness with minimal provisions and equipment and survive by living off the land. Perhaps something that many of us aspire to; but maybe not in Alaska!
The fact was that he didn’t survive and nor did a myriad of others who have tried to do the same. Some of these excursions were also described in some detail in the book.
Rosellini summed up his failure in a letter to a friend before he committed suicide as reported by Krakauer:
” I began my adult life with the hypothesis that it would be possible to become a Stone Age native… I learned that it is not possible for human beings as we know them to live off the land.” [p76]
So why are these extended, lonely excursions into the wilderness doomed to failure and could we, with our knowledge of bushcraft and survival, do any better?
I expect a few reading this would say that they would prepare themselves better and that they would ensure that they have the requisite knowledge and skills to deal with the conditions they would undoubtedly encounter. They might say, “I’ve done the course, got the T-Shirt” and “survived” with just billy and blanket. As a minimum, we would at least take some emergency equipment. After all, McCandless didn’t even bother with a map. He learnt no skills prior to his adventure, except for a bit of game prep. Instead he decided to learn “on the hoof” from books taken into the wilderness with him.
But are even the most experienced and skilled bushcrafters or survivalists just kidding themselves when it comes to true survival and living in the wilderness? A behind the scenes look at a Survivorman episode shows how much preparation goes into a trip. Despite the one-man presentation in a seemingly empty wilderness, locations are carefully selected and skills are learnt from a local survival expert just days before he walks in.
I suggest that survival situations are impossible to replicate. A week long course may give you a few ideas (for that particular environment) but would that be enough?
I don’t believe knowledge and skills are enough. It has to be something more. In fact I consider that it’s two factors. Firstly, there must be a will to survive; not just to get by and live off the land for a short time, but to actually live and survive long term (in fact shouldn’t the words “live” and “survive” be used synonymously?)
Contrary to the film and book, it has been shown that there were no toxins in McCandless’s body, therefore the fact that his starvation was blamed on misidentification of a plant and eating the poisonous seed pods from that plant is probably not correct. In my mind this is perhaps an excuse to blame his naivity for his death.
I believe McCandless just gave up. This isn’t hard to do and anyone who has been in even a vaguely similar situation might know what I mean. I’m not an expert on survival physiology or psychology by any means but I have been an expedition leader and I have seen and experienced this syndrome. Even mild exposure in the UK’s lowland hills will cause the victim to curl up in a ball while the body attempts to shut down some essential systems. If you multiply this by prolonged failure to find proper nourishment and a prolonged state of solitude in a place like Alaska, it won’t be long before the body and more significantly the mind starts to give up and eventually fail.
It’s not easy to recover from the downward spiral of demotivation. I’m not suggesting McCandless committed suicide (and the book goes to great lengths to dismiss these suggestions.) McCandless in fact had made up his mind to walk out; he’d had enough but then so did Rosellini. But by then it was all too late. Put up what looks to be like an impenetrable barrier (in McCandless’s case it was a swollen river) and it would seem like the end of the world. He, like Rosellini, had reached the point of no return.
Examples of successful survival in extreme cases are well documented and the most successful psychological strategy has apparently been built firmly on a will, a motivation or a need to survive – an aim, a focus, a love, a family at home, a determination not to fail. McCandless had none of these or at least thought he didn’t and this slowly eroded away his determination to succeed.
This brings me to the second contributing factor as to why extended wilderness living fails. This is solitude. I’ve often questioned the rule of three’s where the final “three” is the sweeping statement that you can’t survive more than three months without human contact. Perhaps a little extreme but there must be a basis for it. I’m sure many of us dream of living in the wilderness alone with the minimum of kit as did McCandless. But this dream is of course nonsense. Human contact and belonging is a basic human requirement, if not in the short term, then definitely long term. Sure, there have been some examples of people living alone but these are few and far between.
Even disregarding the psychological aspects of lack of human contact and the basic human survival requirement of belonging, there’s also an obvious practical aspect. We have previously survived in the wilderness as part of a tribe or clan or family. We worked together, formed hunting parties, shared tasks and split our daily workload and chores, built communities and relied on each other.
Whether they had the skills or not, McCandless and the others lived out the dream of solitude. Perhaps this was their demise. Perhaps we shouldn’t make it ours.
Pablo.
Welcome.
This is the home of Woodlife. You will find links to Pablos Woodlife (blog) the Woodlife Social Network (forum) and Woodlife Trails (courses) all on this page.
A highly articulate piece Pablo which responds to the challenge that we often read that people don’t stretch their survival skills enough….we must read some similar stuff. I certainly believe many people underestimate how time consuming it is to fulfil many basic daily tasks in the wilderness and the need for teamwork to achieve this must surely be right. The motivation and will to survive must be paramount too. Going off with just a billy and a knife is all very well….but it hardly meets the military aphorism “Planning and preparation produces performance” which sadly McCandless failed to do. Now where’s me ruckie…?
HI Pablo, I too love this film and had similar thoughts to yourself. I also believe he gave up and resigned him self to die because of what he read in the book. As the saying goes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. With more knowledge he may have been able to find an antidote, as with nature their is normally something close by. I have not read the book so did not know about the zero toxins in his body, but the line in the film that convinced me that he gave up was when he wrote ‘happiness is only real when shared’. The fact he felt trapped and could not leave when he wanted wes the catalyst for his demise.
Great article and an excellent topic to discuss around the camp fire.
See you soon.
Sean
Thanks Pablo,
A very interesting essay.
A point I think which brings into focus the challenges facing anyone attempting to live the ‘primitive life’ is that we are so removed from nature we no longer are aware of the challenges faced by early man. I believe the vast majority of people (including myself) would find it hard enough to live the life of two hundred years ago, let alone the stone-age existence attempted by McCandless. The everyday challenges confronting the traveller in 19th Century Britain we can barely comprehend; the dangers of horse-drawn transport, dangerous, often washed away roads making it necessary to make camp en route, light fires using flint and steel and improvise lashings to repair damaged tack would not in those days be considered ‘survival skills’ but perhaps rather ‘life skills’.
The point I am struggling towards is that what one person considers to be a struggle is another person’s bread and butter. For example, if you are not lucky enough to have an open fire in your home, you have not chopped wood for two hours solid, nor have you lit two fires a day using green wood. I am no expert in any area of bushcraft, but needing to light a fire does not make me tense as a result of my habitual daily practice.
Perhaps the key to surviving the conditions found in areas like Alaska is to live a life more challenging, to look at your options and not always take the easy way, even in the smallest matters; raining outside? Take a walk anyway, and while you’re there light a fire. When it becomes second nature to function in all conditions, you might be ‘surviving’ but you no longer look at it as a challenge. Must be good Karma that!
Hi guys,
Some great comments there. Thanks.
Pablo.
As an old army saying that was drilled into us when ever we were on a tac ex was “It’s not training unless it’s raining” I still to this day say that if you can do it in the rain you can do with ease in the dry.
Swampy
Really enjoyed that Pablo. It has been a long time since I read the book, (he has wrote some other great books too) in fact I may just read it again.
The one thing I do remember is the book filled me with great sadness.
Dave
Well put Pablo. Im glad you brought up the point of human company towards the end, its what I was thinking about straight away when you started talking about extended wilderness living failing. Sharing life’s predicaments and tasks with just one other makes life so much easier and really would increase your chance of survival. Looking at the indigenous tribes we have left, marriage and coupling up with one another is an essential part of their culture and then even still they stick together in communities. This shows that life’s hardships are best shared, its not just the physical help of sharing a task but the ingenuity and new techniques that may help or make life easier. This year I had my first solo camping trip to Dartmoor, its was a beautiful place that I stayed, but the increased work load was noticeable, it was a good change to experience, whilst most of my time has been spent sharing my camp and its chors, it was a good opportunity to do everything solo, you soon see how camp-chors consume much more of your time.
I also agree with Jonno, there are so many endless tasks and techniques to true wilderness-living that most of us cannot even begin to comprehend them all.
Most people really don’t understand how much work and knowledge is needed to live in the wild. As a civilization its scary how out of touch we are with living in the natural world that has always provided for us, but hey we’re not the sheep :p
Its funny when your the ‘Ray Mears’ of your social group, people talk about you as if you know it all when it comes to living wild, when in actual fact knowing a bit about natural world and wilderness-living skills just enlightens you more to how inadequate we are as a society for trying to live wild and you appreciate what hard work it must have been. Some don’t even realise this, ironically you can see how it would be more of a struggle than the next non-bushcrafter would appreciate. Im probably not making sense now, I’ll shutup!
Oh by the way I’ve watched the film but not read the book, I’ll have to get round to that. Im reading Dick Proenneke’s Journals at the moment.
It is interesting about the whole toxin deal, I wonder if that was accepted.
Silver Fox, don’t take everything you see in the film as word for word gospel, even when I see film based on true events I always take them with a pinch of salt and try to keep a slightly open-mind, you never know people sometimes like to slightly twist or change things to make them dramatic (or to meet other agendas) and after all for portions of this film McCandless was on his own so no one really knows how some things went down. The events, emotions and final journey of his life will only ever be partially told, for he enjoyed (arguably) the best bits on his own.
Good write up Pablo and your points are similar to mine regarding the scenario. A few months ago I finished reading Deep Survival and it dives into the psychology of a survivor. It’s a good read. Here’s the site http://www.deepsurvival.com/
PS: Really dig your YouTube channel
As the others have said, this is a very well placed, grounded and thoughtout article. Wise words Pablo – thank you.
Pablo, I think you are exactly on point, especially when you mention that when people did survive with stone age technology they relied heavily on the family and clan structure. A stone age man left alone probably did not survive very long, let alone live any sort of life in the wild, even with all of his skills.
Another thing that I have found to be very important is local knowledge. I don’t just mean knowledge of a specific type of climate of forest, but the memorization of features and resourses in an area of several miles. If you take a tribe, currently living a stone age existance, and move it to a new location, even of similar climate, they will have a hard time surviving. Things like water sources, game migrations and trails are not something you can learn by general study, but must know for the specific corner of the map where you are attempting to live.
A great and thought provoking article Pablo. I just finished watching the film having read the book many years ago. Oddly, when I read the book, by about quarter way through I was thinking he was an idiot and pretty much deserved what he got in the end for being so foolish. However as I got further through I started to understand him, and draw some parallels with myself, so much so that I didnt want him to die (even though you know already that he did).
The change was wierd and, for me at least, that was part of the brilliance of the book. Still one of my favourite all-time reads. In fact, think I may just read it again.
Donald
Very thoughful article, Pablo. And I admire and respect your knowledge and skills tremendously. My only comment is that I think the problem with some modern humans inability to ‘go native’ might be early conditioning and desire, along with heredity. If one’s parents or peers get one into the outdoors, I think a person’s chances at long-term survival are raised considerably. Of course a strong will to survive is at the top of the list. Just wanting to go out in the woods and live off the land is not enough in itself–and is dangerously idealistic, as I believe McCandless was.
There is another inherent problem with some modern humans and that is sheer laziness. For long-term survival, one must not only be fit, but be able to work hard. You have to do everything yourself if living alone. Not many are up to that challenge.
I highly recommend seeing the DVD “Alone in the Wilderness” (available on Amazon) and also reading the book and journal of Dick Preonneke. This man spent 35 years living alone in the Alaskan wilderness–and very successfully I might add. But one thing you notice right away about Dick–he’s tireless. He worked hard nearly every day he was out there.
A strong will to sruvive and being able to do hard work are really key ingredients. Then you need knowledge, skills, and proper tools to ensure your survival. It’s a very interesting topic and one I think can be discussed from many different angles.
Cheers,
Linda
Thanks for your reply Linda (and the reply to other posts). Very thoughtful considerations.
All the best,
Pablo.
now pablo everything you have said i agree with i also think he gave up the reason i agree is because of i have read the book alone in the wilderness one mans dream an alaskan oddissy by dick pennroke.
Now as linda said in that book it is quite apparrent that dick had a sence of his own strengh and an ability to carry on regardless but still not be reckless that is why i dont think its impossible to live buy your self in the wilderness i just think its harder and you have to be mentally and physically prepared
drew
I think the most important fact relates to the practicalities of being alone rather than the emotion of solitude. Ancient people lived in Tribes and the tribal work distribution is what made survival possible. Just look at tribal cultures today, people have roles where there skills are specialised and are utilised for the benefit of the whole tribe. Some people have skills in making baskets and bowls, others in foraging, others hunting, fire lighting, building, making clothing, natural medecines etc etc etc. No one person is skilled highly enough in all of the required disciplins to live alone. If the weather is kind and the food plentiful and they don’t get ill they may “survive” for a while but is is more likely to be a case of eeking out an exisistance from day to day rather than living a sustainable primative life.
Great article very well written Pablo. I agree with you i feel as though he accepted his fate and gave up and lay down to die.