“[They] were trying to look poor. They wore old jeans and shirts with the shirttails out, just like the [poor] always had because they couldn’t afford anything else. I’ll tell you one thing, though: what with fringed leather vests and Levis with classy-store labels in them, those kids were spending as much money to look poor as they used to to look rich.” S.E. Hinton That Was Then, This Is Now

Why I Love Into the Wild

I'm in debt to Jon Krakauer, Christopher McCandless, and Into the Wild. This was my fifth or sixth time reading Into the Wild. My previous read was close to 10 years ago. Since then I've learned so much more about so many things. I feel like a very different person now (this could be false, of course), but surprisingly I had a very similar reaction to Into the Wild.

This year, I decided to eventually reread all of my five star rated books. I follow the goodreads.com rating system, so a four star book is "I really liked it" and five star is "it was amazing." I'm a stickler for words, especially words like amazing. Amazing is a word that should be sparingly used, and I expect to downgrade many of my five star ratings. Currently, about ten percent of my rated books are five stars, and my average rating is 3.27. 

Into the Wild will not be a downgraded. I love Into the Wild. The structure of the book feels a bit cliche now. So many writers use quotes to start chapters and tell nonlinear stories. But it works. Krakauer is a master of his craft. Having heard a few Krakauer interviews and reading a few of his other books, I know how much time and effort he put into the organization of the story and ideas. It is as perfect as a writer can hope to achieve.

When I first read Into the Wild, I was about McCandless' age when he died. I related to everything. I agreed with McCandless and shared his ambitions to live life fully and be a good person. I read Into the Wild before my spring break. When spring break hit, I hit the road. I hitch hiked to Los Angeles then to Las Vegas. It was frustrating waiting for rides and I eventually had to fly home from Vegas after a failed day of hitch hiking, but it felt worth it. Catching rides and getting from Point A to Point B was exhilarating. The random people and conversation I had on the road remain with me today.

Along with a liberal college education, a couple philosophy courses, and living the poor college student life, I started appreciating an ascetic lifestyle. The less I had, the happier I felt. I started backpacking more. Into the Wild pushed me to experience life by a more vigorous standard which was also more rewarding. Into the Wild was a book I'd revisit multiple times in my 20s. It influenced me, along with other factors, to become, what a friend labeled me as, an experience junkie.

Most importantly, it had a huge impact on who I am today. Into the Wild gave me reasons to value reading. Becoming a reader still took a while. My scrap paper bookmark was turned into a list of all the books that McCandless and Krakauer mentioned. I carried that scrap paper around several states and at least a couple continents. I didn't read all the books, but it implanted a seed to read. And that seed flourished into a decent tree, a tree with many branches and hundreds of leaves.

War and Peace was the monumental book on that list. I'd love to recall what I thought about War and Peace before reading it. I remember thinking it was one of the longest books ever written and that is about it. 1,500 pages (depending on the version) was a daunting obstacle to me. But McCandless' love for War and Peace rubbed off. I wanted to know why MecCandless told his friend Wayne, "That is a very powerful and highly symbolic book. It has things in it that I think you will understand. Things that escape most people." I wanted to understand it. It took me several years and many books before I tackled War and Peace. It is one of my five star books. I'm rereading it as I write this review. (Click here for my reread response to War and Peace post)

In 2021, I'm closer to Krakurer's age when he wrote Into the Wild. I see McCandless through a different lens. He is more radical, risk seeking, and stubborn. Last time, I was a single Peace Corps volunteer in my late 20s. This time, I'm a married homeowner, barely employed/part time substitute teacher, stay at home-ish spouse/dad, and dog owner in my late 30s. I've learned more about every aspect in life. I'm more moderate in my ideas and values. I have interest in philosophy, economics, statistics, psychology, evolution, and science in general. I'm a superior thinker than I was. Even though my ideology and values have changed, the story is as readable, relatable, and relevant as it was in my 20s. It is easy to remember who I was and why I loved and still love this book so much.

Although I disagree with McCandless's take on man's spirit, the following quote, and similar quotes, inspire me. Those words makes me want to pursue new experiences. They make me regret falling into a debt trap. They make me want to drop out of society and get off the grid even though I can't and won't.

McCandless' advice is terrible. Unless someone had prior interest in this lifestyle, I wouldn't advise anyone follow a "helter-skelter style of life." People can find meaning and beauty potentially anywhere. Living in solitude in a nice house isn't what I'd advise either, and Ron probably needed a push back to a more meaningful life, but he had a lot of other options too. With that said, I'm one of the unhappy people with their circumstances. I long for more nature and less civilization, more adventure and less monotony, but I have other responsibilities. Otherwise rereading Into the Wild may have sent me on a trip.

McCandless' life and death makes the reader wonder. What would have McCandless become if he successfully walked out of his wilderness adventure? Would he be a more moderate family man, like me? Would he be a successful writer like Krakatau? Would he have died taking on another risky adventure? How many people successfully live adventurous lifestyles unknowingly and without fatal outcomes? How many others meet a fatal outcome without any mainstream media covering it? (I'm curious to explore the last two questions) It's hard to say. McCandless was approaching an age where young men start to recalculate the rewards of risky behaviors. He may have settled down and been one of those eccentric high school teacher that students love.

This is where Krakauer's perspective is perfect for telling McCandless' story. When I first read Into the Wild, I thought Krakauer was highjacking the story with his personal experiences. Many critical responses to Into the Wild make that claim, and it's a bad and unfair critique. It is clear how well crafted the story is on critical examination. It is similarly clear how important Krakauer's life is to telling McCandless' story. Krakauer was a McCandless. Many of us were in some to many ways. The book includes other historical figures with tragic deaths trying to live off the land. I love these stories too. McCandless and his tragic peers wanted more; they took risks; and they died living their ideals. It is an interesting paradox for readers to evaluate.

Over the summer I found the best explanation for McCandless and his tragic peers.

"His actions were hardly those of a sportsman... there is only one word for what was happening in Hans Castorp's soul: defiance." 

Hans Castorp is the fictional protagonist in Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain (another five star book). Castorp is a 20 year old who spends 7 years at a sanatorium in the Swiss Alps. Castorp experiences a near death hallucination after ignoring the warning signs of a blizzard. In addition to being ill equipped for his adventure, Castorp uses awful judgement. He should have died, but his story is for another book review. Castorp is a McCandless. And his defiance, in the chapter titled "Snow," should be paired with McCandless' death. I will always read "Snow" with Into the Wild. When Krakuaer speculates on McCandless' death, pause, and go read the chapter "Snow" from The Magic Mountain.

Into the Wild is a story of defiance. You cannot understand McCandless or his peers without defiance.

Defiant readers should love Into the Wild. If you were defiant, want to be defiant, or know defiant people then Into the Wild is for you. If you liked Into the Wild, I strongly recommend rereading it and reading Jon Krakauer's other books. The Stranger in the Woods: The Extraordinary Story of the Last True Hermit by Michael Finkel is a story about a McCandless type character.

Love Your Enemies

Arthur C. Brooks' book Love Your Enemies motivated me to write him an email. I'm going to expand on that email I sent and make a quasi book review-ish reflection and response to his book. I would recommend everyone at least read the conclusion of Love Your Enemies.

I must admit, the book is somewhat confirmation bias for me. I heard an interview with Brooks and liked the discussion. Then the books mostly provides further evidence and arguments that strengthen my previously ideas. I don't think that is necessarily bad, but that is where I'm coming from. I'm open to alternative and opposing ideas. If anyone knows any please leave them in a comment.

Love Your Enemies is organized very well. Brooks weaves a quasi narrative throughout the book with anecdotes and studies to reinforce his ideas and build on previous ideas. Brooks' anecdotes are appropriate to the story he is telling (more on that below) that people should be more loving to people, especially when they disagree. The book flows effortlessly. It is the kind of book that calls me to action. It inspired me to write a more thoughtful response than I normally would for a book.

Every Thanksgiving, right around this time, I usually make a plan to be more grateful. Thanksgiving is the perfect reminder of how ungrateful people are, myself included. This book is a call to gratitude. It offers an argument to be grateful for differing opinions too.

The book is an easy read or listen.  The ideas are useful and practical advice everyone can apply today. I can't imagine a person not having better conversations after reading this book. This book offers solutions, at least on the individual level.

Those that know me, know I like to argue. But I've noticed myself arguing more and more against ideas I might have accepted prior to the 2016 election. I consider myself a moderate and more of a classical liberal, but many of my friends and family members are antivaccination Trump supporters. I don't think or assume negative attributes to people based on 1 or 2 factors, ideas, or especially voting habits. I know plenty of Trump supporters who are great people, and  I know antiTrumpers who could be a lot better. Over the last 5 years, I have constantly engaged with bad ideas on the left (I do the same with conservatives and the bad ideas on the right, but the conversations are different, maybe I'll explore that too). People, even my friends, have accused me of being all sorts of insults. My favorite is when they say I must watch foxnews. Love Your Enemies offers another reason why I have argued so often and much with liberals: loyalty. When people attack and make generalizations about all "Trump voters," they are making an indirect attack on me through people I love. I realize now that my loyalty to my family was probably a lot bigger influence that I would have previously accepted or thought. Knowing this now will help me not take other people's cognitive distortions personally which should result in better conversations and hopefully better informed interlocutors.

The book references other books I enjoyed like Coddling of the American Mind, another a must read. After reading Coddling of the American Mind I investigated Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). I learned a lot from CBT, especially avoiding and recognizing cognitive distortions. Love Your Enemies pairs very well with The Righteous Mind, Coddling of the American Mind, and "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?" I regularly listen to Michael Shermer’s podcast. Shermer is where I get many of my nonfiction book recommendations. Shermer covers science denial a lot. Love Your Enemies could be adopted as a strategy for talking to science deniers.

I have a problem with chapter 6 "Telling more Stories." Brooks adds and tells stories well in his book and I agree it is a successful strategy to engage readers/viewers. But I also see this as a problem. Stories can easily manipulate people into cognitive distortions, like making generalizations or jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence. Brooks briefly discusses this dilemma. I prefer the opposite approach. Teach people to be aware of statistics and recognize that one people studies, aka anecdotes, are not reliable information for a big picture understanding. When someone gives a story or anecdote, we need further support to accept the prevalence of that issue/idea. X happened to Person A. Okay, but how many people similar to Person A didn't have X occur? If Person B tries to do Z, what are the chances of Person B succeeding? People need to understand statistics and probability and know when a media source is using a story in good or bad faith. Using a story as an attention grabber and then providing evidence to support the main idea is good faith. Using a story to emotionally create a response to sell an idea without providing evidence is bad faith. Those are generalization. For instance, using selection bias and ignoring conflicting ideas would be bad faith. I'll save that for another rant (Malcolm Gladwell comes to mind as the king of selection bias to persuade people vs inform people). I'm not anti story. I'm pro story and pro critical thinking.

Check out Love Your Enemy! Even if you think you don't need it. You can't get too much advice for love and kindness. Love and kindness with good intentions are never bad ideas.