What do you make of Alexander Supertramp?

[Spirit Walker]

Reading the original article in Outside magazine, I thought Chris was an idiot. But after reading the much more detailed and sympathetic book, I realized that Chris was not that different from a lot of long distance hikers I know who have chosen to leave the middle class lifestyle in which they were raised to live an alternate existence. Like us, he wanted to live a simple and adventurous life. How many multiple thruhikers come from homes that are not that different from Chris' and now live in near poverty as they raise money for their next hike? How many of us yearn for more adventure, more wilderness, living more on the edge?

I don't think Chris' note was proof that he was suicidal - simply realistic. When we went to Alaska, I had the same kind of thoughts - small plane through the mountains, backpacking in grizzly country, long drives on rough highways, yep better make sure the will is updated before we go. Same thing with the CDT. I am realistic/fatalistic enough to know that stuff happens in backcountry areas.

Not having a map was really not a good idea, but my impression of it was he wanted to get a feeling for being in real wilderness. Chris would never have done a thruhike, for example, because it is much too civilized, there is too much information and assistance out there for the hikers. We drove past the area where he died last summer and I was surprised that it was not far off the highway between Fairbanks and Denali -- in other words, in order to get a true wilderness feeling, he had to work at it a bit. Smart, no - but understandable to those of us who really yearn for the real thing.

[JoeHiker]

No, JoeHiker, YOU and the facts don't seem to mix well.

One of the key things you discover in Boukreev's book is that while Krakauer was lying stoned in his tent and pretty much useless, Boukreev was making repeated efforts to save people's lives.

Read the book, Joe, and then feel free to comment. Right now tho, your comments about a very brave man, now dead and incapable of defending himself anymore, are pretty ignorant.

Whoa Jack, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. Did I really deserve that bitch slap? Go back and read what I wrote. I wasn't disrespecting Boukreev or anyone else. I was merely saying that just because one man's account disputes that of another man's does not inherently make either one of them more credible.

Basically what I heard BlueJay say was that Krakauer made things up because someone else had a different version. That's it.

Well how do we know that Anatoli didn't make things up and that Krakauer wasn't closer to the truth? Or how do we know that each man reported exactly what happened as best he knew?

It's not like I've gone and researched every available account on what happened up there. I'm not making any claim about either man. I'm certainly not saying Boukreev is a bad man. I'm saying I don't know and merely comparing two sides of the story is not compelling evidence, no matter what each man says.

There is nothing in one account of any tale that inherently makes it more "true". If there are several other sources that back up Boukreev and disagree with Krakauer than I'd certainly lean that way. But by themselves, they are just two sides of a story

[JoeHiker]

Someday someone is going to make a movie showing how different people view the same situation form very different perspectives. Perhaps in an exotic setting in another age.

Are you referring to Rashomon by Kurosawa? I'm guessing you must be (so perhaps I'm densely pointing out the obvious) but I wasn't sure

[Blue Jay]

Basically what I heard BlueJay say was that Krakauer made things up because someone else had a different version. That's it.

No, I did not say Krakauer made things up because there are different versions. Krakauer makes things up because he is a story teller and makes his living telling stories. True or not he could care less, he's out for the money. Boukreev might not even have written his book if he had not been slandered by Krakauer. Don't get me wrong he makes up great stories. My point was and is only that you cannot make judgements on a persons life due to someone who is making money telling his story. If he makes up things when he is at an event, he surely will and did make them up when he was not even near the bus at the time and never even met the guy. Fiction based on fact is just that, not actual fact.

[JoeHiker]

No, I did not say Krakauer made things up because there are different versions. Krakauer makes things up because he is a story teller and makes his living telling stories. True or not he could care less, he's out for the money.

How do you know. What on earth is your basis for that judgement? Getting paid to tell what you saw does not make your account any less credible.

[qutoe]Boukreev might not even have written his book if he had not been slandered by Krakauer.[/quote]
Did Boukreev not get paid for HIS side of the story? Should I disregard his account for that reason? Of course not. Boukreev had his own reasons for writing his book that went beyond money. If what Krakauer wrote was true, he had ever motivation to rebut it in print, regardless.

If he makes up things when he is at an event, he surely will and did make them up when he was not even near the bus at the time and never even met the guy. Fiction based on fact is just that, not actual fact.

What exactly now did Krakauer invent that he did not identify as his own invention?

Krakauer seems to have done a hell of a lot more research about his topic than DeWalt/Boukreev. He interviewed far more of the people involved.

I've already heard about Krakauer's somewhat arrogant nature. My sister in law used to know him well so I've heard the stories of his... shall we say "personality defects". But playing loose and fast with the truth was not one of them. The one thing that struck me about the man was that he seemed fanatic about identifying both his sources and his own failings in this journey. Based on the Salon.com articles, he certainly seems to have done a hell of a lot more research than DeWalt and interviewed far more of the people involved.

Obviously I need to read DeWalt's book to make a more complete judgement. As I mentioned previously, I am NOT condemning Boukreev by any means and I am not saying his account is wrong.

Regardless what we have here is another Rashomon. But your statement about Krakauer "making things up" needs an explanation. SO far, I don't see that he "made up" anything at all. What specifically are you talking about?

[JoeHiker]

(My apologies for the disjointed and repetitive nature of the previous post. Oh for an edit button in this forum!)

[Charlie Brown]

Getting back to the original subject of this thread, Chris McCandless aka Alexander Supertramp (Although Into Thin Air is a great book too). I just finished reading the book for the first time two days ago, and can really relate to it. There is a lot of talk regarding suicide or not. Some say the postcards suggest it was suicide while others use the plea for help as evidence he wanted to live. It is my opinion that Chris McCandless went 'into the wild' to come to terms with Alex Supertramp (i.e. kill AS).

If you analyze the situation, the postcards to Westerberg and Burris were signed Alex (if I am remembering right), while the SOS plea was penned as Chris McCandless. Alex Supertramp was Chris's second life and it can be seen throughout the book that Alex is a very different person than Chris. Alex was the philosopher who was looking for the meaning of existence while Chris was the real person looking to go back to civilization but was stopped by the river, or was it Alex holding him back. If he really wanted out, he would have searched for a way.

So, in the end, Alex and Chris became inseparable. Chris went into the woods to end the Alex part of his life, which he did, but ended up losing Chris too.

[Blue Jay]

Getting paid to tell what you saw does not make your account any less credible.

It certainly does, people will write anything for money. Krakaur was not in the bus and neither was anyone else who he "researched".

What exactly now did Krakauer invent that he did not identify as his own invention?

THE ENTIRE BOOK, again he was not in the bus. The entire book was based on hearsay and inuendo from others who WERE NOT ON THE BUS either. I hope you don't read Steven King, you'll think there are evil cars and monsters everywhere because Mr. King did his research.

But your statement about Krakauer "making things up" needs an explanation. SO far, I don't see that he "made up" anything at all.

I'm sure Mormons will love his new book "Under the Banner of Heaven" where he slanders an entire religion. You bring new meaning to the word gullible.

[Blue Jay]

Sorry I screwed up that last post. My answers to Joe got stuck in with his quotes. No way to edit.

[kentucky]

Well I will put mt 2cents worth in the pot I think He was crazy in the first place trying to live out their like a mountain man with very little skills besides plant books to live off and well even I have done pretty ignorant things but a living dog is better than a dead lion kentucky

[rickb]

"You bring new meaning to the word gullible."

I wish I remembered the detail in the books I read and the names of movies, too. I remember the ideas behind Rashoman more than the movie itself, but couldn't imagine a better real life parallel. Here is a good link that doesn't prove anything (what's the point) but is interesting none the less. I have always made it a practice to give away the book I've enjoyed. Now I feel like a chump, because the ones in this thread would most certainly be worth visiting again.

http://archive.salon.com/wlust/featu...03feature.html

After revisiting some of this stuff, I can see how a person who invites risk in the way a mountaineer does became attracted to McCandless once he got into the story. What I can't figure out is how in heck Krakauer was motivated to dig into the details of what on the surface wasn't much of a tale at all.

[Blue Jay]

What I can't figure out is how in heck Krakauer was motivated to dig into the details of what on the surface wasn't much of a tale at all.

Because it's a flat out great story and a great book. Like Paul Bunyan and the Blue Ox or Peter Pan which were also based on real people. He turned an obscure guy into a legend. Fiction just does not often get any better than that. He even get some people to believe it's true. That's the mark of a great story teller.

[JoeHiker]

I'm sure Mormons will love his new book "Under the Banner of Heaven" where he slanders an entire religion. You bring new meaning to the word gullible.

Well, one of us does, anyway.