In Sherry Simpson’s article about Chris McCandless, she is noncommittal about her stance on whether his trek was something noble or pathetic.  When she goes to the bus, she is disgusted at times about what people have written in the notebook – Kris even more so.  Why is this?  I thought about how Kris is an avid outdoorsman.  He is well prepared for everything, so when someone like Chris tries to do it on his own with a rifle and rice and fails, Kris will most likely scoff.  If Kris can’t do it unprepared, how can someone else?  What if Chris had made it out alive?  If Chris told Alaskan natives he survived for 100 days out in the wilderness, they would either not believe him or thought he was lucky.  Chris on the other hand, would not think he was lucky; he would think it was because of his strength and determiddnation.  To some degree, I think Sherry and Kris act so judgmental on Chris (Kris says “oh gag” after reading a passage in the notebook) is because they are jealous.  They are in denial that in fact they would love to go out in the wilderness and survive – if it were possible.  Chris proves to them that it isn’t.  But what about those who do survive?  There was a recent find of an Australian man that had been mugged and left in the desert for three months.  He ate lizards and frogs, and when people found him he looked like a living skeleteon. (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13519019,00.html)

This proves that some humans can be put to the extreme limit.  But this man didn’t ask to wander around in the desert nor wanted to find himself.  Maybe if Chris had come back to the real world again, he would have found meaning when he wasn’t looking for it.