Jon Krakauers article in the New Yorker

Here you can discuss anything related to Christopher McCandless.
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:32 am

Jon Krakauers article in the New Yorker

Postby admin » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:42 pm

Hi All,

I have been in comms with Ron Hamilton about a paper Jon Krakauer was going to publish in the New Yorker.
Jon was pleased with Rons paper on my site and wanted to investigate it further to help confirm his thoughts on Chris' death.

As per Rons request, I did not tell anyone about this article until it was published.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/09/how-chris-mccandless-died.html

Adam (admin)

SteveSalmon
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:42 am

Re: Jon Krakauers article on the New Yorker

Postby SteveSalmon » Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:10 am

Hey I brought the link to this new development here to your website first, I didn't see you crediting me. ; )
I wouldn't sweat it, your website is the first listed in a Google "Christopher McCandless" search.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:32 am

Re: Jon Krakauers article on the New Yorker

Postby admin » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:01 am

Hi Steve,
Sorry I didn't see your post about the New Yorker in the forum until now.
(I was a bit quick to post mine).

Ron emailed me about the article, but I see there is a link to this site on it, so that is great!
Hopefully we get some more members and papers for the site!

Cheers, Adam

fredmerlin
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:12 am

Re: Jon Krakauers article on the New Yorker

Postby fredmerlin » Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:20 pm

YES! This article really clicked with me, too, and I DO believe there is a lot of truth here to explain what actually happened. We REALLY need to 'listen' to Chris' words in his journal: 'Fault pot seed", "Much trouble just to stand up", and other entries. He did make an egregious error by eatting the seeds to begin with, but knew instinctively something else was going on, other than the starving factor. It also seems that he did not eat more, after realizing the seeds were A culprit but by then, the damage was done. As Hamilton's article points out, there is no turning back from damage the body sustains after a period of ingesting the toxin.

And, Adam, did you mean Ron 'Hamilton'? Or Ron 'Howard'? Thank you for all your hard work here.

SteveSalmon
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:42 am

Re: Jon Krakauers article on the New Yorker

Postby SteveSalmon » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:25 pm

Not a problem at all Adam. Great to see a new development in the story. I've never settled with the idea of poisonous seeds with all the conflicting information. This seems to provide more conclusive evidence. I've always added, too, that Chris fought to survive as far as Im concerned and the proof, according to me, is his refusal to use the gun to end it easier.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:32 am

Re: Jon Krakauers article in the New Yorker

Postby admin » Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:59 am

Fredmerlin, thanks for spotting the error. Fixed now.
Cheers, Adam

fredmerlin
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:12 am

Re: Jon Krakauers article in the New Yorker

Postby fredmerlin » Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:09 am

Adam, cool....I thought maybe Hollywood was gonna do it again! Sean Penn did a great job with this story, but I'd love to see what Ron Howard would do!

Anewanddifferentsun
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:57 am

Re: Jon Krakauers article on the New Yorker

Postby Anewanddifferentsun » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:19 am

fredmerlin wrote:YES! This article really clicked with me, too, and I DO believe there is a lot of truth here to explain what actually happened. We REALLY need to 'listen' to Chris' words in his journal: 'Fault pot seed", "Much trouble just to stand up", and other entries. He did make an egregious error by eatting the seeds to begin with, but knew instinctively something else was going on, other than the starving factor. It also seems that he did not eat more, after realizing the seeds were A culprit but by then, the damage was done. As Hamilton's article points out, there is no turning back from damage the body sustains after a period of ingesting the toxin.

And, Adam, did you mean Ron 'Hamilton'? Or Ron 'Howard'? Thank you for all your hard work here.



[b]The problem with Krakauer's third attempt to blame the seeds is that McCandless did, in fact, get up to continue hunting and foraging and taking photographs following the "fault of pot(ato) seed" event. Under Hamilton's hypothesis, as co-opted by Krakauer, this would not have been possible. Does McCandless look paralyzed in his signature "farewell" photos? Perhaps it was just a miracle he stood that day. No? It's sad if not somewhat laughable that critical thinking has been pushed to the back seat in this latest attempt to prove McCandless's death wasn't his fault. That tragic mix of miscalculation, ignorance, and hubris planted the seeds of his demise. He once laughed arrogantly at a couple in Carthage, S.D., who told him he was going to die in Alaska. Sadly, they were right.
As for this latest disclosure, one wonders if it has more to do with promoting a re-issuance of ITW than anything else. Of course, if the author is serious about digging for the truth, he'd also correct his earlier "inaccuracies" that Chris had no ID. Ron Lamothe's documentary refuted that when Will Forsberg produced Chris's wallet with McCandless's birth certificate, Social Security card, and numerous pieces of identification, all from Chris's backpack that Forsberg returned to Carine McCandless via Jon Krakauer. Wonder if the parents know she has it, since it legally belongs to them.
Anyway, take another look at the Hamilton/Krakauer hypothesis. It clearly states the condition was irreversible, that it only gets worse. Of course, we're still waiting for Krakauer's studies showing that native Alaskans suffered epidemic lathyrism from their repeated exposure to the wild potato. Starvation is enough to explain the death, but if one needs to find another contributing factor, look again at the photo with the bag of seeds. Also present are mushrooms, of which McCandless had been eating many prior to the "seed" incident. Many case studies show that those who suffer mushroom poisoning seem to recover for a while (note: McCandless resumed hunting and foraging, as well as his endless photographic self-portraits), but victims' organs eventually fail if they go untreated. Even experts sometimes cannot tell the difference between some poisonous and non-poisonous varieties, so this doesn't mean McCandless was stupid to eat them. But he did take to the Stampede Trail ill-equipped and underprepared by choice for his "final and greatest adventure." Well, it was final, just as that couple in South Dakota said it would be.

Husky
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 6:04 am

Re: Jon Krakauers article in the New Yorker

Postby Husky » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:49 am

I agree that the new poisoning theory doesn't make sense.

one correction, though, if its okay. Carine saw the pack in Ron Lamothe's documentary and found a number for Forsberg and called him. She gave Forsberg her address and he mailed her the pack, wallet, id's and money. Krakauer had nothing to do with delivering the pack to Carine. The parents called later after the pack had already been mailed to Carine. Don't know if they ever saw it- that is between them and their daughter...
Here we are in the years
Where the showman shifts the gears
Lives become careers
Children cry in fear
Let us out of here! Neal Young

Don't let fear stand in the way.
There's nothing to it
but to do it! Husky

GoNorth
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:47 pm

Re: Jon Krakauers article on the New Yorker

Postby GoNorth » Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:12 am

Anewanddifferentsun wrote:following the "fault of pot(ato) seed"


Something I never understood is that everybody seems to be sure that Chris was right by blaming the seeds. Maybe he just thought they were the cause, but he was wrong? How could he be so sure after all?

Anewanddifferentsun wrote:that critical thinking has been pushed to the back seat in this latest attempt to prove McCandless's death wasn't his fault.


Another thing I don't get. How would the poison theory "prove" that his death wasn't his fault - compared to the simple starvation theory?
I really don't see a difference. But if I HAD to choose which theory would, in my opinion, make Chris look a bit less "stupid", it would certainly NOT be the theory that he ate something he shouldn't. ;)


Return to “Discussions on Chris”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests