Christopher McCandless

My thoughts on the matter of 'fault pot. seeds', is intuition, instinct. Some of us have strong beliefs on things, and proof is only a fingertip away. I believe that Chris was a person of strong instincts, and that's what leads me to feel he 'knew' one of the culprits instrumental in his demise. Of course, just out of reach, is the truth. No one really can prove one theory from the other. It all boils down to our personal belief and what we feel supports that theory.

As far as the, 'ate something he shouldn't', I think there are several references to 'experts' not being able to differentiate between the two plants in question. Again, you may consider all of this his 'fault', some of it his fault, and, none of it Chris' fault...this is the beauty, and the curse of we humans... If he didn't venture into the Alaskan back country in the first place, he wouldn't have passed away. How far do we go back to try to figure out the truth? What came first? The chicken or the egg? (yes...I said it!..) He make a human mistake. One that any one of us could make, if we were brave enough to go out there at all.

I have just registered on this site and am from the UK. As somebody who has only very recently seen the film, and taking away the probable inaccuracies in some of it, and who also has not read the book, I am a little astounded that I can't find any reference to Sam Thayer's article in any of the forum pieces. Is this not a pure scientific explanation of how Chis died? It seems to me as though it is. In fact, taking away the obvious emotional aspects that people feel towards Chris, and I have no view on his reasons for doing what he did, I found it to be the definitive explanation of his death based on fact, and not theory. Have people actually read Mr Thayer's document on this site?

David, the Sam Thayer article has been mentioned a couple of times, by admin and by Ron Lamothe, just not discussed very much. (A search for 'Thayer' in the search box will turn up the posts.)

Go North, ask Jon Krakauer. These seeds of hyperbole and hype are ones he planted to dismiss the possibility that Chris was a combination of arrogance, hubris, and willful ignorance. And ask yourself why a "journalist" would agree to pay the family for a "story" and somehow still adhere to principles in telling the truth. At the family's request, he withheld information from the book.

Anewanddifferentsun wrote:These seeds of hyperbole and hype are ones he planted to dismiss the possibility that Chris was a combination of arrogance, hubris, and willful ignorance.

That's exactly what I don't get. Even without the seeds I don't think Chris would seem arrogant etc. Or - for those who like to hate the guy anyway, this theory doesn't change anything anyway. I don't see a "higher value" of dying from poisoning compared to dying from starvation.

GoNorth,

That's exactly what I don't get. Even without the seeds I don't think Chris would seem arrogant etc. Or - for those who like to hate the guy anyway, this theory doesn't change anything anyway. I don't see a "higher value" of dying from poisoning compared to dying from starvation.

I totally agree with what you've stated. There isn't a higher value between drying of starvation vs. drying of provisioning. Both ways are extremely horrible and I don't know if I could make a choice between either one.