To be honest, the film made me cry. Why? Well, after a Philosophy degree I felt that my story could have been a less dramatic version of his. What saved me? Meeting my wife and getting married.

What I thought was a sign of strength – wanting to be free from social relationships and live just with nature and books – is actually a sign of weakness and, to some extent, abnormality. If nothing else, this film really brought this out.

I lived in Fairbanks from 1994 to 1997 and I am surprised he didn’t freeze to death in that bus. I’m sure he would have if it had not been for the wood stove.

I thought it was a good story, overall. I didn’t really get the impression that anyone was trying to make him a hero, just merely tell a story. I’m not saying that Krakauer got all the facts straight or that I believe all of it, just that it is an interesting story from a psych majors view.

I don’t think arming himself with enough knowledge was the central point of Chris McCandless. More that the centrality of his character was based on placing himself into situations where he might not survive, but ended up surviving anyway by figuring out his way through it. Over and over again. It was the way he lived. Put yourself into the unknown. Find your way out again. Being well prepared and having it all thought out would almost be degrading to this entire way of thinking. A map is beside the point.

Of course people die every day like this. The amazing point to Chris’ story was that he kept surviving these situations anyway, over and over again. Call it luck or stupidity or whatever you want. But there had to have been another element – something inside of him – that kept seeing him through and allowed him to survive these repeatedly dangerous adventures. The self confidence and assuredness to be able to face the dark and be afraid, but to take a step forward anyway. Anyone who has had one or two of those moments in their lives understands the strength they lend later on.