Originally Posted By: saltydog
Originally Posted By: CaliHawk
I think there will always be stories like this one. McCandless or Everett Ruess, there is always an adventurer that meets with peril.


Wait, what? McCandless and Reuss in the same sentence? I assume that was for contrast rather than comparison, polar ends of some kind of spectrum. One was an extraordinary traveler, the other extraordinarily ignorant and arrogant. Whatever happened to Reuss, it was not due to lack of skills, experience and preparation for the fundamental perils of wilderness travel. In fact, I think it is fair to say that the only peril McCandless faced was his own complete lack of everything that Reuss had going for him, including a coherent vision.


OK, I see your point. I think that you are correct that there are differences between the two but there are also several similarities. Each had a similar desire to wander and live apart from a consumption based society. Each had the desire for human contact but really didn't conform to society's norm. Each had family issues. McCandless exhibited selfishness by cutting off contact resulting in parental worry and Ruess had more regular contact with his family but played on his family's emotions and took more financially and emotionally than he gave.

My point is that many of us humans that are conformed to society have a curiosity about adventurers that 'drop-out.' Maybe because there is a part of many of us that wish we could do the same thing. Why else would Walden still be popular over 150 years after it was written? Thoreau only roughed it a bit compared to others. Mountain men, pioneers and explorers all lived tough, solitary lives for short stints like Thoreau but he was able to put into compelling words his experience. I think we care so much about these stories because there is a part of us that wish we could try the same thing.