blachawk - maybe it didn't matter how close town was, maybe that wasn't the point at all, maybe surviving wasn't the point but just actually getting out there and living by terms and conditions other than your own. Maybe if it's safe, if you have an escape plan, a way that will prevent you from dying out there, then it's not so real. Who knows what was going on in McCandless mind, but rather than some foolish kid, I would sooner think of him that he was a man who lived and died by his ideals.
maybe, who knows, i certainly don't. i don't know the actual circumstances, so i can't say either way. and maybe that was what he wanted, just to live by his own ideals, but it kind of just seems like they werent very well thought out, at least in terms of living. but i did like the movie.
To me it seemed like he was seeking complete freedom from the reliance on material things. Its as though material wealth and power brought him no joy and happiness and Alaska was the farthest he could get from that. Knowing there was a town right down the way probably would've ruined the sense of freedom and self-dependence he was searching for.
it could have been that way, but if you really wanted to just have freedom from material wealth and power i dont see why you would have to do anything but get rid of all your things and just live how you want to. although i can see why someone would want to go to alaska to escape society.
"Knowing there was a town right down the way probably would've ruined the sense of freedom and self-dependence he was searching for." makes me wonder if it did ruin it, would it be a true sense of freedom or just a fake one? not sure how to word this... just a (incomplete) thought
did anyone else here read "hatchet" as a kid, or see the [made for tv] movie?
i read the hatchet, really liked it, made me want to move to canada. saw the movie too, but thought the book was better just because it had more detail, like all books.