Teaching Into the Wild: A Lost cause for teens?

[edsbar101]

I am teaching Into the Wild to my group of general sophomore students. I am finding, along with other teachers, that students cannot grasp the idea of romanticism and trascendentalism. They think it's stupid that some one like Chris would go into the wild and live like that. They said "he must be a pothead" and assume the only people who go out into the woods are stoners.
Needless to say, I think they live in a world so exposed to electronics and consumer driven goods that they can't think outside their own world to see the other side. Do you guys have any ideas on teaching these 14-15 yr olds to teach outside the box?

~Ed

[SirJazzHands]

Ahah no offense but I wouldn't waste your time.
My class (I am 17 as are the rest of them, mostly) had a discussion on material possession today and most of them are stuck on the idea that cars and houses are very very important.. so I doubt you'll be able to teach kids who are three years younger the idea that all those things are only temporary.

[J.D.]

Have you tried to get at it from the doesn't-like-authority angle? That's essentially what's going on with McCandless, isn't it? Yes, he's looking for something transcendent, but in the end, just like Emerson, who rebelled because he was forced to become a minister when he didn't want to, and just like Thoreau, who once wore a green coat to a school function simply because he was asked to wear a black one, isn't McCandless out to prove he's a big boy who doesn't need anyone--government, parent, et cetera--to tell him how to live?

Kids don't like authority either. Perhaps if you emphasize this aspect of his character they will begin to see what could drive McCandless to act as he does--he isn't a "stoner," or a "freak"; he's just a kid who can't cope with authority. He thinks the wild represents freedom just like your kids probably think having their own car or their own money is freedom.

They can grasp transcendentalism and romanticism, as long as you can ground his character, give him practical motives for his--in their opinion--strange beliefs. Remember, people thought Thoreau and Emerson were out there, too, in the beginning. And let's face it: your average American is hardly a Transcendentalist today. So you can't blame your students for thinking that McCandless is bizarre. The best you can do is help them understand how his personal life might have shaped his views.

[crazefest456]

my english class (in 9th grade) had no problem grasping the idea of romanticism and Transcendentalism, and we read Thoreau and Emerson. I guess my teacher forced us to analyze every single line and relate it to the prevalent philosophy, by making us write lots of short answer responses. It was pretty intense, but our class enjoyed it..

[Nico87]

Mhh, I shouldn't really comment on this as I'm only 20 years old, but my advice would be;

Try getting them to read some simple books, e.g. Animal Farm, then tell them the background of the book, what it's all about, politics and the like. Then introduce them to this "amazing thing" called romanticism and transcendentalism, and they'll be like "oh wow cool, let us have a go at it", and voila, you've got a happy bunch of wanting-to-learn-more about the topics.

[B-Mental]

))))))))))))))))))))

[edsbar101]

So I found some things that worked well....

first off: Barbara Waltlers did a story on 20/20 in 1998 on Chris McCandless and his journey. I let the kids watch that so they could see Chris, see the bus, hear from a new news authoirty on the matter. I then assignmed them a one page double spaced writing assignment on if they think Chris is "nuts" and what would inspire some one to make a journey like that. Part two involved how could you make a journey like that to feel "free?" Where would you go? They kind of liked that.

The best assignment so far that other teachers have asked me for was our "round table discussion." I made a two page survey about trends in society, student behavior, and attitudes and made them fill it out anonomously. We had round table discussion on each of the questions for the 80 minute period relating it back to transcendentalism. It seemed to work out well. I even managed to get a mini lesson in on the circle of Thoreau, starting with him, moving to Ghandi, and back to the United States with MLk. So far, so good....

[Nick Rubashov]

Sounds like a success to me edsbar. You and the other teachers may have been experiencing trouble teaching Into The Wild earlier because I think the concepts in the story are a little hard for kids that age to grasp clearly. The ideas presented by Chris McCandless' journey are better understood by seniors in highschool or freshmen in college, as that's the age where the feelings which drove Chris McCandless are more prominent and significant to the reader.

[coguerra]

Well, I'm getting ready to teach this to my Pre-AP sophomores and we prepared by reading Bradbury's F451 first. We discussed extensively this idea of detachment from nature and learning and we've read a few articles that discuss "useless" technology: "Garbage Gone Wild" by Mary Roach, August 2007 Reader's Digest, and also "Remote Control" by Dave Barry. I've really hammered away at this detachment from nature idea and of course, we discussed how the renewal of civilization begins for Montag when he leaves the city and goes into nature with the exiled book lovers. They seem to understand and feel guilty about their own easy acceptance of technology and most chose to focus on the detachment from nature and learning as their topic for their theme essay, versus censorship. I have high hopes for Into the Wild and I plan on accompanying it with some Thoreau and some passages from Call of the Wild. I'm crossing my fingers though.

[1n50mn14]

I'm 16, and I would murder to be in that class... however, I don't beleive that the majority of 14-15 year olds are going to be able to grasp the concepts that you are trying to teach, as valid and important as they are. Somebody has to try, though- it's infuriating and disgusting to see how low we've sunk.

[byquist]

Know what you mean. I brought up an issue for discussion in a Comm. College comp class: a Wall St. Journal article about the growing number of kindergartens in Germany that are held entirely in the forests; no books, no chalkboards, no electronic gizmos. Students simply could not relate to the idea, which is rather sad. I can only guess that in metropolitan locations, many young people are simply not nature types; just not in touch with trees, the wind, stars, etc. That is regrettable in my book.

I found his decision after Emory Univ. to be a very interesting choice: counter-culture.

[bounty]

I am teaching Into the Wild to my group of general sophomore students. I am finding, along with other teachers, that students cannot grasp the idea of romanticism and trascendentalism. They think it's stupid that some one like Chris would go into the wild and live like that. They said "he must be a pothead" and assume the only people who go out into the woods are stoners.
Needless to say, I think they live in a world so exposed to electronics and consumer driven goods that they can't think outside their own world to see the other side. Do you guys have any ideas on teaching these 14-15 yr olds to teach outside the box?

~Ed


edsbar, ive got college kids where what youre talking about is still a problem! (different subject matter though) but if i can take a slightly different (and hopefully encouraging) tack than what your question poses. sometimes the seeds we sow take soooooooo long to bear fruit we wonder if we've even sowed them. but i think in many regards we do indeed sow them, even though they may seemingly lay dormant for a long time...so maybe they dont "get" into the wild right now and youre struggling with methods to help them get it but i suspect your efforts will bear fruit down the road, somewhere, sometime, in their lives...

[curlyqlink]

Chalk it up to the arrogance of youth. When I was that age, I'd have had no patience for a story like that. Kids usually think they've got the world pretty much figured out, they're judgmental about other people's mistakes, and they don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the foibles of other people. At least I didn't.

I don't know if I'm recalling the right book... is this the one about a man who goes off into the Alaskan wilderness living in an old bus, and dies over the winter? I seem to remember browsing it in a bookstore but never read it. If so, the kids do kinda sorta have a point: it wasn't the smartest thing the guy could've done. Maybe acknowledging that it wasn't a well thought out plan would help? Try to get them thinking past that? That people do impractical things, and placing blame is not the end of the story?

[Chester]

I don't know if I'm recalling the right book... is this the one about a man who goes off into the Alaskan wilderness living in an old bus, and dies over the winter? I seem to remember browsing it in a bookstore but never read it. If so, the kids do kinda sorta have a point: it wasn't the smartest thing the guy could've done. Maybe acknowledging that it wasn't a well thought out plan would help? Try to get them thinking past that? That people do impractical things, and placing blame is not the end of the story?
Yep, that's the story. And based on this thread it looks like I am the only one around here who sees McCandless's actions as self-centered, selfish, and somewhat immature. This wasn't a story about a guy getting "back to nature" and away from the rat race of society. This was a guy running from life, from the real things of life, like his family, for example. Maybe because I'm a father, I just kept thinking about his parents. I see nothing heroic here or honorable. This guy was a tragedy waiting to happen and I'm not seeing why he should be taught in any way that might promote any kind of emulation.

Yes, the kids do "kinda sorta have a point." Indeed they do.

[byquist]

Yes, he realizes his mistake too late, but on the other hand he marched to his own tune, and didn't cowtow to society. He authenticated his life, and was very nice to people during his travels. Everybody liked him, and wanted to adopt or advise him, but he followed his destiny, which is more than many of us can say. Did seem an excessive loner though, not much on the "doing for others" side.

[Chester]

He followed "a" destiny. One needn't be alone to march to one's own tune or "authenticate" one's life. Perhaps, even, that would be the greater, more noble challenge - to authenticate one's life even in the midst of the influences and constraints and noise of society, to make peace with that (and those) he instead chose to run from. That's heroic. And that's worth emulating.

[curlyqlink]

I think Henry David Thoreau had the right plan for following his different drummer. Communing with nature at Walden Pond, he was right by a railroad line and was a twenty minute walk from Concord Center with its taverns and shops. Having a transcendental experience needn't rule out a nice hot meal and spending the weekend sleeping in a soft bed.

[shahn2107]

Hello--
I recently received training for an excellent program called Expository Reading and Writing Course. It has a fantastic unit for this novel; that aside, I just started teaching it to my junior AP class and they really love it. I started by teaching about Romanticism, Transcendentalism, and Idealism. We read a little Emerson, Thoreou, and, of course, "To Build a Fire" by Jack London. This gave them the mindset.

I have them keep a five-subject notebook to keep track of vocabulary, literary references, people, important quotes, and locations. As they are AP, they are to fill this with little to no help from me. With 10th graders, I would "hand-hold" them a little more. We then meet in literature circles and have socratic-like seminars (a difficult feat even for these students).

I can definitely understand their lack of relating to the text; it's a tough one!
Hope I helped,
Shawn Ferreira

[shahn2107]

Loved what you said; I used it as a journal write for my class and we had a wonderful discussion...they are loving this book...

[JBI]

I don't know - there are far simpler, far better novels out there. I do not know why some teachers teach this book, it is awful.

Still, it is a kids book, so perhaps the problem of not getting it is either they are illiterate, or too much theoretical stuff is being discussed, and it is the terminology and ideas that are giving them difficulty not the book itself.

If it is the book itself, well, then you are in trouble.

[mal4mac]

Why not take them for a trip into the wild? Doesn't have to be Alaska in mid-winter :-) Just a few days, or even a day trip, in nearby countryside might give them some feeling for the romanticism of the wild - especially at this time of year. Maybe reading some simple romantic poetry, before the trip, would help - Wordsworth (e.g., Daffodils or Tintern Abbey.) Also Wordsworth is in no way a stoner - as the Prelude makes clear - his first non-druggy romantic/transcendental experiences took place in the Lake District as a kid about the age of those you are teaching...

I would recommend listening to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010xy3s

... a remarkable reading from Sir Ian McKellen, with specially composed music by John Harle, performed by John Harle on Saxophone and Neill MacColl on guitar.

[pss]

hmmm, maybe you are having difficulty because it was never meant to be a book written to be "taught" to teens. Maybe the kids are having difficulty understanding why an adult would give them a book to read that offers an unhealthy view of how young people should lead their lives, rather than giving them a model for something heroic, brave and, well, logical. Maybe they think, like my son did, that he is a sad "loser" (or mentally ill) and that they don't want to dwell on the sadness of his life, but look to something more optimistic and hope that the adults in their lives will offer that. . . but instead, they are given this as required reading. It never should have been. Find something positive.


I am teaching Into the Wild to my group of general sophomore students. I am finding, along with other teachers, that students cannot grasp the idea of romanticism and trascendentalism. They think it's stupid that some one like Chris would go into the wild and live like that. They said "he must be a pothead" and assume the only people who go out into the woods are stoners.
Needless to say, I think they live in a world so exposed to electronics and consumer driven goods that they can't think outside their own world to see the other side. Do you guys have any ideas on teaching these 14-15 yr olds to teach outside the box?

~Ed

[Ecurb]

Some contributors to this thread seem to lack understanding of “Into the Wild”, just as edsbar‘s students do. First of all, it is not a novel. It’s a work of nonfiction. Second, Krakauer certainly doesn’t portray McCandless as “heroic”. Third, the idea that it is “selfish” to engage in dangerous activities (however unlikely the danger) seems silly to me.

Krakauer was sympathetic to McCandless because Krakauer had engaged in solo outdoor adventures far, far more dangerous (despite the outcomes) than anything McCandless did. Although McCandless died, he was not climbing dangerous mountains, or trying to reach the South Pole. He was simply living alone in the Wilderness for a few months (in the summer, not the winter, by the way). Although some risks are involved in such an endeavor, they are relatively minimal – certainly far less than those involved in Krakauer’s solo climb of The Moose’s Tooth (also recounted in the book).

If (as was a 99.9% chance at the outset) McCandless had spent his 5 months in the Wild, and returned to his family, his adventure would have been unremarkable. Since he died, he became a magnet for criticism (although not from Krakauer). OK, people die. 35,000 people die in car wrecks every year in the U.S. Many of them made mistakes that led to their own deaths (like McCandless did). Nonetheless, slamming them for driving seems ridiculous. We all make mistakes when driving – but they lead to wrecks only a very small percentage of the time, and to fatal wrecks an even lower percentage of the time.

Every time there’s a mountaineering accident, the mountaineering community tut-tuts about the “mistakes” that led to it. This is, I suppose, valuable in that it helps educate other mountaineers about the danger of their sport and the errors in judgment that can lead to disaster. However, it also seems to me that such armchair quarterbacking serves as a psychological defense mechanism. The climbers’ criticism of their peers suggests, “I would never make such errors, so climbing is safe FOR ME.”

This is silly. The very best climbers in the world die with frightening regularity. It is true that many of the deaths can be blamed on some error of judgment – but errors of judgment are inevitable in the Wild. All of the climbing critics make errors of judgment on every single one of their major climbs – it’s just that 99% of the time, they get away with them. McCandless didn’t get away with his errors. It happens. However, he was neither incompetent nor foolhardy. He was unlucky.

[krishna_lit]

I am teaching Into the Wild to my group of general sophomore students. I am finding, along with other teachers, that students cannot grasp the idea of romanticism and trascendentalism. They think it's stupid that some one like Chris would go into the wild and live like that. They said "he must be a pothead" and assume the only people who go out into the woods are stoners.
Needless to say, I think they live in a world so exposed to electronics and consumer driven goods that they can't think outside their own world to see the other side. Do you guys have any ideas on teaching these 14-15 yr olds to teach outside the box?~Ed

Into The Wild is an awesome biography. But I think teen age is not the right time to really grasp those concepts.... And I disagree with many people who say that Alex Supertramp is an immature person. But what I truly think of him is, now that he's a part of my life's thoughts frankly, he possessed a heart of stubbornness that is at par with the most successful visionaries of this century like Steve Jobs and others who sticked to one thing that they believed in their lives, whatsoever comes their way, including death. He's such a communist of his love for Nature, that he wasn't even afraid of not coming back from his trip. Oh I can just go on about him... I love him..
Hail Chris McCandless aka Alexander Supertramp! :D

[Vota]

I saw the movie and know the basic story. I don't believe he was a hero, nor particularly wise. Honestly, I feel he was rather foolish and paid for it with his life. He didn't change the world, he didn't say anything through his death that others haven't already said, and said better, especially being able to tell it themselves.

He was a young, intelligent, stubborn fool, with too much confidence not backed by experience. I live in Seattle and have hiked many mountains in the North Cascades and hiked around Mt. Rainier, and I can say he was a fool for what he did. It wasn't courageous, it was foolhardy.

I know I'm coming down pretty hard on this guy, but let's not romanticize him. I've had serious thoughts about trekking through the North Cascades "illegally" with my old military rucksack, a rifle, axe and knife, and enough food to last 2 weeks, and make it across to the east side of the state, climbing over mountains and all, but then I think rationally for a second and realize I would probably get myself killed.

What he did reminds me of what a young boy would dream of doing, but that a rational grown man would realize was idiotic.

The closest I could see myself to getting "away" from it all, is hiking the Pacific Crest Trail, and even that is quite dangerous, let alone hiking alone, into the Alaskan wilderness. It would have been a different story if he had a cabin in the middle of nowhere with a couple of dufflebags full of dried/canned food and fuel to live off, and then carefully supplemented it with correctly picked wild greens and trapped/shot meat, but he didn't think that far ahead.

The worst part is that he slowly killed himself eating the wrong thing. That really gets me. I know the difference between the two plants was minimal, but if you're going to eat greens in the wild, you better be able to choose the right ones, and know how to prepare/cook them. Ya I can sit here on my chair and pick his misadventure apart, but the difference is that I wouldn't make those mistakes, not because I know so much more and that couldn't possibly happen to me, but because I wouldn't put myself in that position. It's kind of like people that wish there was no government, no cars, no technology. Most people, even if they long for a more primitive and meaningful life, would not be truly willing to give up the comforts they enjoy. Most people think work sucks, mainly because most people don't do what they truly love to do for a living, because the chances of making a reasonable income are slim as hell. Well, when you have to make, cook, trap, prepare, skin, scavenge, jerry rig every single thing you do, all day to survive, while dealing with the elements, then it might become clear how good we all have it.

You can bypass ALOT of the current technology overload if you want to. The three biggest sources are television, smart phones, and the radio. Stop watching tv, don't use a smartphone and don't talk on the phone unless you actually communicate something meaningful beyond small talk. Listen to cd's or an ipod. So much of the problem is the unbelievable bombardment of media advertising we are constantly absorbing. Cut these three out of your life, go on a hike every other weekend, and the world becomes alot more tolerable.

I will not be surprised if people have phone implants, id and credit implants and more within the next 50 years. People are already practically integrated with their technological devices. The obvious next step is actual physiological integration.

Anyhow.

[Volya]

He was a young, intelligent, stubborn fool, with too much confidence not backed by experience. I live in Seattle and have hiked many mountains in the North Cascades and hiked around Mt. Rainier, and I can say he was a fool for what he did. It wasn't courageous, it was foolhardy.

I know I'm coming down pretty hard on this guy, but let's not romanticize him. I've had serious thoughts about trekking through the North Cascades "illegally" with my old military rucksack, a rifle, axe and knife, and enough food to last 2 weeks, and make it across to the east side of the state, climbing over mountains and all, but then I think rationally for a second and realize I would probably get myself killed.

What he did reminds me of what a young boy would dream of doing, but that a rational grown man would realize was idiotic.

What you lack, is a sense of adventure.

[Hal]

Yep, that's the story. And based on this thread it looks like I am the only one around here who sees McCandless's actions as self-centered, selfish, and somewhat immature. This wasn't a story about a guy getting "back to nature" and away from the rat race of society. This was a guy running from life, from the real things of life, like his family, for example. Maybe because I'm a father, I just kept thinking about his parents. I see nothing heroic here or honorable. This guy was a tragedy waiting to happen and I'm not seeing why he should be taught in any way that might promote any kind of emulation.

Yes, the kids do "kinda sorta have a point." Indeed they do.

you're not the only one. McCandless was an idiot. He wasn't a hero. He wasn't a romantic. He was one of the dumbest people ever shat into civilization.

[Vota]

"What you lack, is a sense of adventure."

Volya, you assume alot. You know what they say about that...

[Volya]

Actually, I don't...

But I assume you will tell me?

[krishna_lit]

He didn't change the world,
You don't really know what he changed in this world. He did bring change in many individuals, of whom I'm proudly one (and I guess my cousin is another). He really made a difference in my life. So, please don't say he didn't change the world. He changed my world, or how I see the world, and hence how I see the life.

[krishna_lit]

Many people argue that he's foolish and stuff like that; but I'm sure they wouldn't say so if he wasn't dead because of that poisonous herb he mistook for an edible one. If he would've been here and healthy today in this world with the transformation he underwent in those woods, people would see him as a disciple of Henry David Thoreau or a modern age version of Thoreau himself. Anyways, he's very much so to me. Hail McCandless!!

[cafolini]

A very interesting person. The wild was not so wild anylonger when he appears in Alaska. There was already an airline company providing services into all parts of the so-called wild. Check anything related to EDA airlines. You'll be surprised by how much of a true pioneer McCandless was.

[vivas.will]

I don't think he was foolish because he died. Everyday we all run the risk of dying. When we get on a plane, in a car, go swimming or on a roller coaster, there's always a chance something might go wrong. Some things run higher risks than others; driving is more dangerous than flying, but most of us drive anyways. What he did ran an even higher risk of death. But when do we draw the line? I think that depends on the person, and it shouldn't really matter.

He did what he wanted to do. Some of us are content in our houses, working our jobs and raising families. Others put their lives at risk to make sure our cities are a safer place (paramedics, fire fighters, police officers), and are content doing so. And yet others love jumping out of planes, bungie jumping, driving cars at 200 miles an hour round and round a track. If we all decided to do what's safe, what's logical, we wouldn't have racers, boxers, stunt men, police officers, ambulance drivers.

Maybe we accept these people because they do something for society. But didn't McCandless do something for us as well? I mean we're discussing his life right now, aren't we? We're thinking about these issues, and forming opinions, and having conversations. We're questioning whether modern society is too invasive, whether all this technology is harmful or helpful. In short, what he did mattered because we're here discussing it.

I'm not saying I agree with him, or that I disagree with him. My line of thinking might be too narrow, who knows. But I think we all have something to contribute to this world, and if that's how McCandless decided to do it, it was his choice.

[cafolini]

I don't think he was foolish because he died. Everyday we all run the risk of dying. When we get on a plane, in a car, go swimming or on a roller coaster, there's always a chance something might go wrong. Some things run higher risks than others; driving is more dangerous than flying, but most of us drive anyways. What he did ran an even higher risk of death. But when do we draw the line? I think that depends on the person, and it shouldn't really matter.

He did what he wanted to do. Some of us are content in our houses, working our jobs and raising families. Others put their lives at risk to make sure our cities are a safer place (paramedics, fire fighters, police officers), and are content doing so. And yet others love jumping out of planes, bungie jumping, driving cars at 200 miles an hour round and round a track. If we all decided to do what's safe, what's logical, we wouldn't have racers, boxers, stunt men, police officers, ambulance drivers.

Maybe we accept these people because they do something for society. But didn't McCandless do something for us as well? I mean we're discussing his life right now, aren't we? We're thinking about these issues, and forming opinions, and having conversations. We're questioning whether modern society is too invasive, whether all this technology is harmful or helpful. In short, what he did mattered because we're here discussing it.

I'm not saying I agree with him, or that I disagree with him. My line of thinking might be too narrow, who knows. But I think we all have something to contribute to this world, and if that's how McCandless decided to do it, it was his choice.

I'm usually very good at exposing what you have said here, but I couldn't do it better. You wrapped the subject in excellent capacity. Thanks.

[jkovarik]

Some thoughts/questions from a second year teacher (certainly not claiming to be an expert in any way, shape, or form):

I'm planning on teaching this book for the first time this coming school year (to sophomores), and I think it has value and that kids can find ways to relate. Then again, I'm 23 years old (roughly the same age as McCandless). I could certainly see the argument that this is better suited for people my age, who have at least been to college and seen more of the world than their small hometown. Still, though, there's no way to know until you try. As Everett Ruess said, "The older person does not realize he soul-flights of the adolescent."

Not criticizing anyone here (I trust that every one of you knows more about teaching than I do), but does this book necessarily HAVE to be taught through the lens of Transcendentalism or Romanticism? It's possible that these concepts are the thing turning students off from this book. I feel like students have a hard time relating to this book when they think that it's only about some weirdo who was obsessed with "boring" old dead guys and their "crazy" ideas (their thoughts, not mine).

A lot of people are commenting about McCandless being a hero or an idiot, or about what he has contributed or inspired. I think the beauty of this book is that there's nothing remarkable or significant about him. He's just an average guy. Yet a major part of the book focuses on McCandless's incredible impact on people (even people he had met just once). Maybe it shows that anyone can become significant when their entire life is broken down and analyzed. It begs a few questions: if someone were to write a biography of your life, who would they talk to? Who would give the most accurate portrayal of the type of person you are? What would those people say about you? That forces readers to reflect about the type of impact/impression they've had on the people in their life (you don't have to be a president or a war hero to impact others). I'm working on designing some kind of project (a third person autobiography?) to help them look at themselves as they read about McCandless.

I'm planning on teaching this book as part of a year-long theme focusing on the human mind/spirit. We're reading Lord of the Flies (the darkness of man), Night (a first-hand account of an attempt to destroy one's humanity), and Othello (human emotion, manipulation, and the tragic flaw) before starting this book. The idea is that this book attempts to get inside the human mind (using as many different perspectives as possible), and explain why that person did what he did. This book does a wonderful job of developing McCandless's character and showing his complex personality (again, younger students, most of whom haven't gone through many life changes or identity searches, may struggle relating here).


Any and all thoughts are welcome.