Processing Krakauer

Literary critic and Christian apologist G.K. Chesterton stated "[f]or children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy."

Huh.

Yep.

I agree with this and I struggle with this and I come out still agreeing with this. I can remember, not too long ago, when I fell into the children category. The world was black or white and I was good at identifying which was which. And boy could I weigh in with a healthy dose of moral authority. I can also attest to the wicked category, living comfortably in it right now, and I can state without exception that mercy rules.

But there are times when I feel myself slipping backwards into childlike innocence, backwards into my uninhibited moral authority, backwards where I am always right and that part of the world which stands against me is wrong.

Notice what I did just now, with the ironic use of backwards...? After all, only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Krakauer strikes a nerve

I bring all this up because I just finished Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild. I will be teaching this book second semester in the upcoming school year, and to be perfectly honest, I don't know what to do with it.

I am at a total loss as to how I want/need/ought to present this material to my high school seniors. Quickly, the book journalistically follows the life and ultimate death of Chris McCandless, a young, educated man who in 1992 decided to leave civilized life behind him and, with the ideals of his favorite Romantic writers as his guide, walk into the wild of Alaska to live off the land. The nonfiction account follows McCandless on his journey and attempts to come to terms with that peskiest of all questions: WHY?

Why did he live this way? Why did he die? Why did his ascetic walk have to take him away from his family? Why does that level of sacrifice stand as a prerequisite for experiential truth?

If McCandless died naively, arrogantly, foolhardily, then why are we still reading Thoreau?

Krakauer's use of the Chesterton quote is masterfully done. It is within the two categories--innocent children and the rest of wicked us--that carries the tension of this entire book. McCandless was young. He had ideals. He attempted to live an absolutely principled life. Can the rest of us say as much, especially while the rest of us live our comfortable lives out? Should the rest of us apologize for these lives?

Or bank on mercy? Two helpings for me, please.

I am a parent, and to that I mourn with the McCandless family. But I am a Romantic, and to that I celebrate Chris's spirit.

But I am a teacher, and to that I caution against Chris's path. Justice and mercy. Innocence and wickedness. A young man in a nonfiction tale who will never come home.

I am still at a loss, gentle reader, but perhaps less so. Perhaps my reaction to Chris McCandless and his fate will change depending on the day, the weather, the last song I heard, the last book I read. Like any good art, I believe Krakauer's book stands up to this necessary blurred vision, and, at the risk of typing out of turn, I think Chris McCandless would have been okay with this.

And so I act on what I believe. And so I type.

And you?

For more details from Jon Krakauer regarding Into the Wild, visit http://instagram.com/krakauernotwriting.