How Chris McCandless Died: An Update

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/chris-mccandless-died-update

by bkudria • 11 years ago

311 78 11 years ago

notacoward4• 11 years ago

This is pretty awesome. Clausen seemed a bit snotty about the original theory not being in a peer-reviewed journal. Now the followup is, and the underlying science also blows a hole in one of Clausen's own papers. He messed with the wrong guy. Citizen science FTW.

jakevn3• 11 years ago

I don't think it's snotty to be skeptical of the results. After all, their original hypothesis turned out to be incorrect. ODAP was not present in the seeds.

Because the author took Clausen's consideration seriously, they were able to uncover their mistake and correct it.

notacoward4• 11 years ago

It's not snotty to be skeptical, but it is snotty to be "skeptical" because the theory comes from an amateur, and to go on about "highly technical and complicated" etc. That's pure appeal to authority, the error of which is amply demonstrated by the fact that one of Clausen's own papers got through peer review with the exact same mistake. Hopefully he has learned to address the science, instead of the source or the publication process, next time.

defen• 11 years ago

The meat of Clausen's paper isn't really wrong - he just drew the wrong conclusions by making an unwarranted inference. He showed that Hedysarum mackenziei / alpinum do not contain significant levels of alkaloids, and that they do not inhibit bacterial growth.

He deduced that this "strongly suggested" they were not toxic. He was wrong because the plants contain a non-alkaloid compound that is toxic to mammals (and presumably not bacteria). So there is a lesson here about what kind of conclusions you can draw from scientific data.

mcmancini• 11 years ago

I don't think your read on Clausen is accurate.

Krakauer's excerpt of Cole's article was poorly done. If you go to the source article, Clausen says,

“First, it seems like a rather remarkably lucky shot in the dark for a person to suspect the presence of a specific toxin on so little evidence," he wrote. "Couple this with the observation that ODAP is only reported in certain plants of the genus lathyrus which is not the genus hedysarum and the conclusions are even more remarkable (though not impossible). I would be much more convinced if I was reading the report from a credible peer-reviewed professional journal such as the Journal of Natural Products or equivalent. I have often heard a key indicator of bad science that is highly suspect is having its results published in the popular media."

...

"Again, I don't make any claims that the report is wrong since I have no data to analyze, but I am skeptical and will remain so until I see a better forum for the results to be published in." [1]

which to me sounds reasonable and, as a professional scientist, sounds just like what I (and I expect, my colleagues) would say. The peer review process isn't perfect, but it is consistently superior to the crap that is scientific journalism appearing outside of peer reviewed journals. Here's why, and why I don't understand why you would hold Krakauer as an example of citizen science.

Krakauer made (by his own admission) a "rash intuitive leap" [2] that an unidentified alkaloid contributed to McCandless' death, based on one of McCandless' journal entries and unpublished preliminary research by Clausen. As an aside, if one wants to piss off a scientist, that's a good way to go about it. When Clausen completes his research and finds the mystery alkaloid theory doesn't work, Krakauer intuits that a mystery toxic mold must have been involved, a theory he announces on Oprah and NPR. This second theory doesn't hold up (as was demonstrated by Clausen, again). Despite your conjecture, it sounds like Clausen actually investigated Krakauer's theories, up to a point. Krakauer then latches on to ODAP, which was close but still not there. His fourth theory may be correct, but Krakauer disseminated a lot of incorrect information along the way. I wonder, did he publish retractions as a professional scientist would?

I'm not sure why you would hold Krakauer's methodology as "citizen science FTW", but I'm interested to hear.

[1] http://www.adn.com/article/20130917/krakauers-wild-theory-mc... [2]: http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/how-chris-mccandl...

qsymmachus• 11 years ago

Do the exact mechanics of Chris McCandless's death really matter? He didn't take the wilderness seriously and that's what got him killed. We shouldn't romanticize his stupidity.

daxfohl• 11 years ago

Well for those that do take the wilderness seriously, as something of a tautology, yes it matters.

herbig4• 11 years ago

The last sentence of the article:

"And because many people—both admirers of McCandless and his detractors—regard “Into the Wild” as a cautionary tale, it’s important to know as much as possible about how McCandless actually may have died."

code_duck4• 11 years ago

Does it really matter whether he was poisoned by one chemical or another, or simply starved to death? Either way, the cautionary tale of against deciding to go live in the woods without adequate preparation stands.

jacalata• 11 years ago

Are you suggesting that the lesson from his death is 'take the wilderness seriously' and simultaneously arguing that a discovery about whether or not a particular potentially-edible plant is poisonous is not worth knowing?

frankzinger2• 11 years ago

People always omit the fact that he had survived in the same location for more than 100 days and had actually decided to leave but was prevented from doing so by a flooding river. Makes him seem a little less stupid.

brotoss2• 11 years ago

Makes him seem a little less stupid.

If he would have brought a map or done a little more preparation he could have taken the hand operated tram 8/10ths of a mile away. He's stupid.

scott_s• 11 years ago

Discussion on the original: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6376498

antirez• 11 years ago

"The death of Chris McCandless should serve as a caveat to other foragers: Even when some parts of a plant are known to be edible, other parts of the same species may contain dangerous concentrations of toxic compounds."

Definitely, the most obvious example is potatoes. The fruit and other parts contain solanine. In general there is a great amount of danger around us, within 100 square meters of my home I can recognize at least 5/6 toxic species, so when one learns to eat a plant, it is important to also learn how all the similar plans that are dangerous look like, and what part of the plans are edible and what not.

michael_h• 11 years ago

If you found 'Into The Wild' interesting, make sure to checkout 'Into Thin Air' from the same author. It's about a summit attempt of Everest that went awry and is awesome.

Edit: come to think of it, I've read pretty much everything that Jon Krakauer has written. The guy's grocery lists are probably well thought out and have a compelling narrative.

rondon2• 11 years ago

I read everything he writes. The only time I have had a problem with anything he said was in "Under the Banner of Heaven" he partially blamed the Mormon church for the kidnap and rape of Elizabeth Smart. I suspect that the guy that kidnapped her would have been a piece of shit no matter what religion he was born into.

soperj• 11 years ago

are people really born pieces of shit though? or are they molded into one?

pstuart• 11 years ago

I'm guessing you must be Mormon to take offense. For all the glory of God that religion may bring, there's a lot of less "praiseworthy" elements. It's important to acknowledge all of it.

wavefunction• 11 years ago

I think his point was more about the indoctrination and conditioning of young women in the LDS system.

ghaff• 11 years ago

Pretty much. I actually found "Into the Wild" to be among his least interesting--probably because I couldn't really identify with McCandless."Into Thin Air" is the book that put him on the mainstream map and it's awesome. "Under the Banner of Heaven" is particularly noteworthy as well--although I found the historical parts the more interesting. (The modern story was mostly just depressing.)

jonnathanson2• 11 years ago

I felt the A-story / B-story narrative split in "Banner Of Heaven" made the read a little too disjointed for my taste. Just when the A story is getting good, the B story comes along and stops it dead in its tracks. Then, vice versa. Incidentally, I also found the historical narrative infinitely more fascinating than the present-day narrative. It is exceedingly hard to pull off an A/B structure when both A and B are given nearly equal weight. One of them needs to be subordinated to the other. Krakauer does the equal-weight A/B better than most, but in some ways I think it's just a fundamentally suboptimal approach.

"Into Thin Air" is a fantastic read. It's got its flaws, but they're very minor and quickly forgotten.

herbig4• 11 years ago

Where Men Win Glory is a really great book by Krakauer.

All the controversy lately over American Sniper has me wondering where the Hollywood drama about Patrick Tillman is.

jordanlev• 11 years ago

You mean this one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568334/ ?

(Or maybe you're specifically referring to a hollywood-ized drama, not a documentary)

bootload• 11 years ago

"... has me wondering where the Hollywood drama about Patrick Tillman is. ..."

10 years on and this story still resonates ~ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/20/10-year...

his legacy in providing scholarships for vets & spouses http://pattillmanfoundation.org/about-us is a big FU to those in Government and the Military who tried to cover up the how he died.

nwp90• 11 years ago

If you read "Into Thin Air", make sure you also read "The Death Zone" by Matt Dickinson - an interestingly different perspective on the same event.

js2• 11 years ago

If you enjoyed Into Thin Air, you must also read Touching the Void.

cinskiy• 11 years ago

Read about the incident in Deep Survival, absolutely stunning survival story.

brotoss2• 11 years ago

The Documentary is incredible too.

gregd• 11 years ago

I love Krakauer's style of writing and have read all of his books. His writing style reminds a lot of Stephen Ambrose.

If you like Into The Wild, you might also like One Man's Wilderness about Richard Proenneke: http://www.amazon.com/One-Mans-Wilderness-Alaskan-Odyssey-eb...

phkahler• 11 years ago

"Endurance" is another one well worth reading.

dschein• 11 years ago

Follow up with The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest by Anatoli Boukreev and G. Weston DeWalt.

Great alternative perspective.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/925367.The_Climb

germinalphrase• 11 years ago

If you liked "Into Thin Air" you should read "The White Spider" about Heinreich Harrer (who was the inspiration for Brat Pitt's character in "Seven Years in Tibet")

woodchuck64• 11 years ago

What's fascinating is inferring the other motives and agendas swirling around the issue that are then cut through by hard science (in Krakauer's favor):

From http://www.alaskacommons.com/2013/09/22/what-everyone-is-get...:

"The forensic question “Were the seeds poisonous?” is of interest only because it sheds light on broader, more contentious question, expressed bluntly as “How stupid was Chris McCandless?” If, like Alaska Dispatch reporters Dermot Cole and Craig Medred (and again), you think McCandless was a clueless, crazy knucklehead, arrogant in his disdain for wild nature and its perils, then you want to think the seeds weren’t poisonous; the kid just died of starvation because he was too stupid/crazy/arrogant to make it to safety."

"But if, like Jon Krakauer (and, in the interest of full disclosure, like me), you have some level of empathy with or sympathy for McCandless, you want to think the seeds were poisonous—he was doing his best to survive a difficult enterprise and was done in because he consumed something that was not known to be poisonous until two decades after his death."

Isamu• 11 years ago

I have empathy for McCandless, he didn't deserve to die and I wish he hadn't. But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into, didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own death. It's not a judgment about his character. He wasn't a knucklehead, he was probably fairly intelligent.

He was probably just unaware, like most people, how hard it is to subsist in nature alone, and how harsh the beautiful landscape can be.

In the right context, ignorance is a kind of superpower. When you survive and it all works out, you are a genius. Many successful people start their story with: "If I had known what I was getting into, I would never have started..."

So yeah, I kind of admire this ignorance ... in other people. I am WAY too self-conscious and introspective to embark on some enterprise where I know that I know nothing.

Oh, and the poisonous seed thing - he was just eating a plant whose edibility was not established. I dunno, maybe people think nature is benevolent, and sure I can think of a bunch of edible plants in the woods near my house ... but I can think of plenty that are poisonous, or mildly toxic, or carcinogenic, or indigestible, or otherwise liable to disagree with you. He didn't know if he should or shouldn't eat it. He was rolling the dice. If you roll the dice and you live, you're a genius and in a few years you get to write your memoirs as the next Thoreau.

jeffdavis• 11 years ago

"But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into, didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own death."

Another way to look at it is that he knew there were unknown risks of various kinds, and he decided to prepare as well as he could and go anyway.

Nanzikambe• 11 years ago

    "But clearly he didn't know what he was getting into
    didn't prepare and unwittingly contributed to his own
    death."

In the postcard at the very top of the article Chris says:

"If this adventure proves fatal and you don't ever hear from me again I want you to know your (sic) a great man. I now walk into the wild"

And earlier he asks his friend to return all mail to sender for the foreseeable future.

That and everything else I've ever read has made me think he was entirely aware of the potential for danger in the wilderness. He walked in & did it any-ways.

Plenty people look to test themselves in nature's crucible with minimal preparation, fully cognisant of the risks. Sometimes they lose. I think looking down upon them with the rosy vision of decades hindsight from the comfort & safety of home does them a disservice. Their lives, their choices.

I hope Chris found what he was looking for.

mipapage• 11 years ago

I've lost two friends in Alaska, one with a similar story, both with significant outdoors experience and neither was ever found. I myself worked in both territories around the time when McCandless died.

Many of us were fascinated by this story because it hit so close to home; that Krakauer continues to examine this definitely hits the empathy and sympathy button, and also the fascination that McCandless was not stupid but had the huevos to do what he did, and sadness with how it ended.

aaron6953• 11 years ago

And because many people—both admirers of McCandless and his detractors—regard “Into the Wild” as a cautionary tale, it’s important to know as much as possible about how McCandless actually may have died."

Cautionary tales are just that, tales. It's entertainment pure and simple.

Cautionary tales have never taught, if anything they do the opposite and create wrong thought patterns.

We don't need to know to not go off to live in the crazy wilderness unprepared. Eat less cheese burgers is a boring story(Morgan Spurlock aside) but a better lesson.

The fact people seem to have the need to self justify that they are entertained about stories of someone else's downfall is an interesting condition.

welly• 11 years ago

Actually, the least interesting part of the story for me was that he died from poisoning. I was entertained by the rest of the story, that he decided to quit everything and leave everything behind, to start a new life of some description. I wouldn't describe that as a story of someone's downfall. I'm not sure I would go as far as to say the entire film was about someone's downfall and I find it rather strange that you do too. It was a story of being free.

aaron6953• 11 years ago

I personally think the ending was an important contrast to the beginning from a traditional story perspective. Has he succeeded would it have been a movie....

I do agree the beginning was a great story about being free and what I enjoyed most.

danneu• 11 years ago

Just because we all die at the end doesn't make the tales of our lives about downfall.

aaron6953• 11 years ago

Needlessly dying in your prime does to me.

Throwaway1224• 11 years ago

i saw the movie and thought the alexander supertramp guy came across like a huge asshole.

i also watch pro wrestling.

Panino• 11 years ago

Krakauer's arguments on this subject are based on conjecture and ignore facts. He conjectures that McCandless misidentified a plant he had been identifying for an extended time, for another plant. Unlikely. He makes claims without providing supporting evidence. Sorry, but saying "there is evidence that..." is not evidence. He states that eating this plant poisoned him to death, despite the fact that he died almost 3 weeks later. The autopsy ruled the death as starvation. The natural conclusion of extreme, extended calorie deficiency is starvation.

michaelbuddy• 11 years ago

There are many hooks in the story and the "whodunit" or in this case 'whatdunit' is a hook that keeps a lot of readers through the story. I don't have a big log of books I've read in my life as compared to some, but this was one that I would pick up and devour and then push away from me upset. I'd stare at it thinking I didn't want to read more of the tragedy then I'd pick it up again. I can't think of any other book like that I've felt the same with.

That Chris' story has a proper resolution is important to the author and for those of us who took Chris' journey by reading Krakauer's book. There are still plenty of mysteries within it aside from the cause of death. Why did he do what he did? There's a theory out there that he may have been suffering an onset of schizophrenia. We have a good record of what he said to people and his journaling, but we will always be limited by what remains of that.

He was in many ways a very amazing person. If you recall he sought to 'kill the false being within' him. His seeming desperation to seek his most authentic self through a journey and a physical and emotional withdrawal from his family and familiar lifestyle (as I understand, which I may not) is something that is as relatable as it is strange and unique.

Nuggets of the idea you hear elsewhere by some pretty amazing individuals. For example, I have loads of respect for Bruce Lee. He was a celebrity and a person of deep thought but of massive action in his life. He made a point in an interview of the challenge to being able to actually express yourself honestly in what you do. To anyone seeking authenticity in themselves rather than whatever expectations or reactions real or imagined the rest of the world may have, to be completely free of that mindset.

I hope Chris believed he succeeded in the end. But I selfishly wish a lot more that he would have maybe almost succeeded but instead came back to tell the rest of us about it in his own words.

reality_czech• 11 years ago

Why doesn't someone just feed wild potatoes to a few rats for a few weeks and see if they die? Did we forget how to actually do science?

How Chris McCandless Died: An Update

Related Stories