Do you feel, as one letter writer did, that there is “nothing positive at all about Chris McCandless’ lifestyle or wilderness doctrine …surviving a near death experience does not make you a better human it makes you damn lucky” (116); or do you see something admirable or noble in his struggles and adventures?
His adventures were indeed admirable or noble. His struggles were beneficial and maybe even necessary for him to blossom and become who he needed to be. Surviving a near death experience does make you a better human. It makes you realize that you are not immortal and maybe question what you have been doing and why you may have been doing this. He risked his life day-to-day, ventured where some of us only daydream, and lived his life the way he wanted to. To see the world, and live a full life.
Paragraph #1: How he risked his life, how he survived, and why is it important?
Paragraph #2: Where he visited, why is it beneficial or relevant?
Paragraph #3: Why did he venture off in the first place? Why did he want to go to Alaska/hitchhike?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment