It was very interesting today when we read the Anza-Borrego chapter from Into the Wild in class–the chapter where the eighty year old Ron Franz meets Chris McCandless. When I walked in B asked me, “Dr. Devi so are they gay?” I didn’t know what she meant.
“I’m sorry, B.” I said, “Who do you mean?”
“Well, these guys–Chris McCandless and Ron Franz–are they gay?”
“What makes you think that?” I asked.
“Well, this old guy–why does he like this other guy so much? Why does he want to help him so much? He doesn’t even know him. He is not related to him. Why does he want to help McCandless so much? They must be gay.” She said. At this point several students chimed in that they think that McCandless and Franz are gay. Dirty old man and his young prey. Even though there is no textual evidence in Krakauer’s book that supports such a reading in any way whatsoever.
I was stupefied. In a way I could see their point–at their age, they have only known eros–the only form of love they know is erotic love. If you follow the Greek and Judeo-Christian scheme of Agape, Eros, Phileo–the three types of love–selfless altruistic love, erotic love, brotherly love–my students probably know only Eros. Of course they know that their parents love them, but it is a biological bond. They love their parents too because it is a biological bond. And it is perhaps the most instinctive and strongest bond there is in the world. Every other kind of bond takes imagination. Parents and children love each other mostly not out of choice. But grandparents love out of choice, because the biological bond is less strong there. So I thought I would point out to them the part in the essay where Franz asks McCandless if he could adopt him–it is a very poignant part of the story–he tells McCandless that he was an only child of his parents, and that his own son had died, and that his line ends with him and he would like to adopt McCandless for his grandson. What do you make of that, I asked. Why does he ask for McCandless to be a grandson and not a son? One generation removed? Do grandparents love out of choice or bond? Do all grandparents love all grandchildren equally? They didn’t like that question, I could tell. They were instinctively defensive and said that grandparent-grandchild bond is as instinctive as that of parent-child. But some of the students were beginning to switch their position.
So I pointed them to the part in the story where Krakauer tells us a bit about Franz–that he has unofficially “adopted” several Japanese children and supported them and their education.What does it mean to adopt someone with whom you have no biological bond? How do you love that person? How do you love strangers?
It is a choice. This is a story about choice. I told them.
“It is still weird,” B said. A few others agreed. “Why would you want to adopt some kids you have never seen in your life?” She continued. “Why would you want to do that? I can’t understand it.”
I gave up. They were too young to understand. “You are all too young. You can care for someone very deeply like Franz does for McCandless without any ulterior motives or sexual designs, gay or straight. You know you all have limited life experiences. But that’ll change” I told them. I ordered them back to the essay. Let us look at the structure of the essay, I said.
I like how you used evidence in the story to base your argument upon. I would however, not refuse their idea out of hand. Ask them to point out evidence in the story that points to their idea that the man was gay.
If they can point out to evidence it may be an actual “correct” theory.
By: endithinks on June 24, 2008
at 7:45 pm
You are right. The one comment that they found most “gay”-like is this one where in direct speech we hear Franz telling Krakauer–the context is when McCandless calls him collect from southern california. Franz says “When I heard his voice, it was like sunshine after a month of rain.”
My students could not understand how a man could say that about another man, unless it happened in a romantic-erotic context. In a way I understand their response. It is quite valid. But in Krakauer’s essay the way the story is told–Franz is a character with something to learn as well. The extreme dependence and pleasure that we hear in this analogy of “sunshine after a month of rain”–this is what later on in the essay the kid advises him to transcend. There is this beautiful part in McCandless’s letter (that Krakauer includes in its seeming entirety) to Franz where he tells Franz “You are wrong if you think Joy emanates only or principally from human relationships. God has placed it all around us. . . . you do not need me or anyone else around to bring this new kind of light in your life.” And Krakauer at the beginning describes McCandless’s trip to Alaska as “hegira” –the flight of the believer from the society of unbelievers. McCandless knew this. Franz did not. These are deliberate choices made by the writer that we as readers must attempt to understand.
I am trained in the (old) new critical school of reading and I see this comment being specific to Franz’s particular challenge. Who knows really what Franz felt for McCandless? And does it matter? Maybe there was eros in there somewhere. Freud would say there always is. But all textual evidence points towards a parental love rather than erotic love. That is how we ended up reading the story in class. And they seemed persuaded. Although there was that *Gods and Monsters* plot lurking somewhere underneath!
Thanks for your comment. Apologies for a long explanation–English teachers, you know. Wonderful book, isn’t it? GD
By: gdevi on June 24, 2008
at 11:11 pm
I recently viewed “Into the Wild” in a totally different context from when I had read the book. Ron Franz haunts me. I think that Ron had been emotionally ‘dead’ for so many years after losing his family. Reaching out to ‘adopt’ orphans from afar was a more ’sterile’ or safe venue for a man who rejected life and living. The serendipitous meeting of ‘Alex’ connected him back to life and the living.
I could identify with the angry ‘Alex’ and the fresh zeal of idealism from college along with the rejection of his parents and the search for his identity. I also recognized it in my oldest son.
On the other hand, I felt the pain and regret of parenthood. Although, my children never experienced what Alex purportedly did, none of us are perfect as parents.
I read on another site about Ron Franz’s loss of faith and am now even more profoundly saddened.
Link: http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1192417324.shtml
By: Debbie on April 21, 2009
at 6:43 am
Thank you for the link. I will check it out. Yes it is a remarkable book. And it is even more remarkable how popular culture and popular media have used and pushed the book, particularly as this sort of existentialist doing wheelies outside the crash course. I am not sure how I feel about that. I have to think about that more. Thanks again. GD.
By: gdevi on April 21, 2009
at 2:04 pm
If you click on the above link, please click on ’show’ in order to read further about Ron Franz. I thought you’d find this link interesting and relevant for further discussion in your class.
By: Debbie on April 21, 2009
at 6:48 am
Didn’t you view him as a modern Thoreau? I used to drive up to Walden Pond while living in Boston just to experience what Thoreau did. I even romanticized about tossing all of my material possessions and living as he did, but I lacked the courage to try anything so radical.
By: Debbie on April 22, 2009
at 1:39 pm
Chris McCandless as a modern Thoreau? Interesting thought. I never equated the two men. Walden Pond to me was a thought experiment. Thoreau did whatever he liked while he lived there. Chris I think took Thoreau’s ideas into the wilderness. Chris, to me, is more like the indigenous peoples of the world who live in harsh climates — it is not just a young American kid who has perished in the wilderness; plenty of poor, starving indigenous people living in the forests all over the world suffer worse fates than Chris’s — people who have an affinity for the forest and go into the wilderness and cannot live anywhere else and will eventually die there. Chris is like such forest people. Or rather they are his peers. Not Thoreau. Thoreau was a Boston gentleman.
I also wanted to add that I sometimes find it frustrating to see the return of the old, seventeenth century paradigm of Nature attributed to Into the Wild in popular discussions of the book. The book does not represent such a dangerous view of Nature at all. Chris I am sure did not as well. But in popular discourse Into the Wild is usually presented as an example of the destructive power of Nature. This is an old ploy human beings have used. Once you classify something as dangerous — that is dangerous to you, it is about you, you see–then it gives you license to bring in the AK 47 and demolish it. That tiger just doesn’t look right. Let’s kill him. The fact is that we, human beings are the most destructive of all creatures in the world. Not the tiger, not the avalanche, not the drought, not the sharks and the whales. I am sure Chris would have been horrified to see his work understood in that way. But sometimes the discussions fall into that old ploy. I am very wary of such readings of the book. Thanks. GD.
By: gdevi on April 23, 2009
at 12:01 pm
I agree with your point regarding Thoreau; however, Chris never matured into the Thoreau that I imagine he’d become had he survived. I wish he could have realized his potential. I think he may have had quite an impact on contemporary philosophy had he written.
I also think that Chris would have been heartbroken knowing what became of ‘Ron Franz’. Chris met Ron at a time in his life where his struggle for identity and faith had become all consuming. A neighbor wrote that Chris had been continuously pushed by his parents to excel in everything. I think he needed time to digest and decompress.
When Chris attempted to leave Alaska, he had successfully completed a rite of passage. At this point, he may have been better able to give of himself. Ironically, Ron was just at the precipice of choosing whether to rejoin life when he encountered Chris. Whiskey had long since been abandoned as the anesthetic for his struggle with grief and guilt. Now his relationship with Chris provided a catalyst for his metamorphosis. Chris may have also been the grandson Ron lost when fate so cruelly intervened.
I believe that Chris would have contacted Ron had he emerged from the wild. And I mourn the loss of such a spirit.
By: Debbie on April 24, 2009
at 11:28 am
Yes, you are right–the loss of a young life always makes you wonder what he or she would have been had they had the time and space to fully blossom. And yet, perhaps those who leave us early, as Rilke said, have outgrown us and our things of this earth. I must say, along with Camus, that it is best not to grieve. Because if you do, where do you start? Where do you stop? So, rejoice.
By: gdevi on April 24, 2009
at 1:41 pm