Perspective Again

The cases of Matt Shepard and Chris McCandless contain plenty of fact but have become so distorted that often it is hard to tell what is or is not true by the responses of the media and populace. Matt Shepard did not go to the Fireside Bar in search of himself but found trouble, yet it was the media that seemed to anger Beth Loffreda most. After listing all of the needed facts to understand Matt Shepard's death, Loffreda says, "Those facts reached us swiftly, but making sense of them took much longer" (368). It is evident that Loffreda thought that the story went past the facts because of how quickly the facts were obtained and how slowly the processing took. Media often used misrepresented Laramie with its use of easy-to-find interviews in bars that do not show Laramie as a whole. Then, media would often do little to do any more than pack research and immediately threw out articles. The pack mentality affected Chris McCandless too as Krakauer recounts the loads of mail he got that "mentioned his misidentification of the caribou as proof that he didn't know the first thing about surviving in the back country. What the angry letter writers didn't know, however, was that the ungulate McCandless shot was exactly what he'd said it was" (358). Krakauer knew that it was a moose that McCandless shot but even after the fact cam out, people focused on the symbolism of the moose (even though they were incorrect) as a cause to become angry. The media and people in "Into the Wild" and "Losing Matt Shepard" did little to face the facts and decided that it was the cause that mattered and the perception of the situation was correct.

Losing Matt Shepard

Beth Loffreda's introduction to "Losing Matt Shepard" highlights the key facts surrounding Matt's murder. Yet through this impersonal account we can see that his murder was more than an accidental death. Loffreda writes that "after being released later that night [Henderson, Pasley, Mckinney, and Price] began to hatch their false alibis; and that through all this Matt Shepard remained tied to the fence" (368). The diction with hatched refers to the beginning of life, and this is significant because Henderson and McKinney are giving life to their alibi at the expense of Matt's life. Hatching, such as hatching of eggs, is a lengthy process. Henderson, McKinney, Pasley, or Price could have helped prevent Matt's death at any point during the day and night he spent tied to the post. Through their impartial view of Shepard's life we can see that they viewed him as an actual scarecrow, an inanimate object. Shepard was in fact a scarecrow; the thought of Shepard's body scared the murders away even though they could have attempted to rescue him. Loffreda's introduction captures this event effectively because she gives the facts to contrast the murderers who attempted to create an alibi out of lies.

The Power of Placement

Amidst a very beautiful place, Matt Shepard was tragically beaten and tied to a fence where he was found shortly before his death. Loffreda tells many of this tale's facts in a long list and then throws in near the very end that "Matt's sexuality was woven throughout all of it" (368). Matt's sexuality was not mentioned in 22 lines of the 24-lined paragraph, which would usually mean that this tidbit is not very significant. Loffreda, however, uses the term "woven" which is defined as "to twist into or through." This reveals that the Matt's murder is far more than it appears. If his sexuality was really twisted throughout the event, then it must be very significant to the incident's entirety, and possibly be the cause in the first place. The placement of this phrase also foreshadows that his sexuality will also be very significant throughout the rest of the article.

Into to Losing Matt Shepard

The reading begins with a passage describing the beauty of Laramie, how it was "some rarefied place without need of an atmosphere." In the next sentence Beth Loffreda describes the horrible crime that was committed in Laramie. The contrast between these two images is what the author is getting at. How could such a beautiful place like Laramie be the location of such an evil act of hate. When describing the details of the crime Loffreda gives one very long sentence. Her writing style reflects that the "facts reached us swiftly" but there was something deeper to the story. The police had released the two murderers McKinney and Henderson after responding to a fight. Just as the police did not understand everything they were hearing at first and its implications, the nation would soon learn that this was more than just an ordinary murder.

Krakauer/Loffreda Connections

In both essays "Into the Wild" and "Losing Matt Shepard," by Jon Krakauer and Beth Loffreda, respectively, facts are presented in order to paint a story for the reader. However, the facts are presented in different ways. In the first paragraph of "Losing Matt Shepard," Loffreda lists the facts all in one sentence, in a news tabloid manner. She does not pause to add any detail, she merely places them one next to another separated by semi-colons. Krakauer's style in "Into the Wild" is much different; he takes a more storytelling approach by painting rich scenes to make everything very vivid in the reader's mind. Even though they have differences in approach, the main goal is the same: to make reason of the story. Loffreda tries to find the cause for Matt's unfortunate death, and Krakauer does the same for McCandless. Loffreda pieces all the facts together to figure out the bigger puzzle behind Matt's death, and Krakauer analyzes McCandless' voyage in the wild to better put himself in his mindset to better understand his death. One similarity they share is a sense of irony for the land. Loffreda starts off the essay by describing how beautiful Laramie, Wyoming is. Then, with the horrific news of Matt, the land is tainted. With "Into the Wild," Krakauer says how even though McCandless was on his journey to live in the wilderness, the irony is apparent when Krakauer notes that McCandless was just several miles off of civilization. As for Alaskan wilderness, McCandless was nowhere near it.

Horrifying Beauty

The opening paragraph of Beth Loffreda’s, “Losing Matt Shepard” gives facts about the murder of Matt Shepard in the small town of Laramie, Wyoming. Before stating anything about the event, she points out that Laramie “is beautiful”. This ironic statement gives the reader a more understanding view of the general inhabitants of Laramie, which would not have been thought of if Beth started directly with the murder. When Loffreda does talk about the murder, she gives all the facts in one long emotionless sentence containing 8 semicolons. This is directly relative to the swiftness the facts were acquired by and how irrelevant they were to the underlining motive behind the murder.

Revision

Siebert suggests that human “concern...[is] ultimately.. rooted in that most human of impulses- the preservation of our own self-image” (537). Humans become so involved in maintaining an illustration they become oblivious to the reality of the situation humans are in. Abram believed that the experience of ridding yourself of human influence comes from understanding the connection “between the human community and the larger community” (5). The “larger community” pus the “the human community” into perspective. Humans need to visualize themselves affecting others. Although these two communities are separate they play a vital role in defining each other. The reality about the wilderness and the human nature may be too raw for some people to handle. Indeed it is the opposite end of the spectrum, Krakauer presents a case where the reality about the rawness of the wilderness was not this person’s cup of tea. McCandless, who escaped from human civilization to learn about human capabilities admits that he was “ prepared to forgive their [human] imperfections; maybe he was even prepared to forgive some of his own. MaCandless was ready to go home” (353). The reflection that McCandless saw of himself and humans made him realize that humans are harsh but he wilderness is no less. They are similar in that they have their own “imperfections” but still have the ability to define each other.

Paragraph Revision

The wilderness has become an afterthought in some cultures. In David Abram’s essay The Ecology of Magic, he goes on at length to describe the shamans interacting with nature. “The deeply mysterious powers and entities with whom the shaman enters into a rapport are ultimately the same forces the same plants, animals, forests, and winds-that to literate, ‘civilized’ Europeans are just so much scenery, the pleasant backdrop of our more pressing human concerns “ (Abram 6). Behind his critique of Western civilization, Abram is going for a deeper meaning. The key word is mysterious that he uses to describe nature’s powers. He is implying that nature has some sort of power that to the shaman we cannot ever understand. Abram is also saying that by treating nature like scenery, we are ignoring the very dangerous aspect of the wilderness. Krakauer builds on this idea of the pacification of nature. “(He) yearned to wander uncharted country, to find a blank spot on the map. In 1992, however, there were no more blank spots on the map-not in Alaska, not anywhere. But Chris, with his idiosyncratic logic, came up with an elegant solution to this dilemma: He simply got rid of the map. In his own mind, if nowhere else, the terra would thereby remain incognita” (Krakauer 356). Notice the similar wording that Abram and Krakauer use. Abram comments that Western people think of nature as a backdrop, scenery. The reason they feel that way is because everything has been mapped out. That is a key reason why McCandless wishes to forgo a map. He wants to regain that feeling of mystery and awe. He wants to feel the danger that only the wilderness can bring. Also notice the language that Krakauer uses; he wishes for the earth to remain, incognita. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, incognita is the feminine form of incognito, which means to conceal your identity. The word is often used to describe royalty who wish to conceal their identity. This word choice shows Krakauer’s respect for the wilderness just as the shaman did. McCandless also felt the same way about the wilderness. Our treatment of the wilderness has led to us becoming very ignorant of it.

Introducing Quotes

While searching for a base for camp, Krakauer addresses his colleagues' opinions of Alaskan standards by almost defending McCandless. He explains that "Ironically, the wilderness surrounding the bus- the patch of overgrown country where McCandless was determined 'to become lost in the wild' scarcely qualifies as wilderness by Alaska standards" (350).
Following Chris disposing of a map, Krakauer articulates that McCandless came to Alaska to explore and discover land and adventure that he is deprived on in today's society. He says, "McCandless yearned to wander uncharted country, to find a blank spot on the map-not in Alaska, not anywhere. But Chris, with his idiosyncratic logic, came up with an elegant solution to this dilemma: He simply got rid of the map" (356).
Gay Bradshaw informs Siebert that in order to have a relationship with elephants, humans must find connections on a deep, emotional level and Siebert believes that educating people on the crisis is the best approach to the problem. Siebert believes that "If we want elephants around, then what we need to do is simple: learn how to educate people on how to live with animals like humans used to do..." (537).

Relativity

One’s idea of wilderness can vary depending on one’s background and lifestyle. Due to the Alaskan territory that Chris McCandless lived on being only sixteen miles from a populated area, Krakauer reveals, “the wilderness surrounding the bus— the patch of overgrown country where McCandless was determined to ‘become lost in the wild’— scarcely qualifies as wilderness by Alaskan standards” (350). Most Alaskans would say the land McCandless lived on is not untamed or desolate enough to be wilderness, but Krakauer’s key phrase is “by Alaskan standards.” A standard is defined as typical or ordinary. Because these woods and brush surround Alaskans everyday, this land was typical and ordinary to them. These standards cannot apply to Chris because he was from a big city. Abram offers another example of wilderness being relative when he explains that shamans in rural countries can differentiate between the human standard and those of other animals. He explains that, while understand our own needs and capacities, “we cannot, as humans, precisely experience the living sensations of another form” (10). People know how they best survive, but do not have a full understanding of the way other species live, act, and think, so what is standard to other animals may be wilderness to humans. This inability to understand another form can also apply to humans, such as Chris, who was from a westernized city and did not understand the Alaskan lifestyle. Because the territory was wild enough to cost Chris his life, the standard for wilderness must be relative to each creature.

A New Conclusion

The wilderness is a remarkable place, both physical and metaphysical. It exists in multiple planes of existence, and can be entered through many different ways. Shamans segregate themselves while human allomothers try to bond with elephants. Explorers like McCandless emerge themselves within the wilderness in hopes of restoring some life and meaning into their monotonous daily routine. Unfortunately, humans’ connection to nature or the wilderness has deteriorated over the years. We have frayed the entirety of the planet, destroying forests and habitats, as well as leading many species of animals to extinction. Abram asks “how, that is, have we become so deaf and so blind to the vital existence of other species, and to the animate landscapes they inhabit, that we now so casually bring about their destruction?” (21) The simple answer is that humans are egotistical and when no careful thought is put into an action, we hurt someone else. Although it does satisfy Abram’s question, it does not explain what the wilderness is, and how it relates to the destruction of the land and many species. The wilderness, as a physical place, is anywhere that remains unscathed by human society. It is not a national park or someone’s back yard. There are very few places left on the Earth that meet this requirement, but these places let people, such as David Abram, have what is similar to an out of body experience. As a metaphysical place, it is a plane of mutual understanding. One example is McCandless coming to an understanding with nature that he has to really make an effort to survive. Although nature is not a person or an animal, it still needs to be understood by humans in order to coexist and truly survive on this planet. The prime example of the wilderness as a metaphysical plane is the human allomother. They are truly the makings of a new transpecies culture, where families extend beyond just one race. This is the future, where every species has an understanding of one another and each other’s needs. In order to understand another, one has to be at a peaceful or a calm state of mind, without prejudice or affectations from his or her environment; it essentially is a pure state of mind. Although it sounds difficult, the wilderness is attainable, as it is something that everyone is born with.

wilderness

Wilderness is the assurance and perseverance to mankind. The wilderness allows humans to find their answers and see every little thing that is important in life. McCandless shoots a moose and not only writes about his feelings about animals but also his intake on what wilderness is to him. “Positivitism, the Insurpassable Joy of Life Aesthetic. Absolute Truth and Honesty. Reality. Independence” (352). Wilderness is the privacy to be independent to find one’s self and the true meaning in life. Wilderness is the “certainty” of what really is true from the beauty of nature. Once certain on life, it becomes easier for one to acknowledge the beauty of it’s surroundings just as Abram does in the indigenous areas. Abram learns about nature and opens his eyes to what he never pays attention to back home. He admits, “I had rarely before paid much attention to the natural word… I became increasingly susceptible to the solicitation of nonhuman things” (15). Abram becomes more attracted and interested in non-human things. The wilderness opens his eyes to what he didn’t pay attention to before which he found interesting now. The wilderness is a way to for humans to except and preserve the bond between them and nature.

An improvement on a paragraph

The wilderness can be easily misunderstood if one does not have the right perception about it. This is evident in Jon Krakauer’s story Into the Wild, the main character Chris McCandless was longing for a sense of adventure so he ventured out into the Alaskan wilderness but “the wilderness surrounding the bus – the patch of overgrown country…scarcely qualifies as wilderness by Alaskan standards” (350). Chris originally thought that he was in the wild but Krakauer’s use of the word “patch” indicates that where Chris was staying was not even wilderness. The place Chris inhabited was only a thirty miles away from Alaska’s George Parks highway. Chris’s lack of experience with the wild has misconstrued his understanding of how vast wilderness can be. David Abram attributes this lack of experience in his essay “The Ecology of Magic”. Abram argues that because humans now live in a world in which “We consciously encounter nonhuman nature only as it has been circumscribed by our civilization and technologies” (21). The word circumscribed means “to restrict within limits” (OED). By restricting humans from perceiving the real nature and the wild first hand, humans have become oblivious to what the real nonhuman world is; they cannot comprehend wilderness or get past the prevailing thought of it being dangerous and to some extent not even survive in it. In essence the human version of nature has been reworded as a place for resources. Charles Siebert claims that this obliviousness humans had on nature is what caused one of nature’s creature, the elephant, to fight back. In his essay “An Elephant Crackup?” Siebert describes how after poaching elephants for their ivory for years, “…the elephant is not going out quietly. It is not leaving without some kind of statement,” (528). The world is not a place where humans are in control and animals have to fight a losing battle. Since humans have treated the wild as if it was a stockpile of resources as a result, wilderness is fighting back. Therefore it is not that wilderness itself is a dangerous place to begin with rather than how human’s looked at nature in the first place. This can be attributed to how humans grew up and as a result they held the preconceived notion of wilderness being an unknown and scary place.

Body Paragraph 1 Revision

One of the main ways in which civilization is subtly oppressing involves its limitations as far as risks go. In civilization, strides in medicine and technology keep people alive much longer than they may even want to be. By contrast, failure in the wilderness can result in death-thereby reconnecting humans to the fundamental human struggle-survival. This gives them the freedom to die, and live. In Jon Krakauer’s “Selections from ‘Into the Wild’”, Krakauer expresses how Chris McCandless was an adventurous boy who sought challenges in which success was not guaranteed. He describes how “the meaning he [McCandless] wrested from existence lay beyond the comfortable path: McCandless distrusted the value of things that came easily. He demanded much of himself- more, in the end, than he could deliver” (363). McCandless ventured into the wilderness for what he perceived as a real challenge. He chose to forgo a “comfortable” lifestyle of civilization simply because he craved the freedom of holding his life and death in his own hands. This reconnection to nature was so important to McCandless that he risked, and eventually lost his life to acquire it. While Krakauer discusses how McCandless needs freedom, Charles Siebert illustrates the harmful consequences of freedom being taken away in “An Elephant Crackup?”. He cites Eve Abe, who compares the plight of elephants to refugees in Uganda. She describes how after having their freedom taken away, the refugees “form these roaming, violent, destructive bands. It’s the same thing that happens with the elephants. Just like the male war orphans, they are wild, completely lost” (534). Both humans and the wild need freedom because without it, they turn to destructive activities. Their lack of freedom causes them to psychologically break down. It is natural for any species to long for freedom. This longing for freedom from society results in people seeking the wilderness for answers, which is expressed in David Abram’s “The Ecology of Magic”. Abram compares less “developed” civilizations to western society through descriptions of the atmospheres of each place. He describes how in the less developed places “the air was a thick and richly textured presence, filled with invisible but nonetheless tactile, olfactory, and audible influences. In the United States, however, the air seemed thin and void of substance or influence” (20). The fact that Abram describes air in such a manner is extremely significant, because air is literally what keeps humans alive. When talking about the United States of America, Abram describes the air being “void”, implying that something nameless is missing. Similar to how McCandless felt his life was incomplete because of his lack of challenge and freedom, Abram’s description of the void air implies that he feels suppressed by the western civilization’s lack of freedom and connectedness with nature. Freedom to connect to nature is really what the wilderness is.

The wild is a place filled with uncertainty and random occurrences and thus making it a very difficult place in which to survive. Even in captivity, the actions taken by animals are unforeseeable. Bradshaw sent Siebert an email about an incident involving an elephant held in captivity named Winkie. When Winkie had first arrived, she would jump upon being touched, however, she “has never lashed out at primary keepers” (540). In this incident, Winkie killed an assistant caretaker, and when the primary caretaker tried to aid the assistant, Winkie critically injured him. Even in the controlled environment of the elephant care institution, this unforeseen event occurred. In the wilds, there are no laws binding down situations and anything can happen at any given moment. One must prepare for everything possible even the unpredictability of nature. However, McCandless was someone who wasn’t prepared for his journey into the wild. He came with “insufficient provisions, and he lacked certain pieces of equipment deemed essential” (360). McCandless’ strong desire to survive the wilderness without assistance from other people could have caused him to be unprepared for this adventure into the wild. His lack of knowledge and understanding, along with his arrogance of surviving alone, lead him to his end. Perhaps what led to McCandless’ demise was because he didn’t know that nature was what Abram described as a “supersensory heaven beyond the natural world” (7). It is possible that the wilderness might be beyond the ordinary understanding of how the world works and it might not be able to be perceived with the senses people possess. The vastness and unpredictability of nature creates an environment with circumstances that constantly changes.