[prawn]

Yeah, and I bet it won't get made into a movie either. Or have people still discussing it years later. Not worth telling at all.

I think people judge his effort by their own interpretation of success. It could just be that some people "get" him and some don't.

[jariel]

No, there is nothing to 'get'. He was an fool.

Filmmakers dramatize and re-interpret events all the time.

There is no 'real-life story' other than a moron who went into the deep wilderness without even a map. And were he to have taken even basic precautions, would be alive and well.

[prawn]

I'll try it from a different angle. Included in the things he took with him were 5kg of rice and a gun with 400 rounds - that's some level of planning. Now, he didn't have a plan so he didn't take a map. Why would he take a map? He had a vague idea of what he wanted to do, and part of it was seeing if he could survive off the land. He couldn't; so be it. He could've been more prepared and increased his chances of survival, but the point that resonates with some people was that he tried. He got off his arse. He wasn't beholden to the expectations of his parents or his money or the usual life. I have a friend who loves the idea of going on adventures and makes endless technical lists and buys gear, then barely goes anywhere. He has lots of maps...

When Alex Honnold free-soloed El Capitan, the exact point was that he didn't have a rope. He had a desperate urge to challenge himself with bigger and more difficult tasks.

[jariel]

"Why would he take a map?"

This is like asking why a parachuter would need to bother to pack their shoot correctly before going on a jump.

Or why a race car driver would bother to wear a seat belt.

'Having a map' might be the #1 thing he could do to ensure his survival, as he probably would have been able to walk out were he to have done this.

He apparently was not suicidal, and probably didn't intend on dying. His 'preparations' were not really 'preparations' so much as they were the actions of a stupid, glib or over-confident fool thinking that he was prepared.

He literally turned down the offer of 'reasonable gear' from someone thinking that he wanted to have a more 'natural experience'.

"Hey maybe you ought to wear a seatbelt of you're going to go for the land speed record"

"No thanks, I'm good, I want it to be more 'natural'"

This is the framing point of stupidity: mountain climbers, BASE jumpers, race car drivers take risks of course, but they're not stupid about it. The risks make sense in the context of what they are doing.

This is not the story of a man seeking enlightenment, it's about an otherwise entitled moron (not many kids have big college funds to 'give away') who stupidly and unnecessarily died.

"Let's give away money and go play on the highway" is what the book should have been called.

[prawn]

Proving my point.

You said it wasn't a story worth telling. History says it was told by published article, book, and then a movie. And it's obviously of note enough that people from around the world make a pilgrimage there, that they've removed the bus, that the bus removal is international news and that people will still visit the site where the bus was!

It obviously resonates with some people and not with others. Some get it, they understand the motivation, it means something to them. It's OK to not be one of those people.

[jariel]

It 'proves' that narratives can be created out of anything.

It 'proves' that an idiot, thinking he was taking 'basic precautions', but really was taking none at all, walked blindly to his own death, can be twisted by authors and narrative makes into some kind of 'insightful' story.

It 'proves' that populism is for fools who can't take the time to just see what is in front of them.

"A man decided to fly an airplane without any training or knowledge whatsoever and died on takeoff - here is the story of his enlightening journey"