Make sure that you have completed the reading of the novel by Wednesday. We will be doing some class discussions as well as some reading circle discussions over the rest of the week.
What do you think of the many people in "Into the Wild" who seem to be living as transients or squatters (if you do not know what these mean look them up!)? Does the freedom of their lifestyle (or of Chris') appeal to you? Do you think they should attempt to establish stable homes and livelihoods? Why or why not?
15 comments:
Yes, the freedom of their lifestyle does appeal to me. I wouldn't like to do it forever but I would love to try it. My family is considered a squatter when we go to labor day camp. We can travel where we want to go without being trapped and committed to one spot. I really don't think that they could establish a stable house. This is because they are used to always being on the move and never staying in one place for too long. They probably could after a few tries, but i think that they wouldn't be able to do it.
Squatters is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space. When people do this, it makes me think a little less of them. Because it's kind of like their just runaways that just live anywhere that they can get to. This freedom of their lifestyle does not appeal to me at all. I like to live in a nice clean enviroment that is homey to me. Just going off and living anywhere isn't very warming to me. I definetly think that they should established stable homes and livlihoods cause it will be better for them overall. They will be safer in a stable home. They could also be able to keep warmer and store food easilier if they are in a working home and not just an abandoned building. But overall, I would never want to live as a squatter.
I think that people who live in a squatter or transient life are people who cant do much in life. no Chris can do a lot with his life so i don't know why Chris decides to choose this life. and no the freedom of there life does not appeal to me. the reason for this is because i cannot live in a world with nobody around and no technology surrounding me. Yes i think that people who usually move around just to see the world eventually have to settle down and create a lively hood. i think that they should because they have people who love them and people who could use there expertise. that is my opinion on what i think about transients and squatters.
I think that the many people in "Into the Wild" who seem to live as transients or squatters are trying to prove a point. They think that if they live in one place for a short period of time without title or paying rent is the best way to go. The freedom of their lifestyle really doesn't appeal to me. It doesn't because I would want ownership of my house and to live there for as long as possible. They should try to establish stable homes and livelihoods. They should do this because they need to do whatever's best for their family's well-being. They should also try to make better relationships with other people.
Chris Daniels
I think the squatters would be tired a lot. They always have to work hard to find shelter. They also move a lot so they don't get confortable in one spot. They go place to place and desocover new things. They must really like nature and or being and individualist. Their freedom styles don't really apeal to me because I don't like doing new things. I think they should try to get stable homes and live in one spot. I think this because they can then grow up and stop living in the age of experimenting.
Samantha Taranek
Being a squatter is not common around here, but if it suits the lifestyles and taste of some people then i don't see why they shouldn't go for it. Some people may judge a person by how they live. I try not to look at this in that way. Personally, I would not want to be a squatter. I enjoy the one place I can go and live instead of just finding a random spot from time to time. The people in the book may be squatters, and i believe they should stay that way. If they enjoy it, then it works. They may not be the type people who like to have a home that they go to every day and live and breathe and just grow up there. They like to be on the move, and there's nothing wrong with that. It just makes them unique.
transients is when you have no home as where squatters live in abondon homes. i think that neither one is right because if you have no home why should you have the right to live in one your not paying for. but if you have no home why didnt you have one in the frist place. no freedom like chris dose not appeal to me. it dosent appeal to me because i dont think separteting myself from my family is a good idea. i think that even though familys dont alway live with each other you should alway stay in touch so that way they dont get worried. i think that they should so that way they arnt living off the streets begging people for money. that is why i think that people shouldnt be squatters or transients.
Whether a squatter or a transient decides to travel or to settle down and start a house, I really don't care, as long as they were doing what made them happy. If simply they decided to quit from moving around and living that kind of lifestyle, then go ahead but do it because you want to not because someone looks at you funny. You only have one life to live so why not do something that you can live for. Be happy no matter what you do and cherish the things and people that are important to you. The people in the book, I really don't care for. The only reason I give credit to Chris is because he did what made him happy and successful in HIS eyes. I don't know everyone else's story but if I did I'm sure I would feel differently. No matter what you do, whether you a working house wife or a transient, do what makes you happy.
I think in "Into The Wild" the characters who are squatters or transients are trying to be an example to other citizens. However their lifestyle does not appeal to me. It seems that these squatters or transients have more stress in their life then a non transient would. They always need to find places to stay and they cant get comfortable in one place cause they might have to move again. Yes, I think they should attempt to establish stable homes because they would probably feel a more comfortable lifestyle than their own. They would be able to get comfortable in one spot and they wouldn't always be worrying about finding shelter for that night. Even though these transiets or squatters are trying to set an example for the citizens and try to get them to discover more things in life it's not working on me because I wouldn't want to be worried all the time.
Personally, I do not like people such as the ones in "Into the Wild" who are transients. These people remind me of illegal immigrants. They get all the benefits of living in America but they aren't using them to their advantage. Some benefits would be getting a job and working hard to have happiness. If you just walk out into the wild, you don't really have to put hard work into your life. And what about your family? It's either you bring them with you or you just ditch them. Once again, I don't see how someone could do that to their family. This freedom of their lifestyle does not appeal to me. I want to get a job and live in a nice neighborhood where I know I will be safe. When you're in the wild like Chris, you could seriouslly die any second. One bad slip and that's the end of the road for you. Yes, I do think they should establish stable homes. Like I said before, you have no means of safety and what happens if you get sick? You can't go to the doctors because you have no money. Also, hygiene would be a big part of it for me too. For instance, Chris' tooth came out probally because it was rotten. I find that disgusting and wrong. Altogether, I would not go into the wild nor do I like transients.
I think all of the people in into the wild so far have been pretty cool. I think there life style is pretty awesome. Some people may think its bad or stupid, but maybe they don't want to live a boring, steady life. Or they want maybe to experience new things every day. The freedom of there life is very appealing to me, but i wouldn't want to live like that. I Would like living that for a wile, but i would also want to settle down and have a boring stable life for a wile. i don't theing they should astablish homes and steady life styles if they don't want to. I think they should live life how they enjoy.
I think that the people in this book that are squatters and transients are people that are trying to prove a point. That point being, you should enjoy earth and everything that it has to give for you. Yes, their freedom does appeal to me. I think that if you are that kind of person that is a great way to show what they are trying to show. On the other hand, everyone is different so people show it in different ways than others. I think that yes they should attept to live in stable homes and livelihoods because that is what every typical american does, or somthing close to it. If they do attempt it then they will either appreciate what they are doing more, or not like it so much and live their life the way they feel they should, but they should experiance many different ways before they choose one that they want to stick with. The idea of what they are living by does appeal me and interest me, but at the same time, i could never live like that.
I like the freedom that the squatters have. I think having the abiltiy to pick up and leave at anytime would be nice. This lifestyle does appeal to me, a lot. I guess establishing a stable home and livelihood would be a decision based on other things. If the squatter is happy with the way they are living I don't think they should establish a stable home. If the person is getting sick of the way they're living, maybe it would be best that they change their lifestyle and become more of a planted (I hope that makes sense.) person. I think giving up the freedom to move away, to another spot would be difficult though. Honestly, after a while of living this way, I don't think it would be easy to just give it up.
A squatter to me is kind of like someone who is just a bump on a log. Serveing no purpose or just abaondon everything and everyone and life there own lifestyle. The book to me is mostly squatters because chris is one and drifters he runs into alot are squatters usually. Personally i don't consider my family as a squatter. I for sure don't i have it to good where i am i'd be a fool to leave it. I really don't think a squatter could establish a stable home due to moving alot and and not wanting to stay somewhere for a long period of time. Well it's possilbe but i don't think it's very liklely.
Post a Comment