alone in the wild

i wrote this a month ago but then my laptop broke down, so here it finally is...

I recently watched the channel 4 three parter, ‘alone in the wild’, following the experiences of a scot called ed wardle who was (of his own volition) deposited in the Yukon wilderness in Canada and left to fend for, and film, himself. Have to admit I was hooked from the start. Apart from anything else, he sounded intriguingly like a friend from Helens burgh who’s currently in New Zealand. I’d seen another solo tv explorer Benedict Allen wandering around Mongolia with a camera attached to his body with a similarly intriguing contraption, in ‘edge of blue heaven’ a few years ago. Now my sister and her partner who’s a mountain leader were of the opinion that this guy ed might have enjoyed the experience rather more if he’d had a companion, and they of course have a point; as it was he spent a lot of time feeling hungry, afraid (of bears), lonely and generally miserable. But on the other hand, his condition of aloneness, the vulnerability that engendered and the sense of watching a human being in an extraordinary situation being pushed to his psychological limits, for me made a very compelling programme. In the end, he gave the impression of being subject to an experiment into profound aspects of the human condition (not to put it too grandly!). One friend has commented that he cried too much, and he was indeed pretty distraught by the last episode. All I would say is, how would any of us be feeling after forty plus days on our own in the wilderness! (sorry racheJ). it’s funny how different things move us or leave us cold (or irritated). There’s plenty of emotional stuff in tv and films that I find pretty saccharine, but I’m not ashamed to say I actually really felt for this bloke in his distress! Witnessing a person undergoing perhaps the worst kind of emotional/psychological trial - prolonged solitude - for real, no acting. Solitary confinement is after all used as a form of torture.
But of course it’s hardly news that we need people. What left me pondering more was his comment about the wild itself, how he came to feel it was indifferent to his needs and suffering, it was just there. Interesting how his perception of it was affected starkly by whether he was well-fed or hungry (the latter most of the time). With food in his belly, he could see its utter beauty; famished and deteriorating, he saw it as ugly and hostile. This gave me a fresh perspective on nature, its relationship to God and man. In its lone raw ferocity and grandeur, it can feel like an enemy, yet in the religious view it is considered to be the creation of a being who cares deeply and tenderly for humanity. It’s not easy to reconcile these perspectives on God.. and yet could not a proper pondering of them lead to a richer, synthesised and ultimately more satisfying view of God? Quite possibly methinks…