Analysis Of Into The Wild, By Jon Krakauer

In the national best-seller Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, the author uses a unique writing style and structure throughout the entire story. The reasoning behind this is to have an appeal to the adventure/ nature goer, mystery reader, or ethical/ philosophy seeker. Krakauer’s main purpose was to simply paint the story of Chris McCandless’s life travels in a light where the reader could then decide for themselves what they believed or thought about Chris McCandless. Whatever that may be. All the while Krakauer early on gave the reader his opinion about McCandless expressing “McCandless was something else-although precisely what is hard to say. A pilgrim, perhaps” (pg. 85). The author reveals his views almost halfway into the book. This

he continues The story in a way to not sway the reader to believe differently of McCandless. Does this by continually uncovering more traits about McCandless that led him to make decisions that would ultimately be the death of him. After Krakauer gets around halfway into the story he makes a transition. He now would show examples and beliefs of other people. Rather than choosing to never uncover what other people may conclude about McCandless and his behaviors. He openly challenges the reader with an opposing belief that even combats his opinion of McCandless. The first real break in the story is in chapter eight. This entire chapter is filled with the opinions of either media or Alaskan residents and outdoors fanatics. Contrary to Krakauer’s positive read on Chris, all of these views are particularly negative and unsympathetic. Many criticize “His ignorance, which could have been cured by a USGS quadrant and a Boy Scout manual, is what killed him. And while I feel for for his parents, I have no sympathy for him.” (pg 72). And in other places further claiming “willful ignorance” and “disrespect for the land” is what made him just another one of many “unprepared, overconfident men bumbling around out there screwing up” (pg. 72). Seemingly harsh and even hostile words. In the big picture this choice of adding negative feedback about Chris creates more of a fair and

Chris wasn't like Carl McCunn who “was the sort of guy who would have unrealistic expectations” (pg. 83). For instance McCunn made so many foolish mistakes and just flat out unrealistic expectations for how someone was going to fly out and find him. Not to mention that before leaving on his trip he was set on convincing some beautiful woman to go out into the wilderness and have a wild romance with him out there. To his luck he found no such volunteer crazy enough tag along on his suicide mission. After much searching and comparing Krakauer could not fit McCandless into one of those categories, but could only find small similarities that Chris had in common. So he concludes that Chris was neither of them, his own kind. After this break in the story to give a different angle on the whole situation, Krakauer then resumes the story line. The reader who now has more exposure to other similar cases and opposite views gets to continue following the story with more weight and pressure of influence. Its at this point you begin to see more of the real Chris. The more rebellious and stubborn, grudge holding Chris, except now you find out why. Turns out Chris had problems with his dad and authority. It doesn't become clear why until it is revealed that Chris managed to find out some hidden shade about the past of his