Rhetorical Analysis Of Into The Wild, By Jon Krakauer

Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild investigates the life and adventures of Chris McCandless. The author provides information about Chris’ life to illuminate his journey. Krakauer also uses rhetorical appeals to defend Chris’ rationale for his journey. Through Krakauer’s use of pathos, ethos, and logos, he persuades the audience that Chris is not foolish; however, Krakauer’s intimacy with Chris and his adventures inhibits his objectivity.
To establish his credibility, Krakauer demonstrates extensive research of Chris’ life and correlates his life with Chris’; as a result, he discloses his deep connection with Chris. For example, Krakauer constructs a body of evidence to support his argument; however, Krakauer asserts that he is an “impartial biographer”

For example, Krakauer employs Ron Franz’s account of Chris and mentions how Franz “regards the world through wary blue eyes” because of Chris’ death (59). Franz’s account evokes emotion to demonstrate the indelible impression Chris has on those he meets. Krakauer loads his story with emotion to allow the readers to sympathize with Chris’ plight; thus, Krakauer’s emotions influence his writing which prevents his ability to remain objective. Moreover, the author recalls the “wrenching loneliness” of his own journey with the Devil’s Thumb in Alaska (151). Krakauer recounts the hardships of his journey to indicate Chris’ emotional state during his journey. Krakauer completes gaps in Chris’ story; but loses objectivity as he intertwines Chris’ experiences and emotions with his own. Though Krakauer’s details about Chris provide insight, his emotional involvement in Chris’ life becomes an

For example, Krakauer includes letters that refer to Chris as an “idiot” and a “greenhorn”; yet, Krakauer negates all arguments against Chris and then refers to Chris’ critics as “angry letter writers” (176). To demonstrate that negative perceptions of Chris stem from false information, Krakauer proves that Chris correctly identifies the moose. Krakauer also recognizes counterarguments to Chris’ intelligence, but he negatively describes the people that present the counterarguments. In addition, after extensive experimentation and research, Krakauer concludes that the chemical L-canavanine in the seeds is responsible for Chris’ death (202). Krakauer determines that the seeds are toxic to prove that Chris is not reckless and incompetent. Krakauer also proves that the seeds are responsible for Chris’ death to persuade Chris’ critics to view him in a more sympathetic light. Through Krakauer’s in depth analysis and study of the seeds, he reveals his determination to exonerate Chris and, therefore, loses objectivity.
Krakauer employs rhetorical appeals to express his argument and persuade the readers. Krakauer’s anecdotes evoke an emotional response from the reader, yet the readers see they dictate his personal view of Chris. Krakauer also infers from interviews, knowledge, and experience about Chris which creates his bias. Further, Krauker includes research that defends Chris’