Summary Of Into The Wild By Jon Krakaur

Do you like it when people make assumptions about you or your situation? Most individuals don't because people often make incorrect and flat out wrong assumptions. Those who make assumptions are often basing it on superficial information and know nothing about the deeper workings of a person or their very distinct conditions and history as well; so many variables could go unaccounted for, and when others recognize this, they feel the need to correct or rather enlighten others. Jon Krakaur writes the book “Into the Wild” to clear the name of one Christopher McCandless, due to people presuming him to be like every other lunatic who ventures into the wild and dies. To clear his name, Krakaur uses evidence, structure, analogy and negation to unobstruct McCandless’s merit.

He does this by tell the story in a non sequential order. The author starts out with him dead only in the second chapter: “Chris McCandless had been dead for two and a half weeks” (p.13). By starting out the book in this way, it shows that the writers motive is not to write a story, but to give intrigue and a need for explanation. Starting the book like this gives less of ‘what is going to happen’ and more of ‘why did this happen’ instead. Later in the book he goes on to talk about where he went and how he had lived his life, “He had spent the previous four years… preparing to fulfill… [a] duty: to graduate from college.” (22). Telling about him before his journey, he makes McCandless seem less crazy and impulsive, and more reasonable and experienced. Despite the ultimate outcome, this also shows he was educated and did not always live a life in the bush.. Along with the structure of his writing, Krakaur uses analogy to accomplish his