Krakauer’s Argument In Krakauer’s argument he does make an effective case justifying McCandless behavior. Krakauer mentions in his argument, he stated, “McCandless wasn’t as stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate, but instead paints a sympathetic picture of a young man with a profound moral compass seeking a higher truth”. This means that Chris McCandless just wanted to get away from the society he once knew before and just go find his peace in himself and the world. He thought by going out into the wild, that it would solve the problem, even though he did not really know how to actually survive in the wild.. He knew the basics like food, water and shelter. Chris McCandless did not really plan out what he was going to do, he just wanted to go and do whatever he wanted to do. Chris McCandless …show more content…
At this time Chris McCandless is still in his young years and adolescents tend to, “engage more in unknown risks than they do in known risks”, according to Agnieszka Tymula, a postdoctoral student at New York University. McCandless parents were just trying to protect him from the unknown but Chris wanted to know what the unknown felt like. It was almost like his parents were trying to tame Chris McCandless in a world that is not tame at all. “Adults have long reckoned with ways to protect adolescents from their own misjudgement”, Says, Maia Szalavitz. Krakauer argues with Christian about the situation about McCandless, that Chris McCandless was not inconsiderate or stupid, he just wanted to get away from the root of all evil, in other words, money and the overbearing world he has known to grow up in. However Christian mentions that he once knew Chris McCandless and how he was, that he is not some special guy and other people in this world go out into the wild and die. Which is true that people do go out into the wild and die because they are not well prepared or they just want to get away. On the other hand Christian was not surprised of the death of
Jon Krakauer makes various claims about how Chris McCandless is a very noble person. Krakauer’s bias is throughout the book Into the Wild. The book is about Chris McCandless and his adventures across America. The book is his life story covering how he died and how he came to the point of his death. Krakauer uses his bias and various claims to show what type of person Chris really was and to show some of how Chris thought about the world and government.
In the book “Into the Wild” by Jon Krakauer, Chris McCandless had many decisions to leave his old life behind and start over. Chris’ decision to leave was justified for the following reasons. When he suddenly disappeared, it made it easier for him to let go of his past and focus on what he wants to do in the future. McCandless could make all his own decisions, nobody had a chance to tell him that he could not leave and certainly did not allow anyone to find out where he was going. Finally he didn’t agree to social norms.
I think that Chris was very immature because he underestimated the power of nature and didn’t think of the necessary precautions. For example, he thought he could make it in the alaskan wilderness without a map or a compass. The text states “If McCandless had possessed a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, it would have alerted him to the existence of a Park Service cabin on the upper Sushana River…” (Krakauer 196). I also think he was going on all these journeys to prove something to his parents or another person.
Jon Krakauer’s fascination in a young man’s life turns out to be more than an article of the boy’s adventure and the journey he set out for himself. Krakauer reflects on much larger subjects within the book based on his path while trying to understand Chris McCandless. Chris McCandless, a young man from an East Coast family, abandons everything set for him in his path. Donating twenty-four-thousand-dollar savings account to charity, burning the cash he had, leaving his car and possessions behind were all decisions Chris thought were right for him. His confident yet riskful choices led him to an independent life in the wild.
And now he’d slipped painlessly out of Ron Franz’s life as well” (55). Although there may be truth in Krakauer’s theory, Krakauer’s own personal experiences definitely played a part in understanding McCandless seemingly cruel behavior towards his family. Krakauer’s recollection of his past relationship with his own father sheds insight into the type of struggle McCandless experienced with his father, who he once respected. However, during his adolescent years learned that his father could not be farther
Once again, we are tasked with writing another QVSR paper. “Find an epigraph that explains Krakauer’s purpose in writing this book”. In the guidelines, however, we received a very interesting thought to dwell on, “What is Krakauer’s purpose in this book?” Initially I was prepared to write this paper, and not even think for a second about why he might have wanted to script this nonfiction book. As you can already tell from my title, I think there is a simply explanation for that.
In Into The wild, Krakauer narrates the last couple of journeys Mccandless had on his adventure to Alaska where he ultimately died. Mccandless Touched many people's lives through all of his journeys. Mccandless went on these journeys because he was confused in life when he figured out his dad had cheated on his mom. This changed Mccandless to the point he began to hate his parents. Mccandless had a lot of confidence in himself so he left on an adventure to find his identity.
Impartiality can be defined as “not partial or biased; fair; just” (Dictionary.com). When biographers tell someone else’s story, they often struggle to maintain impartiality. A biography will rarely be, if ever, a collection of truths in its entirety with no mention of opinion. A biographer can simply not remain completely neutral. Like many others before him and many following as well, Jon Krakauer clearly fails to hit the mark of impartiality.
Chris McCandless may first be described as a rebel and his inclination to abstain from the family he was brought up with. Krakauer says that he 'believed that wealth was shameful, corrupting, and inherently evil '. Despite that, Chris always liked money. Chris was also a very independent person who had a strong relationship with nature. Chris was also the kind of kid to always get good grades, without even trying to.
After reading Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, I wondered to myself why I should even care about Chris McCandless. I can see how some think Chris McCandless was an idiot and he was trying to kill himself. After I dove deeper into this question, I learned that Chris McCandless story teaches us important life lessons. Chris McCandless teaches us to get out of our comfort zone. Ronald Franz was an older man who encountered Chris McCandless and gave him a ride from Salton City California to Grand Junction Colorado In Chris’s last letter to Ronald Franz, he says “So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation…
When on his dangerous climb, Krakauer is truly convinced that this experience will change his life. Krakauer creates a narrative parallel between himself and Chris. Throughout the book, Krakauer has kept to a journalist point of view. In this chapter, he slightly abandons that perspective and is more up front with his own personal experiences. Because of his sharing of his own into the wild experience, the reader can grow more sympathy towards McCandless and the actions that he
Chris was an honors student and made it onto the dean's list. When his schooling came to an end “He indicated that he was planning another extended trip but implied that he’d visit his family in Annandale before hitting the road.” (Krakauer 125). Then, McCandless was off on his journey, making stops in places like California and New Mexico. While on his adventure on his own, he met some special people.
Bringing a map, keeping some money with him, accepting items that people offered him, and many more factors contributed to his death. Dozens of predictions were made on how Chris died. Jon Krakauer wrote an article in the New Yorker specifically on how Chris died. “The probable cause of death, according to the coroner's report, was starvation.” (Jon Krakauer “How Chris McCandless Died”)
What really drove Chris McCandless into the wild? I believe the top three of the countless reasons that drove McCandless into the wild was the emotional damage from his parents, rebellion of the youth & risk taking tendencies, and his hubris and detestation against authority and/or someone telling him what to do. Some may believe that Chris McCandless went into the wild because of his literary heroes Leo Tolstoy, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau , and Jack London but the real reason he left everything was because of those reasons. In this essay I will elaborate on why I believe those are the reasons that drove McCandless into the wild.
Chris McCandless abandoned the modern world and chose the wild because he believed that he could improve himself through living in the wild, and found the true happiness of the life. McCandless abandoned his wealthy family because of his complicated relationship with his father, and he was ashamed with his father’s adultery. Therefore, McCandless believed that human relationship was not the only thing that forms happiness, instead a man’s connection with the nature brings joy as well. He also believed the habitual lifestyle was not what people were meant to do, and people shouldn't have more possessions than what they need. For this reason, McCandless traveled with little effects.