One “stakeholder” in the book Into The Wild is Ron Franz who crossed paths with Chris in his home state of California. He was a former soldier stationed in Okinawa and he had a son and a wife. His son was around Chris’s age and Franz recalled that he was soon to finish medical school when he and Franz’s wife were killed by a drunk driver. Franz felt that Chris was like his son who had died. Franz was affected positively and felt some of the hole left by his son’s death become filled while he spent time with Chris. When Chris left it made him depressed, until he received a letter from him saying he should live out his life boldly doing things he had never done. Surprisingly he took this advice and stayed near where Chris’s camp had been …show more content…
Krakauer was instead the author and detective for Into The Wild interviewing each person Chris had crossed paths with and left an impact. This long process gave Krakauer a new insight into why Chris had gone to Alaska. In the end ,although not living, Chris affected Krakauer by giving him a new outlook on the transcendentalist way of life and why it was so appealing to him. Krakauer felt closer to Chris than many of those that actually crossed his path. He had a similar experience when he was younger going out on his own and scaling the “Devils Thumb” in Alaska. He understood why Chris went and was able to sympathize with him. Chris and his story gave Krakauer flashbacks and allowed him to almost relive his journeys that he had taken as a young …show more content…
He had been pure in his reporting straying very few times from the stories of those who crossed Chris. The book therefore has remained very neutral. But when he shifts at fourteen it still holds its same honesty as his story allows himself and the reader to better relate to Chris and his story. The shift was made, telling how his own story was similar to Chris’s story. He makes this shift so that the reader, instead, of alienating Chris accepts him and sees how his story may have unfolded had he planned a little better. Krakauer explained that he would do this purely to help the reader better understand Chris and his reason for going to Alaska even if he ended up never returning
With everything that Chris did he was very noble but he would have survived longer if he had taken proper precautions. Krakauer’s bias appears in the book but he admits it from the beginning. He also is accepting of the other view of Chris. In the author's note, Krakauer wrote “some readers
However, it is clear from the beginning that because he was so poorly prepared, he might not survive this trip. The next Chapter confirms this suspicion and Chris’ dead body was found. It is difficult for the readers to stay objective throughout the first Chapters because they do not know Chris well enough and they cannot empathize with his characteristics. They cannot understand his intentions, his dreams, or his character at this point of this story. Therefore, many people who read the Outside article reacted angrily because they did not get any inside perspective of Chris’ ideas at first.
His actions only made him even stranger as time went on. To start off, Chris had a transcendentalist mentality. Chris leaves off on his adventure wanting to start a new life. He burns all his money in his wallet, donates his savings to charity, and leaves without anyone knowing. At the beginning of every chapter, Krakauer starts off with an epigraph.
Into the Wild In Jon Krakauer’s novel, Into the Wild , he depicts the story of Chris McCandless and his journey as “Alex Supertramp” across the United States, starting in Georgia and ending with the his death in Alaska. Jon states his argument that Chris wasn’t “stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate” and he tell the story of a young man with a profound moral compass and wants to seek higher truth. In the novel, Chris left to go into the wilderness right after he graduated from college. He did not let his parents know he was leaving for many reasons.
Rhetorical Analysis of Jon Krakauer’s “Into the Wild ” Jon Krakauer ’s purpose in writing Into the Wild is to recount Chris McCandless’ journey, physical and metaphysical, from college in Georgia to his death in Alaska, through the use of factual, and anecdotal evidence. Krakauer uses factual evidence to establish that he is a trustworthy narrator capable of giving the reader a realistic scope on the events in the story. Jon uses anecdotal evidence to see into Chris’ psyche from the various perspectives found in the book’s excerpts, including how Jon understands the events.
Chris didn’t see value in having a career and even believed that “careers were demeaning” and “more of a liability than an asset”(Krakauer 114). Chris was often pressured by his parents to go to college and get a law degree. His dream and wishes were never taken into consideration which caused a real strain on his relationship with his family. This is part of the reason why Chris decided to part ways with his family and go on his trip to Alaska, Chris needed an escape. This is where the idea of his trip to Alaska appeared, he hoped to escape from his parents and society as a whole.
Raplh Emerson, Henry Thoreau, Jon Krakauer, and Michael Donova were all believers in a theory called transcendentalism. Krakauer wrote a non fictional book about a boy who went of on an adventure to Alaska and Donovan wrote a poem about himself. Knowing this information they do not seem to be comparable with each other, but can be. Krakauers’ book is about a young man from a welthy family who decided one day to hitchhike into Alaska and walked alone into the the wilderness where he died. Along the way he met alot of interesting people and seen a lot of great places and lands throughout the country.
The friendships that he formed with these people were special. Chris’s arrogance seemed to step in when he was in one place too long. Due to that, he would up and leave without consideration for those he left behind. When he left, many of his relationships that he formed seemed to be hurt, yet Chris was unfazed by it. It was a path of destruction that followed behind him as he travelled.
Into the wild, a book by Jon Krakauer, focuses its objective on a young man by the name of Christopher Johnson Mccandless. He was a young, intelligent man who believed in the freedom of living alone but later died in the story from living in the Alaskan wild on his own with the bare necessities. His struggle throughout the story is a mixture of both internal and external conflict, the pair affecting his choices and ultimately leading to his end. His internal conflict was the thoughts rushing through his head on what made him happy, what brought his life purpose and meaning, something almost everybody thinks about.
(Krakauer, 135) This quote is about the author and his trek up the Stikine Ice Cap, like Chris he decided to adventure on his own, removing himself from society. This is why I feel the authors tone is understanding towards Chris’s story, since he can relate to him through his own experiences.
In chapters 14 and 15 of Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer becomes more than just an investigator or a narrator, he becomes a character. He tells his story of climbing the Devils Thumb, which exposes the similarities between himself and McCandless. This aids to his understanding of McCandless’s motivations, without ever meeting him, due to the parallels in their personalities and family issues. Chapter 14 is devoted to Krakauer’s story about his youthful love for mountain climbing. At age 23, he plans to do a dangerous climb on the Devil’s Thumb in Alaska alone. “
Chris seemed to become someone who was untrusting of others. I think this was caused by his parents. Chris never really saw eye to eye with his parents especially his father and after Chris learned of his father’s past double life his relationship with his parents had begun to deteriorate. A quote from his mother said “‘He seemed mad at us more often, and he became more withdrawn-no, that’s not the right word. Chris wasn’t ever withdrawn.
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”
(Krakauer 170). This includes words that make the reader sympathize with Chris, due to the situation he was in. After all, who does not fear isolation and death? Krakauer intertwines the ideas of Chris’ isolation to make the readers commiserate with him, as proven by both of the quotes.
It would honestly be a difficult task to tackle to totally change your life! Chris was just an independent man who was free to do whatever he desired. Franz was also floating in the same boat, he lived alone. Chris also did not have anything in his way of achieving his destination, and that is exactly what Chris took advantage of. He made it to the Alaskan Wilderness, even though his time there had a tragic ending he still made it.