Chapters 15 - Epilogue

Krakauer was fully committed to telling McCadless's story and I believe you are totally right with how Krakauer related to his story and tried to incorporate it into one of his own experiences.  Krakauers role in this story is so tricky to figure out if it actually fits well in it or not. I do think you are correct with how the story feels disorganized, self absorbed and harder to understand. All of the way up to when Krakauer put himself into the story the book was going smoothly and he totally gave us a curve-ball. I like how he gave us a different perspective with McCandless's story and made it feel like he wasn't the person who we all thought he was. The execution though was where it fell off for me, The flow of the whole book was off in my opinion and could have made more sense if it was put in a different order. 

I agree with your perspective, failing to kill two birds with one stone, I wrote about the same. He definitely tried forcing his take on the topic too harshly, which leads us to feel as you said disorganized, as well as lost with all the ramble about his own travels. One could ask, is it possible to add Krakauer's own adventures without throwing the flow of the book off?

I completely agree with you. The idea of him making a comparison is not necessarily bad but to dedicate such a long period of time to himself is insane. Completely disrupting the organization of the story and making it overall harder to understand. A point that I like to bring up is what his family would feel. Imagine what it feels like to hear a story of McCandless as his family and two chapters are dedicated to the author.

I agree that this story was very disorganized. As soon as Krakauer started talking about someone other than Chris, the story he had been telling went to shambles. I don't think it was a total loss though, the story was definitely still good, but like you said, it made understanding the story harder to understand as a reader.

You make a great point, adding how you feel about all the stories being important. I think that the story is disorganized and hard to understand with the multiple other side stories. Your claim though shows that this style pf story writing can be good and bad for the reader, because we both have different views. I like how you mention how passionate Krakauer is, because it shows how much he does try and tell McCandeless´ story. Great response!

I completely agree with you. I did enjoy how he talked about the death of McCandless in the beginning and then being able to pick away at the story to figure out what really happened. It was really interesting to hear about the background of McCandless, while also uncovering what happened to him. I think, personally, that even though it was good to hear about the different people McCandless came across on his journey and hearing Krakauer's input, I think that the two chapters Krakuer spent on his adventures was too much and all of the people he interviewed became confusing to keep track of. But all of the interviews did contribute to "Into the Wild" in a positive way. 

Your forum is very well addressed. I do too believe that it went way above the biographical account however which leaves me with the question how would the novel differ if Krakauer didn't add in his anecdotes and he knew Mccandles personally. How would this change the overall theme of the story? Personally I think that the stories added within novels can be helpful at times however an excessive amount takes over the story and at times like in "Into The Wild". 

Into the Wild definitely capitalizes on ideals of materialism and disconnection from society. We see that again and again with McCandless's withdrawal from the modern world, opting for recluse within the wilderness. In that sense, Krakauer did succeed in his goal. But the story also acted as a cautionary tale, not necessarily of the dangers in the wild. Rather, it hints at how even the most prepared individuals may come across unexpected obstacles. McCandless may have embarked on his journey as a neophyte to the Alaskan terrain, and he definitely underestimated how brutal spring and early summer were in Alaska. But McCandless wasn't completely unprepared, since he also had books on edible plants that kept him alive (until it didn't).

I also wish Krakauer kept more of a distance. Although I don't believe this anyway, to be convinced properly about how McCandless was not an irresponsible and selfish individual, I would have preferred to have a more objective opinion about Christopher, rather than someone else explaining how irresponsible they also were to go out into Alaska and nearly die. preferred the accounts of the other recluses over Krakauer's. 

I agree with that. Materialism is an underlying message throughout the whole book. He doesn't want to be in the real world, he leaves his items behind. The car that he loved, he left behind was a smbol the materislm was being left behind. 

I definitely agree with your line of reasoning when it comes to Krakauer's lack of distance to the narrative of the story. I wouldn't say I've read many biographies, but the ones I've read rarely had the author's anecdote woven into the plot of the story. Krakauer utilized his anecdotes as comparisons, as you mentioned, just like he did with many of the other stories he introduced. Stretching his narrative across two chapters was a little too much, especially when I was more interested in the main plot. But without Krakauer's anecdotes, I wouldn't have gotten a first-person glimpse of how hard survival was in Alaska. In that sense, his lack of distance helped make that aspect of the story more pronounced.

I agree. He wasn't making it about him since he was on topic. If he started going on a tangent about something random, it would be a little more weird. And I love how you said if he made his stories shorter, they would be a lot more well-liked by people. 

Kbenoit24, I do agree with you that Krakauer was using his personal anecdotes to help the reader have a better understanding of Mccandles actions. But do you think it was necessary for that many interruptions if the story itself revealed why he acted the way he did. And this is where I wonder how differently the reader would think about the novel without the authors anecdotes, would they understand it more or less? And lastly reading the last part of your forum, why do you think the length of Krakauer's anecdotes should be less, do you think that will accomplish more?

I couldn't have said it better. The way that Krakeur shifted the story onto himself is a little out of nowhere and unnecessary. 

While I don't agree that he can be found as arrogant and disrespectful, can definitely see where that opinion comes from. What Krakauer did threw off the organization and flow of the story, but like you said, he definitely succeeded in what he was trying to do. After all, Krakauer was very similar to Chris in is 20's

The flow of the book also was my biggest flaw of this book. It made it hard to follow at times, the story felt more of a news article when there was great detail about the stories that Krakauer decided to tell us. I do believe McCandless's story is a great one and should be out there and known. There is alot of false information about everything and Krakauer did a great job explaining all parts of this story with it feeling like he had something to prove throughout the whole book. I love the tension of the story after reading Krakauers own story and it falling into the final days of Chris's life. The ending of the story was definitely my favorite part of the book and felt like whatever at the time Krakauer was trying to convey he did it fully. 

I would say I am on the same page as you. My opinion has changed throughout the book as well, I had honestly thought that Krakauer putting his own story into the book was disorganized and honestly just unnecessary. I still think that is true but my perspective has changed because Krakauer was only trying to bring his own life into the story because he felt he could relate to Chris. Initially, it felt like he was trying to one-up Chris and not relate. 

"Two-chapter moment of glory" made me cackle. You're still holding a grudge against him.

If I had read about McCandless' situation in a newspaper or an online article, I would probably be one of the folks who thought he was an idiot for going up to Alaska with barely any supplies. That's generally the case with news articles, though, as they sum up a situation, rather than going in-depth with the context. In Into the Wild, we get the full context of the story—the familial conflicts that led McCandless to discard his old life. Krakauer's "fresh perspective" also made me empathize with McCandless, even if he is a tad crazy. In this sense, Krakauer had succeeded in achieving his goal.

I actually found Krakauer concealing McCandless' cause of death to be just the right amount of suspense. We knew McCandless was dead from the beginning from the author's somber tone. But the full reasoning behind that was a shrouded mystery until the end. Even when it was uncovered that McCandless had died from a poisonous plant, there were still layers of truth Krakauer peeled back to reveal the genuine and specific cause. In some ways, it frustrated me because I also wished he would come out forthright, but it added a sense of suspense to the end.

I do agree that Krakauer put too much of his personal narrative and stirred away from McCandeless' story. I also agree that at times it felt like because of the way hes telling the story, the reality feels less and feels like fiction. You did a great job and i agree with your point of view on this story!

Even though the story of Chris is a great one, at time it seems the story was extended and takes way too long to fully develop. Krakauers prolonged story was where i lost interest in the story and was very dragged out. In my opinion McCandless's death should have been more hidden and not just out there the whole story. If McCandless's death was such a mystery it should have felt more like one. The final two chapter was dragged out but not in a bad way, I liked the whole time frame of his death and the story of all of his journal entries. It really brought out how he was going to survive this trip to Alaska if it was not because of the unknown seed. 

Honestly, I couldn't have said it better. The explanation of how Krakauer would often take his life, and personal opinions into the book definitely over explains and drags things out making it very long and kind of annoying to read the book. It was a longer story than it needed to be often finding myself fast forward in the book until Krakauer was finished talking about himself.

I completely agree that Krakauer does his best job to express McCandeless´ journey. bringing up his personal life in my opinion was selfish and caused disorganization. He definitely did this because he thought it would help bring the story to life. You make multiple great points, and agree with most of this! Do you think that Krakauer was selfish while writing this piece though at any points?

I like and agree with your idea of Krakauer putting his story alongside McCandless's instead of interjecting. That would have been much less sudden and I would have probably enjoyed the parallels. In some ways, I agree that Krakauer's story is important because it shows that he has this personal connection and experience, and it makes him more knowledgeable. In another way, his execution hurt the story and I would have preferred to see your idea carried out. 

Yes, he did both hurt himself and help himself, that's so true. I love how you understand both sides of the topic of Krauker inserting himself in the middle of the book.

I like when you said "Krakauer waiting to long to throw his story into the book". I never really considered that, and now I'm wondering where would it have made sense? In the beginning, possibly the end?

I think along the same lines as you, in terms of it becoming unorganized and difficult to read after the lengthy interruption. That conclusion is what I came to as well, Krakauer must have really believed his story related to McCandless's. However these are only our assumptions, it leaves the question to be asked, was there any other motives for his long interruption?

I 100% agree. It can be nice to have an author insert their own anecdotes to relate to their subject. But taking up two chapters in the novel (out of 19), was too much. His story didn't fully relate to McCandless either. If Krakauer had just inserted a small story in one of the chapters, it would have been more interesting to read about. Since he interjected, it lost the flow of the novel since it was just starting to share information about McCandless' life and what might have led him to travel alone in Alaska. 

Nstraw24, I do believe Krakauer is trying to portray who Mccandles is and what got him to his death. What caught my eye and gave a perspective change, in your forum is how you are thinking as if he didn't die and how if that were the case then the readers would want to know more of why he went out in the wilderness not how he died. Aside from Mccandles death, how do you think the novel would have ended if he didn't die, what theme would be conveyed? I also agree with you that Krakauer's anecdotes weren't that significant because he didn't know Mccandles personally, how do you think the novel would be different if he did know Chris personally?

I agree, and your argument was well written. I like how you go on to mention how McCandless doesn't like materialistic things. I havent heard that term much, and think it backs up your argument a lot. I also agree with your statements about Krakauers ancedotes. great piece!