Into the Wild 10-14

I think it is ethical for an author to insert themselves into the story whenever they want to. Literature is an art, and the artist should be allowed to do with the art as he pleases. Although this isn't a story about him and it is written similarly to a biography, Jon Krauker added his perception and story relating to Chris I believe added depth and understanding as to why he wrote about him the way he did, perhaps leniently, or with his own wanderlust biases. 

I enjoyed reading Krauker's "interruption", for it added depth and something more than the same-old-same-old we have heard about Chris- although this book is his story.  This addition adds perspective to why Krauker wrote about Chris in a seemingly positive way, disregarding many of his faults, for they were also faults that he, the author, also characterized. He shares many similarities with McCandless "willful, self-absorbed, intermittently reckless, moody," (Krauker, 134) are all words he used to describe himself, and McCandless. He was a dreamer, with the same idea to "[climb] into [his] car and [depart] to Alaska," (Krauker, 136), just as McCandless also did. Krauker's narrative includes how more people acted like McCandless than just him, and ambition and strive can make you do seemingly crazy things, and perhaps view him more fairly while comparing him to Krauker. Putting myself in the author's shoes, this addition was necessary to supplement his views into why he was telling this story, and why it became important to him, for McCandless became his muse in something that was already important to him. Adventure.

I was pleasantly surprised by this expansion, for it combined a biography with a miniature one, adding depth and interest. I do not feel like this entry slows the momentum of McCandless's story, for it just expands on the ideas previously presented. His story fits in well with the story of Chris McCandless, and didn't take away from my perception of his character, gave a realization of the author's interest and passion for the subject. If I were writing similar material, I think pursuing my own narrative within the writing would add to it, just as Krauker did here.

Yes, Krakauer inserting himself in the narrative is okay in this stance, in that his relatability to McCandless and himself creates what others could feel as pulling into a pathos or logical idea to grab others attention.

What I mean by this is that in the first page of chapter fourteen, he tries to hypothesize what factors lead to McCandless’s death but infuses the life of McCandless and his own to gain common ground on the attraction of being nature- bound. For example Krakauer states that “As a youth, I [he] was willful, self absorbed, intermittently reckless, moody “(134) and even felt in his young adulthood that he let down his father for being so different, relatable with Walt and Chris’s angry feud between them. One could say this is just another piece of evidence which does not solve the enigma of the “supertramp”, however krakauer uses these small steps to forward himself into saying that his beliefs and relationships are even more connected, saying additionally that his soul searching was engulfed by literary works as relative like “Nietzsche” and “Kerouac” (135), yet then again speaks of yearning the  “absence of intimacy in life”(137). Therefore a pathos that McCandless as “super” as he can be perceived, can feel sort of motivated by when journeying. The intertwining of these two can go on to explain eachother for miles, as Krakuer has done such things like hitching on The Ocean Queen  and cars to be able to climb his desired devil's thumb, defining some tangible measures they took to get to an end goal.

All together, McCandless’s chasing of ethical living for danger and restless awe can be looked on as a collective by others that even Krakauer can be involved in because McCandless is again, alot less alienated when we think he is. For it makes sense for Krakauer to say what they have done in their early years to show his intention to write this book and Chris to become less stigmatized, making me not so surprised because his outside stories are as relevant as the other people he's written about. On another note, I though the story slowed it down but it was to find answers, and answers like these take time to explain. 

While I don't think that Krakauer's personal story is unethical, I think that it is out of place in the story as a whole. A lot of people and authors give their own opinions on certain stories, which isn't really unethical. Still, Krakauer had told the story as an author rather than a commenter up to this point in the book, so the transition to his personal account of his time in the wilderness is jarring. I think that if an author wants to interject themself into the story they are writing, they should make that apparent from the beginning so as to smooth the transitions, which Krakauer didn't really do.

I also think that Krakauer's interjection is not all that helpful or conducive to the story either. Other than being an interesting story/fun fact, Krakauer's experience at the Stikine ice cap provides the reader with no new information. It could be argued that by providing his own experience, Krakauer gives the readers a comparison to put McCandless's story into perspective. That may be true if it weren't for the fact that Krakauer already gave a completely adequate comparison in Chapter 9. In Chapter 9, Krakauer tells the story of Everett Ruess, who set out for a long journey in the wilderness and ended up dying near Davis Gulch. Ruess was described as being, "[k]ind of different. But him and McCandless, at least they tried to follow their dream," (Krakauer, 96). Ruess and McCandless had very similar stories told in a very similar way- they had no firsthand accounts (since both McCandless and Ruess died on their journies), but they are told through various interviews with relevant people. On the other hand, Krakauer's story goes far into detail with a firsthand account, even mentioning the, "pleasure [he'd] felt in [a] woman's company- the ring of her laughter, the innocent touch of a hand on my arm," (Krakauer, 137). This is a strange way to tell his story considering that at this point in the book, the reader barely knows anything about McCandless in Alaska (only leading up to it and after it), while Krakauer is describing a woman's touch. The comparison with Ruess was insightful, while Krakauer's story feels disjointed.

I definitely found Krakauer's interjection surprising because it had not been done before in the book, so the shift was odd and sudden. I think that it should have been omitted from the book, and if I were writing anything similar, that's what I would have done. Otherwise, that style of narration should be established from the beginning. I also wonder if it would have been useful for Krakauer to put his story at the end of the book in something akin to an author's note. His story is notable and interesting, it just doesn't add anything smack dab in the middle of the book, so an alternate way to tell the story might have been worth considering. 

I have no idea if it is ethical to insert yourself into a biography. At first glance, it should be unethical as it redirects the reader’s attention away from the person. At the same time, bias is inevitable. Bias will affect the story, so the author adding themselves or their story into the biography helps the reader understand the bias. The reader creates a more accurate assessment of the given information. I am a beginner, while Krakauer is not. He has at least one more book under his belt than I do, so it is odd to have someone like me critique someone like him. It is often said,” You must know the rules to break them”, however, I do not know the laws of literature. I assume Krakauer does know the rules or at least more than me, so I will trust his decision to add himself to the biography. 

Krakauer’s interruption was helpful as it revealed more about who he is and his motive for sharing McCandless’ story. I was curious about why he wrote McCandless’ story so his addition shifted my perspective. Krakauer starts by drawing similarities between the male figures in their lives and their love for nature, “I pursued it with a zeal, bordering on obsession, and from the age of seventeen until my late twenties that something was mountain climbing” (Krakauer 93) He demonstrates his interest in McCandless by giving us insight into his life. They were both interested in nature, specifically Alaska. He focuses on the similarities between their lives to illustrate his interest in McCandles’ life. Krakauer’s interruption added perspective to help the audience create a more nuanced understanding of McCandless. Additionally, he compares their ages as he contrasts the purpose of their Alaska trip,” I was twenty-three, a year younger than McCandless when walked into the Alaska bush.” (Krakauer 93) He did this to have the audience understand that he was in a similar situation as McCandless. To further this, they were almost the same age, which led us to consider that Krakauer had a better understanding of McCandless than others. His input creates more subjectivity as he puts his own story into the story of McCandless. The story could have moved on without his injection, as we could infer why Krakauer explained the thoughts the way he did. However, it was a nice addition as it led me further to a conclusion. Although I believe it was not a necessary addition, it was a pleasant one nonetheless.

I was not surprised that Krakauer added himself to the biography. At the beginning of “Into the Wild”, Krakauer states that he is biased. That comment roamed in my head as Krakauer told McCandless’ story. When reading, I found that statement to be true. From the beginning, it felt like Krakauer had a story related to McCandless’, so it was not surprising when he completely shifted focus to talk about himself. This addition slowed the story as it could have been shorter. However, it was a pleasant addition as it revealed the author’s story and his motive for sharing McCandless’ story. If I was in Krakauer’s shoes, I would have done the same, ethical or not. It feels only necessary to include what attracted you to this person’s life. 

 I'm not entirely sure if it was ethical for Krakauer to insert himself into the story but I could say that if it was me I wouldn't have done that. I guess I feel that if he was going to insert himself that it shouldn't have taken up so much room in the book, to me that really felt like a shift and I was now reading a book on Krakauer.

For me his interruption isn't helpful, I would say this is because I don't have a positive view on the decision in general and him telling his experience doesn't really change my point of view. I also don't really care about the author, as harsh as it sounds, most people don't read a book to hear about the author unless the book it about that specific author.

I would say that I was a bit surprised by Krakauer's section of the book, and I don't feel he should have done it the way he did. I wouldn't have done that if I was the author, to me it almost feels insensitive to the family member of McCandless. 

I don't necessarily find Krakauer inserting himself to be ethical. It was unnecessary. The story is about McCandles, a person that Krakauer doesn't know. Therefore it being inappropriate. Sometimes, it is OK for an author to interrupt, but that's if the story directly aligns with themselves. That's not the case for this book, it is about McCandles extravagant adventure, leaving his home and going into the Alaskan woods with nothing. Krakauer can't relate to that part. 

“And then I climbed into my car and departed for Alaska. I was surprised, as always, by how easy the act of leaving was, and how good it felt. The world was suddenly rich with possibility.”(136) This quote is from Krakauer’s point of view when he went on his adventure to alaska. But this story isn’t about him or how he felt when he left. It does offer a sense of what McCandles might have been feeling but this is strictly what Krakauer was feeling at the time. If I were him, I wouldn’t have added parts about myself in the middle of the book. I’d do it at the end, just a brief explanation on how they are “similar”. “And my emotions were similarly amplified: The highs were higher; the periods of despair were deeper and darker. To a self-possessed young man inebriated with the unfolding drama of his own life, all of this held enormous appeal.”(138) Again, this shows what Krakauer was feeling but the story isn’t about him. The story isn’t about how him and McCandles are similar either. It doesn’t really give a sense of McCandles actions because the way his adventure ended was much different than Krakauers. 

The way Krakauer paused McCandles to talk about himself definitely slowed the story down. We stopped hearing about McCandles and his journey. If I was the author in the book, I wouldn’t do that, I wouldn’t take away from McCandles story.

I don't think that Krakauer inserting himself was necessary, I think it was pretty inappropriate to kinda take away the attention from the story to the author, if he wanted to write about him self he should have done that from the start.  The book is about McCandles life story and how it unfortunately ended doing what he loved which was traveling. 

I was twenty-three, a year younger than McCandless when walked into the Alaska bush.” (Krakauer 93) Krakauer used this in the book to show that he is a relating to McCandless and show and that he "understands" What McCandless went through when it wasn't at all the same degree. 

I think the way that Krakeauer takes time out of McCandless story and pauses everything to talk about himself which is ignorant and egotistical and I think that shows what kind of person Krakauer.

It wasn't ethical for Krauker to insert himself into McCandless's story, especially being 130 pages in. It's not Kraukers story so inserting himself almost feels disrespectful to McCandless, I found it interesting he chose to compare his Alaskan adventure to McCandless's when he died in the end, and in a way, Krauker is like "lol I survived". 

I don't find his interruption helpful in the story of McCandless I found it more as an excuse for Krauker to talk about himself and even give a reason why he's writing about McCandless. Krauker never even met him. 

Krauker inserting himself in the interviews by using "I" slows McCandless's story because it's taking away from his story, because Krauker keeps inserting himself. If I wrought this story I wouldn't do this I feel it was disrespectful of Krauker to do this so I never would. This is a real mans story that Krauker keeps trying to make about him in different ways.