Into the Wild Chapters 15-Epilogue

As a reader, I believe that Jon Krakauer is telling Christopher McCandless's story because he didn't live to tell it. I believe that Krakauer sees the importance and gravity of McCandless' decisions throughout his journey, and having had his own experience in Alaska, he feels the need to share McCandless's story, for Krakaur does not believe that he "had a death wish" (155). 

Krakauer does succeed in telling Chris' story, though perhaps impartial or biased, he shows him in a positive light, as ambitious, relentless, not suicidal. I think it says a lot about Krakauers character, writing him in pleasing manner, seems how he did not make it through his excursion, and the dead shouldn't be talked ill of, though that is my own opinion. Krakauer is telling McCandless' story, along with his own, because his story deserves to be heard, for others to learn from.

Although Krakauer is an outsider, not ever knowing McCandless, meeting him, or even having a simple conversation. He doesn't know the real way he thought or felt, only partial to the things his friends and helping hands give him. Perhaps McCandless didn't want other people to know his story, we won't ever know. 

The Impetus to writing a story is the fact you have an attraction to the subject matter your writing, which in the case of Krakauer, he wrote it because there was some spark of curiosity and maybe wisdom to learn from a person like Chris. Although, in my opinion I feel like I was brought into this story without a main theme, yet then again if I get there is a theme, I think it's that Chris was dealt bad hands, and not to be cliche but the good do die young. But in the end if were being honest I got the feeling like he was an old friend I knew myself and I heard fully of who he was simply, there is really no need for a philosophical message and sometimes saying that Chris was a kind and adventurous man is just enough. If you think about it, Chris did not come to prove a message to the world or become famous for being a hitchhiking mystery (and yet some do flaunt on being the king on the road, for example the beatnik Jack Kerouac), for he was really looking to create a space for himself and to function in life, and us readers riding along with this book is just cool to watch. 

Nonetheless, do I think he made his message well, somewhat, I find him too noncommittal to make a huge statement, he's a bystander and like one of those documenting suspects to a greater cause. For example  (it may seem outlandish) but like a disciple writing about Jesus or a saint in some way, I get a notion that it's like that (even if McCandless was told to be trouble, but Aren't we all). Yet again If he was going to put a better message, you'd think he'd make it a repeating motif we could all see instead of putting some historical example and wavering sides, while in addition to help his message paraphrasing for his own sake like any other argumentive writer, though he's not that author. Really, its just strange to put a finger on Chris, but it's backup for krakuer in that fact that we at least know his personality to some extent. Which from enough accounts of truck drivers, Bert and Jan, Franz, Westerburg and Carine, told all together that he had some social difficulties, issues of authority and was congenial is his sporadic or "Alexander Supertramp" kinda way. 

 And since my opinion on Chris is so soft and not so "he's really trouble from the start and shoud've got a good talking to, doing all these camping trips and whatnot like a homeless bum", I think I'm used to this, for my Grandfather (whom i've written about before), is just as artistically unique as the rest of the geniuses, because he had hitchhiked all across Canada in the 70's with a guitar, read tons of environmentally or hippie progressive books and continues to be out of the ordinary at the age of 75. So I say with the freewheeling, folkie type of characters, to know one is really to love one cause they bring such memorable (but maybe hectic) stories, the kind you get a good laugh about after a while. 

Well since he's dead, it's the friends along the way that counts, cause the author failed to say for himself. 

I wonder what Chris would do if he was alive, write some good books? become a teacher? a political activist for a movement? 

Would there be less people written about if there was an objective interest? Like no starting desire and writing just to write?

I believe that Krakauer's goal in Into The Wild was to tell McCandless's story in a way that lets the reader speculate and draw their own conclusions. This intention would allow Krakauer to tell the story in an engaging way because while the "ending" of McCandless's journey is known from the beginning, Krakauer guides the reader in figuring out why McCandless made his journey and what ultimately killed him. In this sense, the book has the same engaging content and room for speculation like a mystery book would, despite being a true and upfront story.

As a reader, this sense of mystery and the unknown made the story more addicting. Of course, I knew that McCandless died from the first few pages of the book, but Krakauer still left me wondering in many ways from McCandless's odd habits to what actually killed him. For instance, as Krakauer discussed the possibility of the potato seeds having a toxic effect on McCandless, I was drawing my own conclusions, like trying to solve a mystery. 

I think that Krakauer mostly succeeded in keeping the reader engaged through suspense. There are some parts in the story, especially towards the middle, where it feels like the point of the story gets a bit lost, but ultimately the book always keeps the reader wondering. The structure definitely aids in accomplishing this, and it's clear that Krakauer was very intentional with the structuring of Into the Wild. I think that revealing McCandless's death from the beginning was essential to the story. If McCandless's death had been a big plot twist at the end, it might have felt cheap because it is predictable and is also public information because this is a true story, which would take away much of the suspense of his death. Instead, the suspense comes from wondering how McCandless got to that point. Establishing his death from Chapter 1 allows more room for speculation and creates a full circle moment at the end.

Ultimately, I think that Krakauer's lack of distance aids him in this (hypothetical) goal. If Krakauer left all of the interpretation up to the reader, the story may have felt disconnected and made the reader more confused than anything. Instead, Krakauer's personal thoughts and theories give the reader some direction and something to go off of instead of being completely lost and overwhelmed with so many possibilities. It makes me wonder though if Krakauer's story about his own journey was necessary at all. Does it take away from the mystery that makes the book entertaining or does it provide the reader with the insight they need to draw their own conclusions?

I believe that Krakauer is telling McCandless story because of the way he admires him, and I also believe that he understands what the journey meant to McCandless. I think that him being able to relate to McCandless in many ways drove him to tell his story more.

I'm not entirely sure if he succeeded in telling this story but what I do know is that it seems he's portrayed McCandless as this adventurous and daring individual instead of someone who's struggling and trying to find a way out. I think he should have shed more light on way he was choosing to do this and talked to his family more to really understand his mindset and his struggles.

In my opinion Krakauer lacked real information, for the most he went off his own personal experience and what people around said, he didn't know McCandless so there's no real way to know what he was feeling or thinking. Of course, Krakauer's own experience is beneficial, without it the reader wouldn't know what to think, at least this way there's something to go off of, but it would have almost been nice to hear about Mccandless story from someone who he had a close relationship with.

I think that krakauer the author is so detailed in telling McCandless stories because he is a slight jealous of the crazy experiences but more or less admires him. He understands why McCandless did what he did and can see wheres he's coming from. His little blurp of himself shows that he try's to relate to Mccandless and kinda compare story's it seems like. 

One thing I did like that Krakauer did in the story is that he shed some light into McCandless as well even though he seems kinda dreary and lonely he did show that he was a traveler and had a high spirits. 

I think that krakauer did his best that he could with his own Knowledge as he has never actually met McCandless just is aware and has got told the stories about him. I think It would have been kinda cool if he had someone with him on this little adventure, maybe not all the way on it but definitely along for the ride so we could hear about him from a person with a closer relationship to him. 

I agree that Krauker may have used his story addition to relate to McCandless, though there is also a possibility that Krakauer may be comparing his own smaller experiences to McCandless's much larger journey. Krakauer may be jealous of the extent of Chris's journey, perhaps wishing something so extravagant for himself. I understand that McCandless should have brought someone else for part of his journey, for the reason of having someone with a closer relationship with him. However, he left behind basically everything, and close relationships was part of that, leaving behind his friends and family; including the ones he met along the way.

This makes me think about what might have happened if McCandless HAD brought someone else, or perhaps the dog Buckley, like he had wanted. Perhaps he wouldn't have taken as many risks, but likely would've brought the others into similar peril to his own. This makes me wonder what the person might say about him, especially if they were there for the majority of the journey. Would spending every hour with a person change that relationship/feelings about them? 

Family roadtrips are a prime example of how people might turn against one another when stuck with each other for hours on end. The brother is kicking your seat, the sister's singing too loud, dad is trying not to crash the car, and mom is trying not to pull her hair out, and all of that only in the first few hours. I think similar things would've happened if McCandless brought someone along, they would bring out the darker sides of one another. Chris was said to be moody and irritable, so angry outbursts might not be out of the question. How might he behave with another person around 24/7 while he's trying to get to Alaska?

What do you think a person with that closer relationship might have to say about McCandless?  

I believe Krauker is trying to tell McCandless’ story because McCandless did not survive his travels. After reading Krauker’s self-insert, he understood why McCandless needed to travel to find himself. This led to a desire to tell McCandless’ story which started as an article in a magazine to a whole book. Krauker wanted to illustrate McCandless accurately and to do McCandless' story justice. Krauker was scared someone would not understand McCandless the way he did so that led to why he created his book after the magazine article.

He does succeed in what he is attempting to do. He favorably illustrates McCandless and he helps us build a deeper understanding of McCandless. This understanding helps us understand why McCandless needed to leave everything behind. The non-chronological order allows Krakauer to explore Chris McCandless' character by connecting different events from different periods of his life. This structure highlights McCandless's consistency as he stays the same throughout the story.  

Krakauer's lack of distance helps us understand his motivation of why he wanted to write McCandless’ story the way he did. I appreciate that he did not start with himself and let the audience get to know McCandless while the underlying question of why Krauker was so forgiving of McCandless’s wrongdoings. However, I do not think anyone was expecting him to tell his narrative for as long as he did. I believe his closeness and understanding of McCandless helped do McCandless’ story justice as he had an understanding. In comparison, if it was someone completely distracted I would be as well. Reading the story, I could feel the passion he felt for writing this story and paying respect to McCandless.

I think Krakauer is just a man who's very passionate about the outdoors, wilderness, and adventure, and he used this as an outlet to share the story of someone who was passionate about the same thing he was. He knew he was experienced in this topic so he wanted to be the one to share the story.

I think he did succeed in doing this because not only do more people know about McCandlesses story, but people know an informed and relatable version of the story. I think Krakauer succeeded because his version of the story gave readers a more open view of McCandless, which is what I think is all Krakauer wanted.

I think his lack of distance helped because it informed readers of things we wouldn't had known had he not. Some may see it as biased but I think he was just very informed.

I agree on all of your points that what Krakauer was trying to do was let his inspirations out as well as writing information about McCandless too, and the best thing about the book is that while Krakauer went out and wrote a book that was going to be very discussion oriented, he merely decided to make it open ended so more questions arise and even let the author himself draw more conclusions. Sometimes being biased can be looked at as not concealing the truth, but he wrote so much and put so many themes that there's multiple truths. 

If he actually visited Chris McCandless, what would've happened from all the information we have?