Chapters 10-14

1) I feel that it is a bit unethical for the author to inject in the middle of someone else's story but I do feel that he had good intentions behind his actions. Usually it would be wrong to interrupt the flow of the story by adding your own story but I feel that the author was trying to help the audience understand McCandless thought process through adding his own story. It does seem a little insensitive to add your own story into the mix of a story about reflecting on the life that someone so young lived and then lost too young. 

2) I do think that Krakauer's interruption was helpful, even though it seemed insensitive, because it helps give the audience a better understanding of McCandless's thought process during his exploration in the wild. Since the story is written from an outside perspective and from the perspective of people who had met McCandless, the author could have wanted to try to provide a sense of the emotions that McCandless could have been feeling, since he had been through a similar experience while climbing the mountain in Alaska. The audience and the author have no way of knowing what McCandless was feeling or going through mentally since the story was not written by McCandless. The author was trying to use his experience as a way to help the audience better interpret what McCandless was going through the best he could and put himself in his shoes to try to further the understanding of the story.

3)I did find the element surprising when the author interjects into the story since it disrupts the flow but I feel that it was necessary. I feel like when the author interjects, it helps the audience remember that the story is not just fiction. The momentum does feel somewhat slowed down when the author adds his insight but it is needed to further the understanding of who McCandless is as a person and his decisions. 

I have mixed feelings about this section. It was a surprise to me when Krakauer started telling his own story. I think Krakauer has good intentions with adding his own story. It does add some context as to why he is writing about McCandless, however, it is a bit immoral. Completely interjecting the tragic saga of a young man dying on a fruitless journey across America to tell the reader about the one time you traveled to Alaska is a bit unnerving. It almost devalues the effect of McCandles's story by putting the "peanut gallery's" story in the center. 

No one quite knows what McCandles was going through at the time of his journey, but it was probably more important than the author's trip to Alaska. It does show that the author somewhat knows what he is talking about when he mentions Alaska in McCandles's story, but I still think interjecting it with one's own thoughts (especially after the protagonist dies) is not quite necessary. Especially when the reader needs more information about McCandless, not Jon Krakauer. I would not do this if it were a tribute to a dead man, but if it were not such a gravitational piece I would.

Although I believe that the author's input was interesting I'm not quite sure that his story really needed to be shared. I do understand why he included it, he'd had a story of his own where he had the same mindset as McCandles, but he didn't die when McCandles did. To me it almost seems a little insensitive, it would be different if the story was about a living person, but for the person to be deceased and the author to still focus on himself just feels wrong. 

That being said Krakuers story did help me understand McCandles view on life more like when he states "As I formulated my plan to climb the thumb, I was dimly aware I might be getting in over my head. But that only added to the schemes appeal. That it wouldn't be easy was the whole point. (135)". This quote made me think of my own life, his putting this perspective made it click that everyone has those thoughts, they want to do something "irrational" whether it's small or big. It made me think of McCandles as more of a person rather than just a story.

Another quote I thought was interesting was "The sour taste of panic rose in my throat. My eyesight blurred, I began to hyperventilate, and my calves started to shake. (143)." Any smart person would've chosen to give up and go home in the situation he was in yet he didn't. He went on to attempt the task two more times and completed it, but almost died during the task, but McCandless didn't have the luck of surviving. The author adding this part shows that he understands the longing McCandless had.  

The author also referred to himself while discussing a couple of other interviews. Although the author's opinion is interesting I personally think that his speaking takes away from the story itself. As I was reading I wanted to read about McCandless and his life, not about the author making poor decisions during early adulthood. In another story this writing style may have worked better, I just think this book wasn't the one to do it in. 

I don’t have a strong opinion about Krakauer inserting his experiences and his own personal “off the grid” story into the novel. I personally feel that if Krakauer was choosing to write a novel concerning Chris’s story, he can approach the organization of his novel any way he wants. Krakauer doesn’t seem to insert his own story in the novel to take away from McCandless or gain personal popularity. He seems to be using his story and his own personal feelings, thoughts, and understanding as a comparison to what McCandless was likely going through, which people can’t understand. It doesn’t seem he’s doing it out of selfish intent, and therefore I don’t see the issue, as it is his novel.

I feel like Krakauer's interruption was helpful for the minds of many readers who were very confused and curious to understand why Chris made the decision he made. Krakauer’s story was not identical to Chris McCandless’s, especially considering he survived. But the stories definitely shared their similarities, which in turn may have created similar mindsets and ways of thinking between the two. For example, Krakauer talked about how he was, “propelled by an imperative that was beyond my ability to control or comprehend.”(Krakauer, 136), and perhaps McCandless was compelled in the same way. We are told through Krakauer’s story that he was also underprepared for the risk he was taking. Krakauer explains how he paid a bush Pilot to bring him food further into his quest but he, “Had no radio nor any other means of communicating with the outside world.”(Krakauer 140) His concerns about surviving began to grow, and we can only assume that Chris dealt with the same struggles and feelings of ignorance. Krakauer’s story gives the reader another layer, that can help them see Chris’s adventure from other perspectives, other than that he was just an ignorant and selfish kid, who set out to do the impossible. 

This element of the novel did surprise me, but no I do not think it changes the momentum of the McCandless story. You see in many novels that authors travel and deviate from what’s directly at hand. Typically it's only a change that takes us to a different time in the same story. But Krakauer just shows us his unique way of relating McCandless's story, to a story where the narrator/survivor is here to tell.

I believe the way that Krakauer inserts his travel stories into the novel was unstrategic and out of place. I could understand if when writing this book he decided to continuously add tidbits about himself throughout the entire novel, but even that kind of seems odd since it is a book about a man's journey to death. I understand that he has the freedom to write however he wants and has the ability to compare his stories, but I wish Krakauer would’ve left that more for an author's note or had a different section in the book instead of switching narratives from his story to an author’s pov. The knowledge that Krakauer shares with us, about how during his own reckless travels he could highly relate to McCandless and having his own realization that it was only up to chance and luck that he made it out, compared to McCandless who did not survive similar conditions. Despite an odd way of interjecting his story, I think that the author telling his audience what he thinks and how he relates really works to either confirm a reader's opinion, or even possibly be a counterargument. 

Truthfully, I’m slightly appalled by Kraukauer’s choice to insert himself into the book. There’s a moral reason to it; because inserting yourself and your story of survival and triumph into a story about how a boy died of starvation out in the woods seems a little bit self obsessed. There’s also a literary reason I feel his inclusion of himself is beyond unnecessary: it adds nothing. No theme from this book is aided by the inclusion of the story about his hike up a mountain.

The point I understand the author was trying to make is that young people do irresponsible things because they’re naturally adventurous, courageous and naive. But, this was not one that needed to be spelled out, and also not that’s not really true. Sure, young people tend to be riskier, whether that comes to driving, sex, stunts, anything, but most of us really don’t go out into the wilderness after walking all through America with a fake name and die in a decrepit school bus. McCandlesses story is uniquely his own, and I think that’s what the story should be. The reason he touched so many hearts is because he wasn’t like the average teenager. He didn’t long for a college life, he didn’t long for romantic partners, or technology, he longed for a life bigger than himself and bigger than others. McCandeless is unique, and an alright student going out to climb a mountain for a few weeks is far from the grandiose story the book really should focus on. 

Lastly, no. I found this self insert boggling, but not surprising. Aspects of this book made self insert a great addition. In the end, when he inserts his story of taking McCandeless’s parents to the bus or him visiting there himself with friends, they felt like they meant something to Chris’s story. Chris is dead, obviously, but the story of his life continues on, the story of how his life and his tragedy impacted people keeps going, and it’s why these moments felt earned, why they felt needed. In the end, a story of a boy getting lost and dying is, sadly, all too common, but this book is meant to highlight the IMPACT of his death, not necessarily the circumstances in which he fell into it. That’s why the original article was so popular, not because it was a tragic story, but because people connected with some part of McCandless and his mission. 

It was a complete shock for me when reading the book and seeing Kraukers self insert. I even remember the times when he would consider himself before that too, being mildly confused, and thinking it was definitely weird. Like the question mentioned, and something I had considered too, Krauker had never met McCandless, never had any personal relations to him, the closest he got to McCandless was the interviews he did with the people who did know him. And because he didn’t have any sort of connection with McCandless, it makes his self insertion even more boggling. I think there are very few situations where this would be appropriate. Like of course an autobiography, or maybe a fiction novel where the fourth wall is broken. Or stories similar to that. 

While the insertion can be a bit off putting, it does help the readers a bit in certain ways. Since McCandless and Krauker are similar, at least according to the latter, we can assume that some of Kraukers thought process about his own adventures were similar to MCCandless ideas. So in a way we could consider Kraukers thought process, McCandless’ as well.

I found this element a bit surprising, but seeing as he sort of already did earlier in the novel, it wasn’t too surprising. Though personally I wasn’t too thrilled about this addition, it did add additional insight to help us connect more with McCandless’ perspective. In my opinion I thought it did slow the story down a bit. I found myself hoping that his personal dialogue wouldn't be too long. Though this brings a new aspect to the novel, I don't think it was absolutely necessary.