Chapters 15 - Epilogue

As a reader of the story, I think Krakauer is trying to bring more awareness to stories like McCandless. Clearly, this type of thing happens more than we think, McCandless was just one of the unlucky people who didn't survive the mistake they made. I think he succeeds in telling about McCandless's life, and about what led him to his sad demise. A big part that made the story stick with me was the way we knew the ending at the beginning of the book, with his doing this it made me want to read a lot more. His adding his own experience shows that this kind of thing happens to a lot more people than we know, and it doesn't always end in death. Although I believe people should be more "one with nature" I believe sometimes people take it too far. I think Krakauer adding in his own story and going to visit the site McCandless died helps with the work and its goal. The fact that he can relate to McCandless's mindset and can actually go to where he died shows it's not just a story, it was a life lost. Going into adulthood is a fun time, the freedom is amazing but sometimes people's lack of experience/knowledge is their downfall like it was McCandless. He had the right thing in mind but went about it in the wrong way, he should've brought more equipment and prepared himself way more. 

I believe as a reader that Krakauer's goal through writing the book was to bring awareness and more depth into McCandless stories in order to help others understand that his story was more than just being a drastic young man without any intelligence or goals. I think that Krakauer wrote his book about McCandless as a way to help others understand his actions and to think deeper about his life than just believing he was reckless. I do feel that Krakauer was successful in his goal of trying to advocate for McCandless story because he brought deeper insight and perspective into the actions he took and the emotions that McCandless could have been facing. The author helps the audience take the time to understand that McCandless was a real person with feelings and had people in his life that cared about him. He made sure that McCandless was known for more than just being a reckless young man who died in Alaska. I also do think that Krakauers lack of distances helps his work because it allows the audience to make their own personal beliefs and opinions about McCandless actions instead of being influence by what the author believes. I also think that the few times that Krakauer interjects helps the audience have a better understanding of how McCandless could have been dealing with emotionally through his journey since the author went through a similar experience.

As a reader of "Into The Wild," my analysis is that Krakauer is trying to create a clearer understanding of Christopher McCandless’s story. He is successful in doing so because he approaches understanding Chris McCandless's story from many different angles. He doesn’t interpret Chris’s decision through just the lens of a news article. From reading this novel, we understand that Krakauer divulged into the story, trying to understand the many aspects and thoughts that went into the making of his decision. And that’s how he writes his novel, so we too can see McCandless’s story through more than one lens. By interviewing the people that were part of Chris’s story and who were in his life during the lead-up to going away, we get to see how Chris was developing. By relating other major known stories of people venturing “into the wild,” we understand that Chris wasn’t the only idiot that desired to find answers from living off land. By inserting his own Alaska campaign, which included his relatable backstory of what drove him to do so, we can understand more about Chris’s mind. The organization of Krakaurers novel allows us as readers to create a more educated opinion on the kind of kid Chris McCandless truly was.

As the reader of this novel, I have come to the conclusion that Krakauer, in my opinion, was really aiming to create a debate and almost lift the blame off of McCandless. Throughout the entire book, Krakauer uses his writing to make the audience really think about this case and how not everything is black and white. He even interjects his own story to prove that there are other sides to this story. Yes, maybe McCandless was reckless, but was he knowingly making the wrong decisions? Bringing up this debate really makes you think differently about any case. Since McCandless is deceased, we really can’t know for sure what happened and if it was just bad luck, but the way that Krakauer writes about him, we can at least have insight into his intentions. Sharing that even though he was reckless, his heart was in it, and he didn’t deserve to die. 

I think Krakauer is trying to bring awareness to traveling in the wilderness, hoping that people see this story and don’t follow suit. I think he succeeds because after reading this I will never travel in the wilderness in my lifetime. I think that in this case, adding his own story to the book is effective, however, I wish he would’ve done it in a different way. It lets the reader know that even though McCandless’ story ends in death, not every one does. I think the organization was not executed as well as it could have been. As I have said in previous posts, I feel it is intrusive to McCandless’ story. I will say Krakauer does a good job of creating nuance within his work, He makes the reader not want to travel, then tells a similar story with a more optimistic ending. This makes the reader realize that McCandless was likely more unprepared for his journey than Krakauer was, which is what led to his death. Not just by nature. It did not have quite that effect on me because of the pacing. If Krakauer put his story at the end, it would have made it a lot better because it leaves the reader with more to think about than just death. I believe Krakauer had the right idea but needs to work on his execution of the said idea. 

I think that the author was attempting to relate McCandless’s story to the natural call for adventure most have when they’re young. For many teens and young adults, risky behaviors and dangerous thrills are what fuel a sense of adventure and what, you hope, eventually break the unwavering confidence and feeling of invincibility young people have. I think the author’s purpose was to paint a picture of McCandless where he’s looked at as less of a completely strange person, but more as an exaggeration of the part of everyone that longs for adventure. I think, in the end,the author was unsuccessful. 

By including his own story into the text, the author doesn’t validate McCandless’s, instead, he further proves to isolate the audience from any sense of personal connection to Chris’s journey. Chris’s journey, when told like it is in the book (this epic conquest and saga), is a sympathetic enough narrative. Like McCandless did with the many authors he’s highlighted passages of, the reader feels connected to stories of grandiose perspectives and experiences, and his story felt like it was very much those things. By the author adding an attempt at a relatable story, it only takes away from the fact that McCandless was a completely unique person. His experiences were unique and that’s why people felt so connected to him. Trying to justify his experiences and perspectives doesn’t make sense when they were so completely different from society. Wanting to climb a mountain and almost failing are a, almost, normal experience for many people; it’s easily justified. McCandless’s entire journey around the country and his perspective on life and eventual death are not. That’s what makes him special. That’s why his impact is so strong and why a book is being written on him. 

Honestly, I think including the specifications of the authors that Chris read was a great thing to put in because he put his perspective into the perspective of the reader. Like him, we are reading a grandiose story of adventure and differing perspectives, the only difference is that his has a tragic ending. 

Posted by: jkronstrand23

↑

Since McCandless is deceased, we really can’t know for sure what happened and if it was just bad luck, but the way that Krakauer writes about him, we can at least have insight into his intentions.

I like that you included this because I think it's interesting to consider the perspective of the author vs. McCandless when it comes to what they would have chose to do after their adventure. For the author, he chose to finish his journey and quit doing things that dangerous, for McCandless, it's impossible to know if he would have continued to do dangerous things if he had survived. Do you think McCandless would have quit his adventuring or would he have continued to raise and stakes more and more?

I believe Krakauker was trying to bring more awareness, or more of an insight on “cases” like McCandless’. I think he succeeds in this task, I mean, if you've read the book then I’d assume you’d be more aware. He interviews many people, on their perspective on McCandless and how they were all saddened by the news, showing just how big an impact someones death can be on so many people, even ones that hadn’t known McCandless long. I think he tries to emphasize what kind of person McCandless was, what drove him. I think he’s trying to shift the view that most people who die in the wilderness were not well prepared, or “stupid.” Krakauer's own personal stories helped me view McCandless’ story in a different light, I think (though it was a bit weird) Krakauker inserting his own story help his goal. Though to me it felt like Krakauker sometimes talked as if he knew McCandless personally, that off put me a little. But overall i’d say Krakauker did a good job trying to make the point I assume he wanted to.