Chapter 14 and 15 are devoted to Krakauer's own experience on the Stikine Ice Cap. What purpose does this extended story about Krakauer's adventure in Into the Wild?
I was unaware that the author was also going to play the part of a narrator in the book until I read the Authors Note. At first I was hesitant, thinking that his comments would not be necessary and that the reader would be able to make their own judgment on Chris' journey without being swayed or given a biased story. However, after reading Chapter 15 I believe that Krauker's own experience just gives you another view, a different way of looking at Chris' story from anything you would expect. It gives you a view that could exactly what Chris’ was thinking. We heard all the letters from the people who live in Alaska, calling him a nut. But by reading Krauker's story, we almost get what could have been going through Chris' mind at the time. Besides the journal entries and the pictures, there is no real way of determining what Chris was thinking when he went into the wild, and I believe by reading Krauker’s story and comparing how they grew up with their pushy fathers, we can sort of relate the two stories and determine that he actually may not have been not suicidal or a nutcase; he could have just been passionate about fuffilling his dreams
I think that the purpose of Krakauer’s “Devil’s Thumb” anecdote in the story “Into the Wild” was to be the own author’s attempt to reflect on some of Chris McCandless motives and on his ultimately end. Krakauer was trying to draw a parallel between Chris’ odyssey into Alaska and his own. He touches on both the similarities and differences there were between Chris and himself. They both were young (in their 20’s-late 20’s when they attempted their odysseys), they both had a complicated, hostile relationship with their respective fathers (and both rebelled against them one way or another), both of them had a fascination with nature. Also, Krakauer’s anecdote gives us a more 1st person account of a young man’s suffering the harshships dealt by nature when attempting to go into it. when we read what Krakauer when through in terms of his fear, his doubts, the struggle he deals in terms of food and shelter, his sense of loneliness and need of human contact we are getting a parallel view of the things Chris McCandless must have gone through in his journey, even if the specific details were different. It also gives us a more personalized idea of what could Nature have that would drive two young men to endure such harshness just they could be closer to nature, and why that mattered to both of them. Ultimately it leaves us with the differences between them: how Krakauer survived and Chris did not. It also puts some light on the assumption of Chris “being suicidal”, and puts it on the negative. By putting this anecdote to parallel Chris’ Krakauer is trying to show that sense of adventure and recklessness is on any guy, something common that could happen in many circumstances, and is not something related to being suicidal. The dangerous part comes from Nature, and the underestimation of some aspects of nature, because of being blinded by its majestic side. to the way Krakauer explores the “I survived, Chris didn’t” element, through the use of his anecdote, shows that it wasn’t solely based level of skill, knowledge or common sense, the survival instincts or gear, it was just a spin of fate.
Krakauer begins chapter 14 by saying how people were skeptical that Chris’s journey into the Alaska wilderness was a suicide, and how he believes otherwise. I agree with Krakauer. I feel that Chris never intended to end his adventure here, but at the same time he was aware of the unpredictability of nature in that anything can happen at any time. I think that Chris walked into the wild craving an experience of ultimate meaning/truth, that he was willing to put his life at risk to find it. I think he wanted to come back a fuller person and a completely changed man but knew it was at the risk of his death at which point he would become united with what he was so fascinated with, nature. The first time I read “Into the Wild” I loved the book, yet I never finished reading the entire story. I had read up to the part where Krakauer goes on a tangent of his personal experience in nature, but then lost my intense interest in finding out what happened next. After reading this story a second time, I still feel it is the weakest part of the book, yet I can more readily appreciate it. I think Krakauer spoke of his experience in order to benefit the readers and himself. He shows the parallel between his life and Chris’s, his relationship with his father, his demeanor of never wanting to admit he is wrong, his love of adventure and pushing himself. He also demonstrates, that no matter how other people try to shape your life, a person who focuses and never loses sight of their passions is someone to be noted, and will often do great things, as he displays in his quests which opposed what his father had hoped for him. In the chapters about the Stikine Ice Caps, he wrote that he got to a point where he couldn’t find a way to get further up and that, “The climb was over. The only place to go was down.” I feel that they further demonstrate just how unpredictable nature is, and how sometimes you need to give in to its dominance. I think Krakauer may be commenting on how Chris may have seen this unpredictable aspect of nature and was ill prepared to deal with or surrender to its greatness. He also may have been too big headed to do so. On the other hand, no matter how much you tools and supplies you come with, you are never fully prepared for all the variables nature can throw at you, as he also demonstrates with his frost bite, lack of food, and other circumstances.
From one view it seems like Krakauer was selfish and just wanted to be heard as well so he put his own experience in the book. But from another angle it can be viewed as a tool to help the reader understand perhaps what was going on in Chris’s mind by reading Krakauer’s own adventure. In my opinion Krakauer’s writing style also changed quite a bit and it was easier to read because it was more of a story and less factual. Since Krakauer knew what was in his own mind and what actually happened on his own adventure the change in his style of writing could be allowed in contrast to writing about Chris, where things were more uncertain. I think the purpose of his story was to let the reader see in his head and get a clearer picture of what Chris may have been thinking or what his motives were for going out into the wild. Krakauer and McCandless had somethings in common too like strong willed father’s that they often clashed with, as well as similar personalities themselves, “…willful, self-absorbed”(pg134). Krakauer also labeled himself as “intermittently reckless” but I can’t decide if I would label McCandless as such. I know he did risky things for the adventure but it never seemed “reckless” to me, that word to me implies a loss of control and I get the impression that McCandless had control when he did things. But McCandless did do risky things so both Krakauer and he fit in the category together as risk takers. The one main thing here is that Krakauer lived to tell his tale and after his great adventure he did not feel exactly as he expected. He climbed the Devil’s Thumb expecting it to change his life, but when it was over life just went back to normal. This makes me wonder how McCandless would have felt about his trip after. Did he experience a great change out there and would he keep searching if that trip did not deliver what he wanted to find? Krakauer’s story also tries to justify that Chris was not some suicidal kid who wanted to die in the wild, because Krakauer did roughly the same thing and lived. He tries to explain, probably to the unbelievers that Chris was not crazy or something because he was similar to Chris except that he lived to tell his adventure and Chris did not. Overall I think Krakauer’s story was generally a good addition but I do not think the book would really have been lacking if it was taken out.
Although Krakauer has a similar experience to Chris in wilderness, Krakauer's recollection of his travels somewhat offers the reader a different type of experience in the wild. Krakauer immediately compares his adventure with Chris' but they are quite different. While Chris seems to be on a search for truth in the wild and on his own, Krakauer appears to be in attempts to conquer nature. Krakauer discusses how important it is to complete his goal even when things look grim. "The thought of returning to Boulder in defeat wasn't very appealing, either. I could all too easily picture the smug expression of condolence I'd receive from those who'd been certain of my failure from the get-go" (146). Krakauer's main goal is to "beat" nature, and survive despite the Alaska dangers, while Chris wants to live off nature. The description of Krakauer's relationship with his father before his travels is a good addition to Chris' story, however. Both adventurers thought there were more meaningful experiences than simply completing college and beginning career work - an idea which did not mesh well with their fathers. The most important aspect of Krakauer's story is that we see that one can venture on a trip like this and survive, while the other adventurers we hear of meet their end. Krakauer shows that even though there are many difficulties on a journey through Alaska and the wild it is possible to return home in the end. This contradicts Chris' adventure but is important because it gives hope that a treacherous journey through Alaska may be difficult but manageable.
5 comments:
I was unaware that the author was also going to play the part of a narrator in the book until I read the Authors Note. At first I was hesitant, thinking that his comments would not be necessary and that the reader would be able to make their own judgment on Chris' journey without being swayed or given a biased story. However, after reading Chapter 15 I believe that Krauker's own experience just gives you another view, a different way of looking at Chris' story from anything you would expect. It gives you a view that could exactly what Chris’ was thinking. We heard all the letters from the people who live in Alaska, calling him a nut. But by reading Krauker's story, we almost get what could have been going through Chris' mind at the time. Besides the journal entries and the pictures, there is no real way of determining what Chris was thinking when he went into the wild, and I believe by reading Krauker’s story and comparing how they grew up with their pushy fathers, we can sort of relate the two stories and determine that he actually may not have been not suicidal or a nutcase; he could have just been passionate about fuffilling his dreams
I think that the purpose of Krakauer’s “Devil’s Thumb” anecdote in the story “Into the Wild” was to be the own author’s attempt to reflect on some of Chris McCandless motives and on his ultimately end. Krakauer was trying to draw a parallel between Chris’ odyssey into Alaska and his own. He touches on both the similarities and differences there were between Chris and himself. They both were young (in their 20’s-late 20’s when they attempted their odysseys), they both had a complicated, hostile relationship with their respective fathers (and both rebelled against them one way or another), both of them had a fascination with nature. Also, Krakauer’s anecdote gives us a more 1st person account of a young man’s suffering the harshships dealt by nature when attempting to go into it. when we read what Krakauer when through in terms of his fear, his doubts, the struggle he deals in terms of food and shelter, his sense of loneliness and need of human contact we are getting a parallel view of the things Chris McCandless must have gone through in his journey, even if the specific details were different. It also gives us a more personalized idea of what could Nature have that would drive two young men to endure such harshness just they could be closer to nature, and why that mattered to both of them.
Ultimately it leaves us with the differences between them: how Krakauer survived and Chris did not. It also puts some light on the assumption of Chris “being suicidal”, and puts it on the negative. By putting this anecdote to parallel Chris’ Krakauer is trying to show that sense of adventure and recklessness is on any guy, something common that could happen in many circumstances, and is not something related to being suicidal. The dangerous part comes from Nature, and the underestimation of some aspects of nature, because of being blinded by its majestic side. to the way Krakauer explores the “I survived, Chris didn’t” element, through the use of his anecdote, shows that it wasn’t solely based level of skill, knowledge or common sense, the survival instincts or gear, it was just a spin of fate.
Krakauer begins chapter 14 by saying how people were skeptical that Chris’s journey into the Alaska wilderness was a suicide, and how he believes otherwise. I agree with Krakauer. I feel that Chris never intended to end his adventure here, but at the same time he was aware of the unpredictability of nature in that anything can happen at any time. I think that Chris walked into the wild craving an experience of ultimate meaning/truth, that he was willing to put his life at risk to find it. I think he wanted to come back a fuller person and a completely changed man but knew it was at the risk of his death at which point he would become united with what he was so fascinated with, nature.
The first time I read “Into the Wild” I loved the book, yet I never finished reading the entire story. I had read up to the part where Krakauer goes on a tangent of his personal experience in nature, but then lost my intense interest in finding out what happened next. After reading this story a second time, I still feel it is the weakest part of the book, yet I can more readily appreciate it. I think Krakauer spoke of his experience in order to benefit the readers and himself. He shows the parallel between his life and Chris’s, his relationship with his father, his demeanor of never wanting to admit he is wrong, his love of adventure and pushing himself. He also demonstrates, that no matter how other people try to shape your life, a person who focuses and never loses sight of their passions is someone to be noted, and will often do great things, as he displays in his quests which opposed what his father had hoped for him. In the chapters about the Stikine Ice Caps, he wrote that he got to a point where he couldn’t find a way to get further up and that, “The climb was over. The only place to go was down.” I feel that they further demonstrate just how unpredictable nature is, and how sometimes you need to give in to its dominance. I think Krakauer may be commenting on how Chris may have seen this unpredictable aspect of nature and was ill prepared to deal with or surrender to its greatness. He also may have been too big headed to do so. On the other hand, no matter how much you tools and supplies you come with, you are never fully prepared for all the variables nature can throw at you, as he also demonstrates with his frost bite, lack of food, and other circumstances.
From one view it seems like Krakauer was selfish and just wanted to be heard as well so he put his own experience in the book. But from another angle it can be viewed as a tool to help the reader understand perhaps what was going on in Chris’s mind by reading Krakauer’s own adventure. In my opinion Krakauer’s writing style also changed quite a bit and it was easier to read because it was more of a story and less factual. Since Krakauer knew what was in his own mind and what actually happened on his own adventure the change in his style of writing could be allowed in contrast to writing about Chris, where things were more uncertain. I think the purpose of his story was to let the reader see in his head and get a clearer picture of what Chris may have been thinking or what his motives were for going out into the wild. Krakauer and McCandless had somethings in common too like strong willed father’s that they often clashed with, as well as similar personalities themselves, “…willful, self-absorbed”(pg134). Krakauer also labeled himself as “intermittently reckless” but I can’t decide if I would label McCandless as such. I know he did risky things for the adventure but it never seemed “reckless” to me, that word to me implies a loss of control and I get the impression that McCandless had control when he did things. But McCandless did do risky things so both Krakauer and he fit in the category together as risk takers. The one main thing here is that Krakauer lived to tell his tale and after his great adventure he did not feel exactly as he expected. He climbed the Devil’s Thumb expecting it to change his life, but when it was over life just went back to normal. This makes me wonder how McCandless would have felt about his trip after. Did he experience a great change out there and would he keep searching if that trip did not deliver what he wanted to find? Krakauer’s story also tries to justify that Chris was not some suicidal kid who wanted to die in the wild, because Krakauer did roughly the same thing and lived. He tries to explain, probably to the unbelievers that Chris was not crazy or something because he was similar to Chris except that he lived to tell his adventure and Chris did not. Overall I think Krakauer’s story was generally a good addition but I do not think the book would really have been lacking if it was taken out.
Although Krakauer has a similar experience to Chris in wilderness, Krakauer's recollection of his travels somewhat offers the reader a different type of experience in the wild. Krakauer immediately compares his adventure with Chris' but they are quite different. While Chris seems to be on a search for truth in the wild and on his own, Krakauer appears to be in attempts to conquer nature. Krakauer discusses how important it is to complete his goal even when things look grim. "The thought of returning to Boulder in defeat wasn't very appealing, either. I could all too easily picture the smug expression of condolence I'd receive from those who'd been certain of my failure from the get-go" (146). Krakauer's main goal is to "beat" nature, and survive despite the Alaska dangers, while Chris wants to live off nature.
The description of Krakauer's relationship with his father before his travels is a good addition to Chris' story, however. Both adventurers thought there were more meaningful experiences than simply completing college and beginning career work - an idea which did not mesh well with their fathers.
The most important aspect of Krakauer's story is that we see that one can venture on a trip like this and survive, while the other adventurers we hear of meet their end. Krakauer shows that even though there are many difficulties on a journey through Alaska and the wild it is possible to return home in the end. This contradicts Chris' adventure but is important because it gives hope that a treacherous journey through Alaska may be difficult but manageable.
Post a Comment