Answer either question A or B.
Question B:
Do you think Krakauer's decision to insert himself into the narrative added to our detracted from Chris's story? Did it help you to understand how Krakauer came to interpret Chris's motives?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I think that The author, Jon Krakuer's, story does distract Chris's story alittle bit because he is able to put more of a personal emphasis on what he says rather than Chris's which is based off other resources and what he has heard. Both Jon and Chris shared the same dream of going to Alaska and taking their journey alone. They both learned that what they wanted to do might be way over their head but they were both willing to take the risk. Also, even though Jon wanted to take the journey alone, when he was staying with Kai, he thoroughly enjoyed her presence. Chris liked to travel alone as well, but he also made a point to connect and stay in touch with people he met throughout his journey. I rhink that this was an opportunity for the author to show that he is like the adventurers that are well known and that he understand who they are. Also, by writing this book, he was able to share his experience with whoever reads this book which gives him some fame. Hearing Jon's story does help the reader understand Chris a little more and also how what is originally planned doesn't always turn out the way you thought it would. Also when Jon was talking about his fear when he was stuck and couldn't go any further up, it was interesting to me because I have no idea what it would be like to be in that kind of situation. I'm sure Chris had some similar moments like that where he just didn't know what to do and was a little scared.
I don't think Krakauer's own personal experience distracted the reader from Chris's journey at all. The circumstances around Chris were not different from a lot of young eager men who explore their own natural limits in the outdoors. I think Krakauer, who is an accomplished climber in his own right does justice in telling his own small scale story of his life and his brushs with death, defeat, and overall overzealous self in the context of this book. If anyone was going to write this story it had to be a person like Krakauer who has experience in the outdoors and can aknowledge the triumphs and tribulations that come with it. I can see how some people can become distracted by Kraauer's own story and how it can possibly take away from Chris's story, but i think that it rounds out the book in a good way and even later on when Krakauer is actually visiting the Fairbanks bus Chris died in who uses his own experience to question the motives Chris had and explores ways en which Chris might have felt during his 100+ days in the "wild".
I was sucked into the story! I couldn't put the book down, and then I got to Krakauer's adventure and didn't pick up the book for a week. I felt that his journey was detrimental to the flow of Chris's story. I understand the connection and the need to share his journey. It is obvious that Krakauer connects with Chris at a different level than I and his comparisons are not deluded in most senses. It is the placement that ruined my interest. Why didn't he put it with the other adventurers stories? Because he survived? But then it has to go after the family chapters because that is one of their similarities (father problems.) His story was not necessary but it did help to understand why Krakauer went to extreme lengths to decipher Chris's life. In chapter fifteen, Krakauer says, "I thought climbing the Devils Thumb would fix all that was wrong with my life. In the end, of course, it changed almost nothing" (155). This passage irritated me. He tried to compare their two voyages as equal when in reality they were extremely different. Krakauer was gone for 22 days while Chris was "gone" for over 2 years. He gave up his identity, his materialism, his life did change, and although it may not have fixed everything in Chris's life it did effect him greatly!
The Stikine ice cap trek achieved by Krakauer has a remarkable close correlation to McCandless’ journey in Alaska. Both Krakauer and Chris had a struggling relationship with their father and rebellious characteristics due to their pounced pride and confidence. They wanted to live their own lives without the influence of others telling them how to live. The obsession with climbing and adventure was also prevalent in both characters. Krakauer tells the readers himself that he and Chris have similarities but in no way should that be an indication that Krakauer can explain Chris’ motives for leaving. He might have an idea, but this idea is not fact. Chris is the only person who can separate fact from fiction.
This writing style of adding the author as a main character completely changes the structure of the story. It adds a new perspective of why Chris goes on this journey but I feel that it also takes away from the strength of the story. I feel that as Krakauer continues to tell adventures similar to Chris’, it becomes more of a book about why people are attracted to the wilderness and the justification of Chris’ actions for leaving. This writing style takes away the ability for readers to draw their own opinion about Chris’ purpose for leaving civilization. Krakauer is structuring this story to how he wants it to be viewed and he keeps enforcing the notion that this entire story is an interpretation.
At first, Krakauer's narrative about his experience in the wild was kind of annoying. It seemed like he was taking away the recognition that Chris deserved for what he did in Alaska. When i read more, though, I discovered that there was a purpose to the author's narrative on his experience. His narrative revealed that he and Chris had a lot in common, based on Krakauer's reasoning for his journey in the wild, it made me think that Chris for sure wasn't mentally ill or suicidal for walking into the wild. Krakauer said that he didn't see eye to eye with his father, being that his father wanted him to go to Harvard medical school, while Krakauer had differing views on life. This is similar to Chris and his parental expectations as well. Krakauer chose to take a personal journey into the wilderness as an act of defiance, but also for personal gratification. I believe that Chris McCandless shares this motive for going into the wilderness. Without Krakauer's narrative, there would be more uncertainty about Chris's reasoning for going to the wild. It also conveys the author's bias regarding Chris McCandless.
I do not think that Krakauer’s personal experience distracted from Chris’ story but added to it. Krakauer’s experience gave a very personal and detailed view of what it was like being in Alaska. While Krakauer did mention other “Alaskan types” and other people who had going ‘into the wild’ this story was much more interesting because it was he himself who had gone into the wild. It added to the story because there were some similarities between Krakauer and Chris, they both had some unfortunate relationship with their father, both of their fathers had pre-arranged life goals/careers for their sons, their fathers also both had very high expectations of what they would become, and both Krakauer and Chris wanted something from nature. Maybe what they wanted from nature was to be in control of what they were doing, I’m not saying to control nature, but to be in control of their lives instead of their fathers being in control of their lives. Krakauer had this drive to climb to the top of “Devils Thumb,” and while Chris didn’t necessarily have a physical goal, he had more of an emotional to ‘find’ something and was not going to give up until he found it. If he would have given up maybe he would have survive and walked out to the road, but he may also have walked away from the wild without a sense of achievement. Overall I believe that Krakauer’s personal experience definitely aids in understanding why Chris was so determined to do what he did.
It seems to me that Krakauer's experiences on the Stikine ice cap in Alaska was written into the story in order to give the reader a first person point of view to show what drives a man into the wild. I think that these chapters serve a great purpose in the story, to me it helped tie up loose ends with the underlying question I have had throughout this book, which is "what drives a man into the wild." Sure the reader gets plenty of stories of travelers, but none get into the head of the adventurer. I think that these chapters are vital to the conclusion of this book. It seems to me that Chris and Krakauer are very similar and because of this we are able to draw conclusions as to how and why Chris reacted the way that he did. I think that Chris and Krakauer are similar in the way that they both wanted to pave their own future, they broke free from the burdens of their families expectations and chose to live a life of unison with nature.
Jon Krakauer tells a story of his own life during Into the Wild. The focus of the book is on Chris McCandless. I believe the story of Krakauer's life event was interesting, but did not belong in Into The Wild. It was a struggle to read, especially after the chapters on Chris McCandless's family. Those chapters intrigued me to read more about Chris's life, and out of the blue comes a story of Krakauer. I feel like this loses the readers attention, and makes the reader feel more distant from Chris and his story. I also believe that Krakauer places the story of his own life at this point in the story so that the reader sympathizes with Chris and his actions towards his family. Krakauer's story is similar to that of Chris's, and the reader feels obligated to see Chris's actions as not as harsh. Krakauer says, "But my sense of Chris McCandless's intentions comes, too, from a more personal perspective," (Krakauer, 134). In this quote he tries to rationalize Chris's actions from the trip he took. However, Chris was not the same as Krakauer, and seemed to be harsher towards his family.
I like that Krakauer injects his own story amidst McCandless's tale. I think it's easy to forget while reading "Into the Wild" that this fabulous, stubborn idealist called Alexander Supertramp was a real person. His trip was real, his family was real, and his death is reality. It is because this is non-fiction that Krakauer's perspective is so vital to consider.
Who is this guy, and why is he writing this book? Reading about his adventures shows clearly that McCandless and Krakauer share a common ground. Chris's life story spoke to the wanderer in Krakauer, which is why he found it so necessary to share.
I do believe that krakuer does this exerpt for a reason, and it most definately shows his ablilty to relate to the story on a personal level and i dont feel in detracts from chris's story. If anyone was going to write this book it had to be someone with an adventuresome background. The part where krakuer is visiting the fairbanks city bus where chris stayed, definately gave a nice touch to the end of chris's story and showed Krakuer feelings on death and the outdoors. i do like krakuer story and believe it accompanies chris's story and bring us back to the authors point of view, who had been telling us chris's story the whole time. they both shared the dream of goin to alaska and taking a journey alone to find themsleves...that is ultimately what the author is trying to show us the entire story.
I think that once Krakauer inserted himself into Chris’s tale, it did detract form the story. Before the author’s view felt encouraging but impartial to this supertramps life. But personalizing the story seems to ruin something about the books integrity. But then again his that could be his intention most professional writers and teacher I know tell me again and again that taking a death and comparing it to a still living being’s memory show a lack of “moral” writing. It would have been better if the writer wrote a short story linked to the book about his own experiences. Rather then force one’s own adventure onto the reader. I believe that if the reader needed the authors past exploit then the Title, introduction and summary should be changed in order to reflect the interior text of the book. And truthful in answer to how the author interoperates Chris’s motives, one should recognize that it is a journalist’s job to interpret what information they gather on a source and then write a coherent article to the best of their ability based on their knowledge of the situation.
Do you think Krakauer's decision to insert himself into the narrative added to our detracted from Chris's story? Did it help you to understand how Krakauer came to interpret Chris's motives?
I actually became very confused between the two stories, even more so as we were watching the movie. I often would think something that Krakauer experienced should be showing up in the movie.
Such as the scene in the movie when Walt McCandless is distressed and crying as he searches for Chris on the street and then falls to the road. The scene shows him grabbing his legs and focuses in on his calves and ankles/feet. This confused me as i was thinking Walt was Krakauer's father who had the recurrence of polio before he went crazy in the hospital.
I understand the correlations Krakauer sees between him and Chris. Namely the father issues. I also had a deeper appreciation for him (Krakauer) as he explained the tretourous climbing journey and tent issues he explained. However, i do not think i needed to read about his explorations at all in Chris McCandless' story. It was distracting and did not really help me understand his opinion on why he thought Chris wasnt suicidal.
But at the same time as i am saying i dont think it was appropriate for him to put his story smack dab in the middle of the story. It was kind of random. But as i have been saying it was inappropriate for him to insert his story in Into the Wild, i probably would have done the same thing if i were him. There are correlations between the two: their affinity for climbing and how their dads both showed them /began their interests in climbing and also the bad relationships they had to their dads. But still, nevertheless, it was uncalled for in the middle of Chris's story.
There are many reasons why people go into the wild. Some want to try fully living in harmony with nature. Others want an adventure, a story to tell or a specific challenge to undertake. There are many who want to snag trophies, may it be game, photographs or firewood. A few are running away, from a society where they don’t belong. Many want to find answers, reality, truth…Can we survive? Have we become so dependent on the material world that we can no longer survive without it? To what extreme are we able to endure?
I think that the Chris McCandless story intrigues us so much is because he successfully evaded living a normal life in society’s terms. Material things other than the essentials were of no use to him, money, a career, sex, even relationships held no weight. He went out there and followed his dream. I think that if he didn’t have that reckless side to him, he wouldn’t have been able to do half the things that he did. Unfortunately, it was also that side that led to his death. His greatest strength led his ultimate failure…thought for Alex Supertramp, death may have been deemed the next great adventure.
Yet no one knows exactly what was going on in that young man’s head. What is it in him that made him do the things he did, why did he feel such a strong pull towards the dangers and unknown offered by wilderness? We can piece together most of the story, bit his motives are somewhat obscure. By inserting a personal account of wilderness survival (in this case, climbing Devil’s Thumb, a mountain in Alaska), Jon Krakauer gives us an insight into the mind and motives of those who witness the extreme side of nature. “The picture (of the mountain) held an almost pornographic fascination for me. . . I never had any doubt that Devil’s Thumb would transform my life. How could it not?” (135)
What is it about dangerous ventures into the wild that change people? “I was stirred by the dark mystery of mortality. I couldn’t resist stealing up to the edge of doom and peering over the brink. The hint of what was concealed inside those shadows terrified me, but I caught sight of something in the glimpse, some forbidden and elemental riddle.”
Did McCandless have that same burning desire to see what was concealed inside the shadows of mortality? Perhaps, yes. It can certainly be argued that he wanted to change his life when he initially started out. I think that in his mind, the wild held answers to a question that could not be answered in any other way: how far could just his hands and his head take him into the unknown?
Post a Comment