Many people get sensible and feel miserable at the sight of cruel remarks on what they believe is sacred. Jon Krakauer wrote the book, Into the wild, to express his thoughts about his disapproval on what several people assume about Christopher McCandless, the main character. This people label McCandless stupid for leaving to Alaska without the vital equipment. To prove that he is not “stupid” for doing this he used appeal to pathos, appeal to logos and appeal to ethos.
By comparing Krakauer’s own life experiences and other peoples too to McCandless, he gave a little perspective and demonstrated that the negative remarks of many people were not correct for someone else had performed the same thing. Krakauer compared his youth mistakes to Chris McCandless by appealing to pathos since many other adolescents make them as well. First of all, Krakauer warned the reader, “I interrupt McCandless story with fragments…from my own youth…I do so in the hope that my experiences will throw some oblique light on the enigma of Chris McCandless,” (Krakauer’s note). He stated there that he ‘hopes’ to make a better presentation of McCandless’s life for he wanted to show that he deserves respect. He mirrored his own experiences and explained why he did it to draw some conclusion on why McCandless did it as well. Krakauer also said that he threw some ‘oblique light’ meaning that he attempted to make him appear better for he thought that Chris McCandless had to be a valued guy. A quote that proves the ‘oblique light’ that Krakauer threw was when he said, “Edwards regarded climbing as a “psycho-neurotic tendency”; he climb not for sport but to find refuge from the inner torment that framed his existence” (Krakauer 135). Krakauer wrote about this ...
... middle of paper ...
...id this because he passed through the same thing. When he quitted his job he saw how easy it was, “and how good it felt” (Krakauer 136). Considering that Krakauer has a conscience it made him say this because he knew how it felt to be in McCandless and could actually talk about it. In conclusion, not everyone follows their dream and because McCandless did, Krakauer used appeal to ethos to prove it.
To express his thoughts about the disapproval he has of several people identifying Christopher McCandless as stupid and all those despiteful names, Jon Krakauer used appeal to pathos, appeal to logos and appeal to ethos. Many people get hurt when someone judges something that they consider great as something foolishness. So why do they judge? Would they get hurt if someone judged them?
Work Cited
Krakauer, Jon. Into the Wild. New York: Anchor Books, 1997. Print.
They shared something that most people do, but all the while taking it to the extreme. Krakauer and Chris both disliked their fathers, to which Krakauer writes about himself, “I disappointed my father in the usual ways. Like McCandless, figures of male authority aroused in me a confusing medley of corked fury and hunger to please” (134). Writing an article just wasn’t enough. Krakauer found much of himself in Chris McCandless that he had to go out and write something much more in depth that he could link back to himself as he almost met the same fate as Chris did, although in much different circumstances. Knowing this, one might assume that he may have taken too much of a liking to Chris and was a bit biased with his writing. I believe he was objective enough when the time came to not assume that. There were people that absolutely hated and loved Chris, enough that a simple article wasn’t going to cut
Throughout Into the Wild, Krakauer portrays Christopher McCandless as an infallibly eager young man hoping to distance himself from the society he so obviously loathes, to "live off the land," entirely independent of a world which has "conditioned [itself] to a life of security." Chris, contrarily to this depiction, is disparagingly viewed by some as a "reckless idiot" who lacked the sense he needed to survive in the Alaskan wilderness. This derogatory assessment of Chris's mindset is representative of the society he hopes to escape and contains all the ignorance that causes him to feel this way. Nevertheless, he is misjudged by these critics, allowing Krakauer to hold the more accurate interpretation of Chris's character, his goals, and his accomplishments.
McCandless set out for this adventure because of his anger, therefore he did not actually sit and rationalize his plan. He did not have food, water, hunting supplies, clothing to keep him warm. His death was an accident of not being prepared for nature’s harshness. Krakauer also explains that McCandless’s death was an unplanned accident. Krakauer compared his young adulthood story to McCandless stating what his suspicions were of his death, his theory is based off of the letters McCandless left behind. Their adventure stories are very similar, they both were caught in a life or death situation, the tragedy is that McCandless’s did not have as happy of an ending as Jon Krakauer. Krakauer explains that it was a matter of chance that McCandless did not survive. He also explains that they were similarly affected by their relationships with their fathers. Their stories are also very similar with their father, they were both
When Jon Krakauer published a story about the death of a young man trekking into the Alaskan frontier in the January 1993 issue of Outside magazine, the audience’s response to Christopher McCandless’s story was overwhelming. Thousand of letters came flooding in as a response to the article. Despite the claims, especially from the native Alaskans, questioning McCandless’s mental stability and judgement, it soon becomes clear that McCandless was not just "another delusional visitor to the Alaskan frontier" (4). As Krakauer retells the life of Christopher McCandless and gives his own take on the controversy around McCandless’s death in Into The Wild, the reader also creates his own opinion on both McCandless and Krakauer’s argument. Krakauer
...increasingly anxious “because “[he] had no radio nor any other means of communicating with the outside world “(140). Krakauer’s dire need of assistance helps him recognize that he needs contact with the outside world to not only survive but to relive his innate desire of belonging. Likewise, Krakauer states “ at such moments [climbing the mountain ] something resembling happiness actually stirs in your chest, but it isn’t the sort of emotion you want to lean on very hard”(143) he implies the rush he gets from climbing mountains is not fully fulfilling and reliable; he needs part of the happiness to come from friendships and relationships.
...what was going on and figured that like me, he uses big words in the wrong places sometimes. Krakauer nearly became obsessed with McCandless. He writes about Chris as if he could have done the same thing when he was younger. Both are pretty arrogant and think they can take on the world. He even writes about his own mistakes in the world. It seems like the lives of Chris and Jon are a little bit parallel. They both took a lot of chances in their early twenties. Unlike Chris though, Jon lives through his mistakes and goes on to make lots of money selling books. This is a great story about human nature and what can go wrong if you think you can do too much. It kept me interested the whole time I was reading it. I would recommend this book to anyone who knows how to read.
Chris McCandless is regarded as being something as a spiritual figure almost as a cult hero, some call him a disillusioned fool, some call him a great adventurer, and the debate still continues. As Matthew Power calls in his article, an article where he tells the story of McCandless,“The debate falls into two camps: Krakauer's visionary seeker, the tragic hero who dared to live the unmediated life he had dreamed of and died trying; or, as many Alaskans see it, the unprepared fool, a greenhorn who had fundamentally misjudged the wilderness he'd wanted so desperately to commune with.” Like so many stories covering Christopher McCandless’ death, both ends of the argument are discussed in an unfavored manner in the hopes to help develop an opinion on the McCandless story. This open ended question can only be answered open-endedly based on what the readers base for themselves as covered stories intend. Like Power has done, ...
As evidenced by Into the Wild, Krakauer admires Chris for his ideals and attempt to live off the land. Krakauer makes it clear that Chris wasn’t mentally ill or narcissistic, but instead courageous. In fact, he praises Chris for choosing a life outside the confines of society. Krakauer flat out states, “...[Chris] wasn’t quite as reckless or incompetent as he has been made out to be” (Krakauer 194). No matter the mistake that others hold Chris accountable for making, he offers a rebuttal in support of McCandless. Even though it’s a known fact that when Chris walked into the wilderness he was ill prepared in the sense of lacking necessary provisions such as a map and large caliber rifle, Krakauer asserts, “It is hardly unusual for a young
First, in today’s society, an individual faces many expectations from the society, which results in an individual following these expectations or shaping their identity to go against it. Krakauer talks about McCandless, who escaped from the society in order to find his own-self. He writes, “ Wilderness appealed to those bored or disgusted with man and his works. It not only offered an escape from society but also was an ideal stage for the Romantic individual to exercise the cult that he frequently made of his own soul. The solitude and total freedom of the wilderness created a perfect setting for either ...
Throughout the novel, Krakauer formulates strategies in his writing through the employment of logos, the appeal to reason. He utilizes this to allow the reader to learn about Chris’s personality throughout his life. “Nuance, strategy, and anything beyond the rudimentaries of technique were wasted on Chris. The only way he cared to tackle a challenge was head-on, right now, applying the full brunt of his extraordinary energy” (111). Chris was a person who would do things first, ask questions later in a sense. His compulsive behavior is accounted for when he decided to take on the adventure to Alaska. Moreover, it also led up to possible parallels between Krakauer himself and Chris within the second half of the novel. “When I decided to go to
In 1992, Christopher McCandless set off on an odyssey into the backcountry of Alaska, an adventure that had proved fatal. After McCandless's corpse was found, Jon Krakauer wrote an article on the story of Chris McCandless, which was released in the January 1993 issue of Outside magazine. The article had received a negative response; several readers criticized McCandless for being foolish and ill-prepared, and showed no sympathy or remorse for his death. McCandless has been referred to as a nut, a kook, and a fool. However, McCandless was not a nonsensical man. In 1996, Jon Krakauer's novel, Into the Wild, was published. The novel uncovers more detail of McCandless's story. Into the Wild rebuts the idea of McCandless being someone who is foolish, and speaks of the many occasions where McCandless has demonstrated great perseverance and determination. The novel also proves the intelligence of McCandless, and brings insight into McCandless's psyche. The following examples will illustrate how McCandless was not a fool, but someone to admire.
Jon Krakauer, fascinated by a young man in April 1992 who hitchhiked to Alaska and lived alone in the wild for four months before his decomposed body was discovered, writes the story of Christopher McCandless, in his national bestseller: Into the Wild. McCandless was always a unique and intelligent boy who saw the world differently. Into the Wild explores all aspects of McCandless’s life in order to better understand the reason why a smart, social boy, from an upper class family would put himself in extraordinary peril by living off the land in the Alaskan Bush. McCandless represents the true tragic hero that Aristotle defined. Krakauer depicts McCandless as a tragic hero by detailing his unique and perhaps flawed views on society, his final demise in the Alaskan Bush, and his recognition of the truth, to reveal that pure happiness requires sharing it with others.
...opher McCandless is a unique and talented young man, but his selfish and ultimately complacent attitude towards life and his successes led to his demise. Chris possesses monumental ambitions that had the potential to be harvested into something great, but were not taken advantage of in the correct way. Through the book Krakauer paints a chilling picture of how detrimental choices can be. Had Chris been better prepared for his trip there is a good chance he would have walked out alive. Had Chris lived, he would not be famous, merely criticized for his poor choices and selfish behavior that deeply impacted those close to him. Chris is not a hero, nor should he be regarded as one. His actions were admired by others but spontaneous naive actions do not constitute a hero.
The author skillfully uses literary techniques to convey his purpose of giving life to a man on an extraordinary path that led to his eventual demise and truthfully telling the somber story of Christopher McCandless. Krakauer enhances the story by using irony to establish Chris’s unique personality. The author also uses Characterization the give details about Chris’s lifestyle and his choices that affect his journey. Another literary element Krakauer uses is theme. The many themes in the story attract a diverse audience. Krakauer’s telling is world famous for being the truest, and most heart-felt account of Christopher McCandless’s life. The use of literary techniques including irony, characterization and theme help convey the authors purpose and enhance Into The Wild.
In Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer explores the human fascination with the purpose of life and nature. Krakauer documents the life and death of Chris McCandless, a young man that embarked on an Odyssey in the Alaskan wilderness. Like many people, McCandless believed that he could give his life meaning by pursuing a relationship with nature. He also believed that rejecting human relationships, abandoning his materialistic ways, and purchasing a book about wildlife would strengthen his relationship with nature. However, after spending several months enduring the extreme conditions of the Alaskan wilderness, McCandless’ beliefs begin to work against him. He then accepts that he needs humans, cannot escape materialism, and can never fully understand how nature functions. Most importantly, he realizes that human relationships are more valuable than infinite solitude. McCandless’ gradual change of heart demonstrates that exploring the wilderness is a transformative experience. Krakauer uses the life and death of Chris McCandless to convey that humans need to explore nature in order to discover the meaning of life.