Please respond to one of the following questions:
1. Chapter 14 and 15 are devoted to Krakauer's own experience on the Stikine Ice Cap. What is the purpose of this extended story in Into the Wild? 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?
2. Let's think about gender roles: how are females portrayed in the book? Is it different than how men are portrayed? What does the book say about men, particularly young men?
3. We have noted that this story is about a real person, who lived, breathed, and died and this sense of knowing that Chris existed changes how we read, understand, and analyze the story. In what ways do you relate to Chris or to the idea of undertaking an adventure or odyssey?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. When I first started reading Krakauer’s experiences I thought it was kind of interesting but sort of a waste of time, yet as it progressed I realized that Krakauer and Chris had lives that paralleled each other’s pretty similarly. Both he and Chris had the sense of adventure and neither set much store by the rules. Not by the government laws, but laws of nature. They didn’t really think that the laws applied to them, until they were actually out there. Each of them had a dad who they thought tried to dictate their life and in Krakauer’s case it was true.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that Krakauer made the right decision to insert himself into the story. It gave the reader more of an idea what it was like for him to write the story and why he was so engrossed by it.
3. The fact that Chris was a real person and not just a character made a huge difference on how I read the story. It made me more sympathetic in understanding his need to go out and have genuine experiences that most people never have. It is true that most of us settle for experiences that are staged rather than real. We go to Busch Gardens or the zoo instead of an African Safari. We go on an African Safari and view it from the safe distance of a vehicle rather than living the experience. People tend to stay one or more steps removed from the true experience and this is what Chris was completely against. The fact that a real person lived this ideal makes his story much more compelling. It also makes me judge him a little more harshly on the attempt to go into the Alaskan wilderness unprepared.
ReplyDelete3) Knowing that Chris was in fact a real person, and knowing some of his life story, I would have to say that I don't really relate to him at all. As a humanitarian myself, and knowing he took humanitarian classes as well as donated money to humanitarian efforts, I am aghast at the fact that he would just throw money at a situation he cares about and then leave it all behind for an "adventure". If he thought he was being a moral person, as the book suggests, I believe that he wasted his life away. Instead of going into the "wilderness" he should have worked for those things he believed in by working with programs and on projects. We are completely different because I don't wish or dream for an "adventure". I wish and dream for a better environment and better living conditions for all animals, humans and polar bears alike; that's what I spend my life working on, and that's what he could have done as well.
ReplyDelete3. I personally have a hard time discussing this book because it is no longer fictional, although it is still given to us through Krakauer’s and others impressions. Whether or not I agree with what Chris did, or can even understand his motives, I know I would hate to have my life interpreted and analyzed as if I was a simple case study or curiosity. Half the time we don’t understand our own motives or actions, and we all make stupid mistakes, it’s part of human nature, but to have those mistakes displayed for the world to discuss and pick apart is gruesome. In a sense, I think it’s important to explore Chris’s story, and in it, his mistakes. As Krakauer has demonstrated Chris is not alone in his adventure and characteristics, and there is something very exciting and inspiring in his odyssey. I also think it’s important Chris be remembered and live on through the lives of people he touched and his family. But I think a great injustice is done to him by analyzing everything he has done in his life, as if it could somehow be understood so simply and shared with others, to what purpose? So that we don’t follow in this tragic footsteps? If we could understand exactly what Chris was trying to do or prove, what would that tell us? That he failed, or that he picked his own demise and we simple perceive it as a tragedy? Neither scenario would make dealing with his loss any easier for his family.
ReplyDelete3. I firmly believe that each of us have our own purpose to fulfill on this earth - that we're all put here for a reason and need to accomplish a certain task throughout our lives. I can relate to Chris in firmly believing in something and going along with it, despite what other people tell you. I can also relate, in some way, to how he is with his. Although I have an amazing relationship with my mother, I don't with my father. I can see how Chris may rebel against them and do what he feels is right. I also believe that every person in our lives are meant to be there for some reason or another - maybe Chris's bad relationship with his parents was part of what was meant to push him out into the wilderness to fulfill his journey. We argue whether he knew he was going to die or not or whether he wanted to or not - maybe he did, maybe he didn't...but it happened, and I believe that in some way it was meant to.
ReplyDelete1. I strongly believe that Krakauer’s own anecdotes thoroughly enhance the story. Some could argue that it takes a lot away from the legend of Chris, however, I do not think this is the case. He does not portray himself as any sort of hero that would undermise Chris a person. He barely even touches on comparing the two. The purpose of spilling his own past into the stpry was purely for the benefit of the reader. This is as much a story of the outdoors and man’s relationship with the wild as it is about the fascinating person of Chris McCandless. I loved reading the part about how Krakauer admits to almot giving up, and the part about the dad was absolutely perfect. It not only shows that those relationships are not only common, but extremely difficult to endure. It shows sympathy, empathy, and also, very interestingly, that Krakauer is human. He has a heart. He cares. He cares about Chris and his family a lot. They not only fascinate and motivate him, but I also feel as though he definitely can relate to him. And if not that, then he wants to, and wants to help them. The detail about how Carine can barely get through a single day without breaking down was a touching detail. And as it can be argued that it was unnecessary, perhaps casting her in a delicate, sort of depressed way, I see it as a thoroughly touching and sensitive piece of information. I enjoyed this part of the story just as much as the rest that follows McCandless, and think that the author and readers are all on the same page. As much as Krakauer might have a lot more experience in the mind of an outdoorsman, and the knowledge of a psychiatrist, he is still just as curious about the mind of McCandless as we are.
ReplyDelete3. Can we use Chris’s story to explore our own feelings and thoughts about going into the wild? Is it fair to ravage this book as a way to selfishly find ourselves reflected in its adventurous undertones? Twice now I have read his story, and I am certain that during those two occasions, I have been guilty of both. At times, I do not feel it is wrong to analyze Chris’s life, because in ways, I feel it would help me understand something more about the human mind, about our place in the universe, and what it means to be human. Then, I am reminded that Chris is someone I deeply wish to have known and become friends with, and it makes me feel ashamed that I can so easily make speculations about his actions. Speculating, though, is not the same as judging, condemning, romanticizing, or praising. It is simply guesswork, as any mind is inclined to do when all of the information on a subject is not present. When speculation becomes any of those things, that is when Krakauer’s book and Chris’s story loose any value or sense of inspiration they might have otherwise offered to a reader. Speculation, however, is still an intrusion upon a life I know very little about, and to make guesses about Chris and his personal life for my own benefit is something I do, yes, but it is done always with a guilty conscience.
ReplyDelete3. I can easily relate to how Chris felt about authority figures and society as a whole. He was more extreme in his beliefs, which could have been his downfall in the end, but no one will ever truly know. I think he was on a mission for self fulfillment, that he had been planning for years but was finally able to drop all his ties to civilization. Many people are quick to judge Chris and call him naive and ill prepared, asking for a death wish. I don't agree, I think he wanted to rough it a much as possible, because he wanted a challenge. He wanted complete independence from everyone, and prove to himself that he didn't need anyone but himself and nature to survive happily. Chris was deeply scarred by his dad's marital issues, especially when he learned Carine and him were bastard children. This probably fueled his desire to get away from people and all the messed stuff they can do to each other.
ReplyDelete1.) Unlike the subject of most biographies, Chris was not a famous man. There were no historical records following his journey, and his own anti-social behavior meant he made an impression on a few key people, but for the most part was invisible during his couple of years of wanderlust. We may piece together the events that took him from his college up to Alaska, based upon the anecdotes. But all the stuff in between; his motives for being there, the hardships he encountered, etc, are fiction. Educated guesses, probably, but still just guesses. This whole book is a fictional recounting of a true story. Chapters 14 and 15 are proof that the author has the authority to be making these guesses. He seems to have led a similar life to Chris, had the same overbearing father driving him to do unnecessary and potentially fatal things just for the sake of saying you did. Jon was the "boy who lived" when he almost died on the mountain, where Chris was the "boy who died". We could just as easily have read about Jon in Outdoor magazine or the local obituaries, but because he lived, he remains unknown to us. But his experience gives him the credibility to make those inferences about the unknown parts of Chris' last years, where he wasn't taking regular photos or writing of his experiences all the time.
ReplyDelete