The book isn't a mystery either, insofar, as we know when and where, and even how he died from the book's beginning.

While the text explores what may have driven him to search for a life absent of the materialism and commercialism his life had been made up previously, it never blames anyone or anything despite locating a definite turning point.

So, what do you, as a reader, believe / understand that Krakauer is attempting to do?

Does he succeed in doing so? If he fails, what would he have had to do to succeed?  If he succeeds, to what extent does the organization of this text help him to do so? 

Lastly, what role does Krakauer's lack of distance help or hurt this work and its goal (as you define it)? 

After reading chapter 14 answer the following:

1) Is it ethical for an author to literally insert themselves into the story 130 pages in?  (This isn't a story about the author. The author never met his subject. The author also didn't establish that this would be the way the story would be told earlier.) Perhaps it is ethical in other stories, but not this one...

If you make such a distinction (that is okay sometimes, but not others) what is the distinction? 

2) Is Krakauer's interruption helpful? What does it offer us that we (the general reader) would not otherwise have and need?  Does it help us view McCandless' decisions and actions more or less fairly? More or less objectively / subjectively?  Putting yourself in the author's shoes, why is this addition necessary? Make sure to be specific here and use at least 2 quotes. 

3) Lastly, did you find this element surprising?  Krakauer has used "I" a few times and referred to himself when discussing a few of his interviews, but nothing to this extent.  Do you feel like it slows the momentum of the McCandless story? If you were writing would you have done something like this (if you had a relevant story to share?) 

Krakauer tells us in the Author's note that he doesn't "claim to be an impartial biographer".  Let's explore that. 

• 1st--Describe if you think Krakauer is being too hard on or forgiving of McCandless.
• 2nd--Compare Krakauer's point of view concerning McCandless and his journey to your own reaction.  Do you view him as an idealist with the courage to pursue his dream or as someone who is "'underprepared, overconfident . . . bumbling around out there and screwing up because lacked the requisite humility'" as Nick Jans describes? (72).

Make sure to support your assertions with quotes and / or details that demonstrate close reading.

Let's think about connecting to Christopher McCandless (and Alexander Supertramp, his alter ego) and answer the following:

Discuss a part of conventional (every day) society that you'd like to give up--(This can be small or large. Some of the smallest things might prove to be more difficult.)

What would be the benefits? What would be the drawbacks?

Could you give it up if you lived in the same setting you do now? Or would you have to go it alone like McCandless does not to fall back into it? 

How do you expect you’d fit into society / your current relationships if you were successful in eschewing what you had previously accepted?