In these chapters we're provided with a picture of Christopher McCandless as he eschews (deliberately avoids) gifts (giving or receiving), money, and ownership of extra.  He's trying to create a life for himself that is very different from the life and values he was raised with.
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?

Christopher Lehmann-Haupt's New York Times review of discusses the fine line that Krakauer attempts to walk as he offers the complex reactions to McCandless and his journey.   "If Mr. Krakauer too readily exposes his subject's shortcomings," Lehmann-Haupt writes, "he also does a masterly job of keeping the reader's condemnation at bay." 
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 [he] lacked the requisite humility'" as Nick Jans describes? (72).

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

Some readers take great exception with Krakauer's inclusion / interruption of his investigation into Christopher McCandless' life to tell readers about his own travels to Alaska in his 20's.  
 
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?)

The intent of Into the Wild is tough to define. While we know that it is focused squarely on uncovering McCandless' last days, the inclusion of Krakauer's personal and perilous Alaska adventure makes this more complex.

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)? 

The Afterword and the additional pieces you’ve now read—Krakauer’s later New York Times articles identifying the true cause of McCandless’s death, along with the foreword he wrote for Carine McCandless’s book—extend and complicate the story told in Into the Wild. These materials offer information that wasn’t available when the original text was published, clarify long-standing misunderstandings, and reveal just how contested McCandless’s legacy has become.

While Krakauer’s initial aim in the book was already difficult to define, these later writings add new layers: new facts, new emotional angles, and new battles over how McCandless should be remembered. They also bring into focus the question of what it means to write about a real person whose life—and death—continues to be interpreted, misinterpreted, and argued over.

So, with all of that in mind: What do these materials lead you to understand about the struggle over McCandless’s legacy? How do they confirm, complicate, or overturn the beliefs you formed during your earlier forum posts and responses?

You are required to quote from previous forum posts (your own or others--comments work too) as well as the sources you've been provided.