Forum 10-14

In Krakauer’s book, Into the Wild, his writing approach is biased most time, and he discreetly puts himself in the story, such as using ‘I’ in his writing. This is rare in most historical fiction, especially since Krakauer is a journalist and formats the book as such. However, for chapter 14 of his novel, he doesn’t talk about Chris McCandless or his journey, but instead talks about himself and his journey to Alaska, taking inserting himself in a story to a whole new level. I believe that it is not ethical for an author to insert himself in a story, especially this far into the novel. I believe this is because it drives attention away from the main point and characters of a story to instead show the author doing something that might not be fully related to the main character and its plot. Although having an author insert themselves into a story can be seen as unethical, there can be exceptions to this belief. An example of this is if an author is writing about a true crime case and is inserting themselves at the crime scene to find clues or put things together. This can be seen as ethical because by inserting themselves, they help the story progress and move forward.

Although Krakauer's interruption into the story slows down the main story of McCandless, his interruption can also be seen as helpful. Why this can be seen as helpful is that it shows why Krakauer decided to write an article and novel about Chris McCandless, because he relates to him. Krakauer discusses how the two were similar, like, “As a youth, I am told, I was willful, self-absorbed, intermittently reckless, moody. I disappointed my father in the usual ways.” (pg 134). This helps show that Krakauer empathizes with him and that he can see himself in McCandless, and why he would want to run away, making his bias understandable. Krakauer understands McCandless’s need to run away, because when Krakauer did it, he describes how he, “[t]hen I climbed into my car and departed for Alaska. I was surprised, as always, by how easy the act of leaving was, and how good it felt. The world was suddenly rich with possibility.” (pg.136) Showing that he relates and can understand the urge to go see the world and how freeing it can be. This interruption offered us something that we wouldn’t have had in the novel, the reason Krakauer was invested in writing this story. He was invested in this story even when he was called crazy for defending McCandless; he didn’t back down because he knew the need to escape it all and understood MMcCandless'viewpoint. It helps the viewers view McCandless’s actions a little more fairly because while we might not know the real reason he left, by getting a story that's similar to both the narrator and adventure, it could change viewers' interpretations of who they thought McCandless was. I feel like if I were the author, this addition is necessary because it would explain why I’m devoted to this story and its significance to m,e because I see myself in McCandless. 

I found this element surprising because the whole story thus far has been about McCandless and his journey to Alaska and his death. So having the viewpoint switched to the author was intriguing and interesting. I felt that this did slow down the momentum of the McCandless story because we are drifting away from the main point of this story by instead focusing our attention on something relevant, but not at the same time. I dont think I would insert myself into a story if I had a relevant one to share because the main story wouldn’t be about me, so why would I take people's attention away from the main point of my story that I'm discussing to something that isn’t connected to my story.