Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
21/10/2025 6:37 pm
It is not ethical for Krakauer to insert himself in the story the way he did. If he wanted to talk about himself, he could’ve made another book to tell his story. But this book is supposed to show why Chris McCandless did what he did and to share his story. I think it's insensitive of him to have these interviews with people who knew and loved McCandless, and then write chapters that have nothing to do with his story.
I don’t believe that Krakauer’s interruption is helpful, but I can see why he did it. It offers us a first person perspective of the situations that McCandless was in and how his judgement could’ve been clouded based on what was happening in that particular moment. “I had paid a bush pilot in Petersburg $150–the last of my cash–to have six cardboard cartons of supplies dropped from an airplane…For the next four days it snowed, nixing any chance for a flight.” (Krakauer 140) I feel like a lot of people wonder why McCandless didn’t try to go home if he saw things were going downhill, but seeing a situation similar in this perspective helps readers understand the gravity of these situations. “The sour taste of panic rose in my throat. My eyesight blurred, I began to hyperventilate, my calves started to shake.” (Krakauer 143) I appreciate the vivid details the author used to describe this part of his experience. The raw fear and unease of going through something to this extent. This chapter helps readers understand how he was really living and describes how harsh the conditions truly were.
I was surprised to hear a first person story being told when I expected the next chapter to jump back to McCandless’s journey. I feel this slows the trajectory of the story and just goes on for too long. I agree that it was a good idea to help readers gain a new point of view, but I think he just went on for too long. If I was writing this book, I probably would add a personal story if it was relevant to the primary characters story, but I would keep it concise and keep only the pieces necessary.
28/10/2025 12:27 pm
I agree that it was not ethical for Krakauer to inster himself into the story. I like the point you made that he could've wrote his own book if he wanted to share about his experiance. It does offer us another perspective on how Chris McCandless could've felt when he was in the wilderness but the interupption in the story was definitely not helpful, as you said. I really like your first quote because it does show insights on Krakauer trying to get a flight to leave, but knowing his situation this makes me rethink why Chris McCandless didn't try to find a way back. Your last paragraph explains how I felt also reading it for the first time, adding in his story really did slow down Chris McCandless story. Do you think if Krakauer made his story shorter would your opinion change?
28/10/2025 10:49 pm
I love how invested you were in your argument. You described very well why you believe that Krakauer was unethical when he put himself into the story. Like you said, if he wanted to discuss his story and his great adventures, he should've written a book about that. Through your writing, I can see now the greater effect this has on not just the viewers but the people who cared for and loved Chris McCandless. Krakauer putting himself into that story really patronizes and downgrades those people who knew Chris and were moved by him.
When reading your response, I fully agreed with you on how unethical Krakauer was in this past chapter by telling an anecdote that didn't really connect at all to McCandless's journey. But, even though you believed he was unethical inserting himself into the story, you looked at the other side of things and backed it up with facts. It can be hard for people to look at the other side of things in an argument, like myself, but when you discuss it and how your point may be true, there is another side that is equally right in its own way. Havingg you add that argument into your response moved me and made me take a step back and look at all the facts, not just my personal opinion.
Throughout Krakauers novel and journal article, it seems as though they believe that both Krakauer and McCandless were crazy, you and I included. But, when you talk about the other side where they had very good reasons to go away and have this big adventure, it puts it into broader scale of others who maybe believe that they were reasonable and understandable for wanting to run away. Maybe they connect with both of these men, or have experienced their own adventure and possible had some close calls like what you refer to through your quotes. So in larger contexts, maybe this narrative has changed peoples opinons or backed up peoples previous opinions about the two men.
You said in your response how you surprised that this chapter was coming and how you were shocked that McCandless wasnt really metioned at all. You also discuss how if it was shorter like a few pages or paragraphs you're feelings might've changed in Krakauer including his perspective in the novel. Why would this change in narrative switch your feelings about Krakauer's story? Would you be able to connect it more to McCandless's story if the length was changed?
