Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
27/10/2025 7:48 pm
It is not ethical for Krakauer to insert him into this book, especially since its a story about someone else's life and just casually insert himself to talk about his life. I see it as disrespectful towards Chris McCandless and his family who might've read this book. I think it would've been okay to talk a little about how he can relate but to have a whole chapter dedicated to himself isn't right. If he were to write a Chapter about himself, it should have been at the beginning of the book, not the middle. I can appreciate that Karkauer talks about a similar experience and kind of helps the audience understand what Chris McCandless might've felt. This could also be a reason Krakauer is so biased towards McCandless, because he understand how he could've felt. Maybe if this was a family member who talked about their personal story it would've made more sense, but Krakauer has never met McCandless before. I do believe having Karkauer insert himself into the book helps the reader understand Chris McCandless mindset and motivations. Krakauer helped me understood how he felt with barely any food left and how anxious he felt. He was, "nearly out of stove fuel and down to a single chunk of cheese, my last package of Ramen noodles, and half a box of cocoa puffs." (Krakauer Pg.140). This quote explains how Krakauer was starting to feel and he was worried about how much food he had left. This makes me think about how Chris McCancless might've felt trying to look for food and if he was trying to look for a way back to people like Krakauer did. Krakauer also explains all of the pain he had felt, "I began to hyperventilate, my calves started to shake. I shuffled a few feet farther to the right, hoping to find thicker ice, but managed only to bend an ice ax on the rock." (Krakauer Pg.143). This quote really shows how rough it really is to be out in the wilderness like that in those conditions. Similar to Chris and I can appreciate this other view point on How Chris McCandless could've possibly felt out by himself. Even though I do appreciate what Krakauer had to say, but I do think it might've slowed down the story just a bit. The story is meant to be about Chris McCandless life, not Krakauer. It was oddly placed to tell his story half way through the book. If I everr had a relevent story, such as Krakauer does to Chris McCandless, I don't think I'd ever share it. If I took my time to see these people to have interviews with and to still tell a story because I relate in some way, I'd feel awful. Into the Wild should be a book only about Chris McCandless and the people who were in his life.
27/10/2025 10:11 pm
I agree with your idea of Krakauer putting his story in the beginning of the book or having it be a family member's story instead. I also agree that it is insensitive of him to try and make an entire chapter about himself when he never even met McCandless. This could've been a short story or even shortened to a paragraph at the end or beginning of the book. Writing a story about someone else, especially someone with a life like McCandless, deserves to have your respect and selflessness. I understand why he did it and that he wanted people to understand what Chris was going through, I just believe this was entirely the wrong way to go about it.
Even though you think it's insensitive, I like that you still said that it helped you understand what McCandless was going through more than you had before. You didn't just degrade Krakauer's writing and ideas, you acknowledged that it was a good idea, just not the way he did it. Would you feel any different if he conveyed at the beginning or end of the book that the family knew that he wanted to add a personal experience and they thought it was a good idea?
27/10/2025 10:23 pm
I really liked what you said about Krakauer adding himself into the story feeling kind of disrespectful to Chris McCandless and his family. I honestly hadn’t thought about it that way, but it makes sense. The book is supposed to be about Chris’s life and choices, so it does seem strange for Krakauer to suddenly switch the focus to himself in the middle of it. I also agree that if he wanted to include his own story, it probably would’ve fit better near the beginning instead of halfway through.
At the same time, I can kind of understand why he included it. Like you mentioned, his experience helps readers picture what McCandless might’ve gone through and how scary it really was out there. The parts you quoted really show how dangerous it can be to be alone in the wild with so little food and protection. I think Krakauer was just trying to help people connect with Chris on a deeper level, even if it did slow the story down a bit.
You made a really good point overall. It’s hard to decide if his story adds to the book or distracts from it. Do you think Krakauer should’ve told his story in a separate section or maybe in an author’s note instead of a full chapter?
28/10/2025 11:27 pm
I agree with you on how you think Krakauer is unethical for including himself into a story that is dicussing the life of Chris McCandless, trying to honor and mourn his life. I really like the evidence you had used in describing why Krakauer could've possibly inserted himself into the story. By doing that, you were able to take a step back and sort of appreciate why Krakauer did this and the realizations it had given you. You described both sides very well , even though you did say that Krakauer was unethical.
When reading your response, while I agree with you on how unethical Krakauer was, you helped me escape that mindset at times throughout that essay. We don't directly know why McCandless felt the need to leave his 'perfect' life to go explore the world, which is why I believe most people call him crazy and cocky. But, you helped me think outside the box and realize that he could've genuinely been scared, with lack of food and civilization, like Krakauer was. Which could be possibly why Krakauer can seem biased towards McCandless is because he has been in his shoes to an extent.
In broader context, there could be others that agree with you on how Krakauer was reasonable to put his story into the novel. Most people, I believe, feel like Krakauer was unethical for including this story into a novel that is sheading light towards a tragic death and his life leading up to that point. However, there could be people like both Krakauer and McCandless who wanted that adventure and thrill, so by having Krakauer also share a similar story, it can help others connect and think of the other side of the story that isn't as well liked.
You had discussed about Krakauer and how by including this narrative it had slowed the overall story of Chris McCandless down, why do you feel that this anecdote slowed down the rest of the story? If Krakauer changed the story to be shorter or including it in the beginning, do you think your feelings would stay the same or differ?
