Notifications
Clear all
Into the Wild Chapters 10-14
3
Posts
3
Users
0
Reactions
190
Views
Topic starter
21/10/2025 3:19 pm
In Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, the death of Chris McCandless is deeply investigated by Krakauer. Throughout this investigation, Krakauer has expressed some signs of bias towards McCandless, and in some cases glorifying McCandless’ actions, even when the action may not be right. A little over halfway through the novel, Krakauer inserts his own opinions, even including “I” with some of his statements. It is usually very uncommon for an author to put their whole opinion into their writing, especially when they are taking a journalistic approach. I do think that his execution using his personal opinion is somewhat ethical, but doesn’t entirely change the reader’s opinion. When Krakauer gives a personal story after stating his opinion, he uses the story to help himself find the reason for McCandless’s adventures, as it is his investigation. Krakauer tries to resonate with him on some level to get to the bottom of McCandless’ madness. For example, Krakauer explains, “I was twenty-three, a year younger than Chris McCandless when he walked into the Alaska bush. My reasoning, if one can call it that, was inflamed by the scattershot passions of youth…” (Krakauer 135) This example helps the reader understand that there is an intention with going into the wilderness, and with this we can have a further understanding of McCandless.
Although some readers may say his perspective in the story can create bias, I think with what Krakauer is trying to accomplish (figuring out why McCandless did what he did) it is important to include your own opinion to an extent. Krakauer says “My suspicion that McCandless’s death was unplanned, that it was a terrible accident , comes from reading those few documents he left behind and from listening to the men and women who spent time with him over the final year of his life.” (Krakauer 134) This opinion when put into the novel is crucial to Krakauer's understanding of McCandless to further explore McCandless’s reasoning. Although I do think it was important to include, the personal story seemed to be lengthy and redundant, slowing down the momentum of the novel.
29/10/2025 4:33 pm
I really like how you pointed out Krakauer’s unique approach to inserting himself into the narrative. Your observation that it’s “uncommon for an author to put their whole opinion into their writing, especially when they’re taking a journalistic approach,” is a sharp and insightful take on Krakauer’s blending of journalism and memoir. This interconnectedness makes Krakauer’s investigation more personal and subjective, and I think you captured that tension really well. I also liked how you recognized that his use of “I” statements functions both as a sign of bias and as a tool for empathy. It allows Krakauer to understand McCandless by creating an interrelationship between them, one that humanizes both the author and his subject.
Your post actually made me rethink how I interpret bias in nonfiction writing. I used to believe bias always weakened credibility, but your explanation helped me realize that sometimes bias is necessary to give a story emotional depth and narrative drive—especially when the subject is as mysterious and emotionally charged as McCandless’s story. Overall, you raised some strong points about the importance of Krakauer’s personal involvement, even if it occasionally slows the narrative.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on what the story might have been like if Krakauer hadn’t inserted himself at all. Would it have felt less human and relatable? Do you think Krakauer's personal insight allows readers to see McCandless as more than just reckless and simply as human?
29/10/2025 11:26 pm
I agree with your opinion that, in this context, it was important for Krauker to insert his opinion and personal story to back up his claim. His claim that McCandless’s death was an accident was bold, and even Krakauer knew of the controversy it would cause. His reason, however, showed his empathy because he took time to gather and analyze evidence and stories from people in McCandless’s life to, like you said, figure out why McCandless did what he did. I think there is a fine line between the author showing empathy and bias, but he used it to prove his point, which, in turn, makes me comfortable with agreeing that, in this case, it was ethical to add.
This brings me to think about how bias affects the way we perceive things. It worked to Krakauer’s advantage. At first I thought this was another case of affinity bias, where he was relating his own experiences and seemed to build a connection with McCandless (someone he had never met before) and felt the need to defend him. But instead, the evidence and story helped me see and understand McCandles’s experience from another perspective.
With all of the grey areas in Krakauer's writing, what would have been the tipping point to his added opinion, making it unethical? Is there a component that he could have added or taken away that would have changed your opinion?
