Notifications
Clear all
Into the Wild Chapters 10-14
3
Posts
3
Users
0
Reactions
236
Views
Topic starter
21/10/2025 4:59 pm
It was absolutely ethical for Krakauer to insert himself into the novel. While it could be titled as unrelaible, I saw it as Krakauer making a style choice. This question is funny to me, because in the author's note Krakauer states “I won’t claim to be an impartial biographer.” I mean it's right there, infront of your face. Krakauer isn’t writing nonfiction, he's writing a nonfiction story behind biased eyes. Krakauer explores Chris, his family, his friends, and the many hardships he endured during his life. Therefore, how could Krakauer be expected not to hold bias when he had to insert himself into Chris’s life to write the story. Inserting himself is ethical, because he warns the readers he's doing it. If he said he was an impartial narrator, free from bias, it would be different. But since Krakauer states that he's not an “impartial biographer”, and develops a relationship with Chris’s friends and story, his insertion is 100% ethical.
Krakauers insertion was extremely important. It helps the reader be more fair, and less critical, toward Chris. It helps the reader see that Chris wasn’t an oddity. Krakauer gave a personal tale of connecting with nature stating “Life thummed on a higher pitch. The world was made real.” This allows the reader to visualize how Chris must have felt in nature. Comforted, and given clarity. It shows that Chris isn’t the only person to ever have a fascination with the outdoors, and makes his character more relatable.
Krakauer also helps Chris’s relatability when he relates to having issues with his father. He states “I disappointed my father in the usual ways. Like McCandless, figures of male authority aroused in me a confused meldly of concerned fury and hunger to please.” This helped me relate to Chris. I have issues with my family members all the time. My dad and I especially tend to be the two that butt heads the most. I leave for school mad at him all the time. That's essentially what Chris did, just on a greater scale. I think it's easy to be critical of Chris for leaving his family because we are seeing that he hurt the people he loved. However, the people he loved hurt him too. He didn’t know he wouldn’t get the chance to fix things. It made me realise that he didn’t intentionally abandon his family, it may have been just like when I leave for school and mad and hope to apologize when I get home. Krakauers insertion adds humanity to Chris. I think the story needed that so the reader could empathize and be more fair with Chris.
I did find this element surprising, and not necessarily in a good way. I think it worked well for this story and this context, but I think overall this is a risky move. When I read, I get into a sort of flow, and this sudden change in rhythm sort of shocked me out of that flow. While it was actually a nice shift in this case, I probably wouldn’t do this. Maybe at the end in my conclusion but not in the middle. I would try to avoid running the reader's flow. But in this case I think it was strong and effective, just risky.
27/10/2025 9:17 pm
I relate to the part when you said you sometimes leave the house mad at your dad, hoping to say sorry when you get home. This is very relatable, and I believe it was a great connection to Into the Wild. I also struggle with arguing before I leave somewhere, and then I get worried, what if that's the last time I say something to them? McCandless never got to apologize, and neither did his family. Jon related to McCandless about disappointing his father as well. I agree with you that Jon should have added himself to the story at the end. In the middle of the book was abrupt, but it didn't ruin the whole flow of the narrative. It was ethical for Jon to add him into the story, and it should be ethical in any non-fiction story if it's just a small part of the story. It helps the characters, the author, and the reader be more engaged in the narrative. I get bored reading. When an author gets off pace and adds their own story, that helps me be more engaged.
Do you think Jon adding his own story and relations to the story helped you be more engaged?
29/10/2025 2:32 pm
I strongly agree with your opinion on this piece. Krakauer's claim to not be impartial allows for him to make such an obvious biased insertion later on. This question was odd to me too. The point of "is it ethical to insert himself suddenly so far into the novel" is completely irrelevant... because he didn't. Krakauer was always present in the novel. He actually breaks through and makes comments in his own voice several times. Also, it's his novel... so who says he can't have a little bit of creative freedom?
His personal story made McCandless seem like more of a character, rather than just a random and reckless guy in a news article. However, I do not think Krakauer's insertion was the only thing that made McCandless relatable. He had many relatable characteristics before then. For example - his passion for knowledge, chase of adventure, and even his desire to reject society and not conform to the privileges of wealth. What Krakauer's insertion did do was put that relate-ability into context. It showed Krakauer's motive for writing the novel, and why he personally relates to McCandless.
I see that you felt it was a little bit jarring for Krakauer to share his story at the point he did. Would the conclusion really be a better time in the novel for Krakauer to include his adventure story? Or would that make the conclusion disconnected and random feeling?
