10-14

I think it is entirely ethical for Krakauer to interrupt McCandless's story to insert his own personal story. Krakauer may not have explicitly stated that he would be inserting his own experience into the novel, but he never said he wouldn't. In fact, he actually stated that he would not claim to be impartial, which left the door open for his own anecdotes to be included. There are several moments throughout the novel where he makes personal comments or shares his own reaction. It isn't like all of a sudden he inserted himself over halfway through the novel. It is very evident that this is not a story about himself, nor is it a worship of McCandless's actions. I view Krakauer's story of his own travels to Alaska in his 20s simply as further context, perhaps providing us readers with reasoning behind McCandless's actions. 

The big question is…is it ever really ethical for an author to insert themselves into their novel? Even if it makes the story more interesting, it can still be detrimental to the veracity of the overall piece. When personal opinion and relations are added, it makes the possibility of bias much greater. Krakauer's personal inclusion helps the reader understand the motive behind Krakauer choosing to write this novel in the first place. However, he is writing a creative nonfiction piece, meaning he is supposed to remain objective about his subject. I personally liked his inclusion. I don't like the idea of a story simply being a recounting of facts. The people in McCandless's life describe him as a freespirit, stating that "We were always trying to pull him back from the edge" (Krakauer 109). Krakauer spends most of the novel trying to dissect why McCandless did what he did and went out into the Alaskan wilderness. There is obviously no way to straight up ask him…afterall, McCandless is dead. Krakauer's description of his own adventure could help provide an answer to McCandless's motives. He was also at one point a young man who was a thrill seeker and someone who rejected society. He says that during his climb he experiences an "overpowering clarity of purpose" (Krakauer 143).  We (as the readers) can infer that perhaps McCandless had similar mental experiences. 

I did actually find this personal element surprising. It almost seemed random and unnecessary when I first read it. Thinking back, I realize why Krakauer decided to include it. He isn't merely a reporter, but instead an investigator. He wants to discover the story of Chrisopher McCandless.