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. 

I feel like Krakauer’s self-insertion into the book is debatable on whether it contributes to the book overall. On one hand, if his insertion enhances or adds to his point about McCandless or what he is trying to tell about him, then the insertion would make sense and be appropriate. However, given the context under which Krakauer placed himself, I see his insertion into the book as an unnecessary addition that could have been left out and doesn’t necessarily add much overall value to the book’s underlying goal. While Krakauer’s interruption does aid in his storytelling of McCandless, and he uses it as a connection to McCandless, I don’t see the author's story as a needed addition when he could have found other ways to give readers a deeper understanding of McCandless. I see the author's interruption as abrupt and straying away from the norm in his writing. After getting so far into the book, it makes you question, “Why now?”

Krakauer’s interruption could be seen as helpful. By giving the reader a personal story, he gives them a more realistic viewpoint into McCandless’s crazy decisions and helps give an understanding from a point of view that isn’t just McCandless. “I was dimly aware that I might be getting in over my head. But that only added to the scheme’s appeal. That it wouldn’t be easy was the whole point.” (Krakauer 135) Krakauer gives his own story and ends up sounding similar to how McCandless does throughout the book, which some readers may describe as crazy and making no sense, but that is the point of Krakauer’s story: to give readers an understanding of what McCandless is thinking by giving his own personal example. By Krakauer giving us his story and relating it back to McCandless, it creates somewhat of a thinking-back point of “huh, maybe McCandless isn’t so out of the ordinary after all.” Which in turn helps the readers understand him that much more. The author’s addition could be considered necessary because oftentimes humans criticize others without a second thought, but given time to reflect and given another point of view, we also can reconsider and reevaluate our opinions. As Krakauer says, “My reasoning, if one can call it that, was inflamed by the scatter shot passions of youth and a literary diet overly rich in the works of Nietzshe, Kerouac, and John Menlove Edwards…” (Krakauer 135), which leads reason to believe that his impulsiveness was something brought on by his unknowingness of youth and need for adventure. This is a strong connection to what McCandless could be without knowing.

While reading the book, I didn’t initially think much of it when I noticed Krakauer sticking his personal experience into the story out of nowhere, but after rethinking it over and looking back, I definitely found it to be out of nowhere. I think personally, Krakauer’s personal experience gave good insight as to what McCandless might have been going through, and I also think that’s what Krakauer was trying to display when he made this maneuver; however, I think he could have executed it perhaps in a different way or fashion that made it seem less abrupt after not having anything near this type of “interference” of the book up until that point. I think if I were writing it, just because of the randomness of it all, to get to that point, I might draw out the book a little more to wind up to the personal story if it were necessary.

If I were writing Into the Wild, and I had an experience that directly aligned with my subject’s motivations, I think I would include it too. But maybe I’d signal earlier that I intend to. That would make the narrative shift feel more natural. Still, I can see why Krakauer didn’t. His sudden appearance matches how unexpectedly we might see ourselves in McCandless, even when we don’t expect it. 

Overall, while it’s an unusual choice, Krakauer’s interruption deepens the story’s emotional and moral complexity. It doesn’t make Into the Wild less about Chris McCandless.

I think the introduction is helpful because it demonstrates the idea that maybe McCandless wasn't a crazy guy who was making decisions off a whim, because it demonstrates a story of someone else who similarly made a choice to take a trip to Alaska and it proved to be just as difficult for the other person. It was necessary because it puts you in the shoes of someone else who had a similar experience to McCandless and offers you what his experience was like, which makes us have a better understanding of what mccandles might have been going through while on his journey. “Hours slide by like minutes. The accumulated clutter of day-to-day existence-the lapses of conscience, the unpaid bills, the bungled opportunities, the dust under the couch, the inescapable prison of your genes” (143) This quote feels like something very similar to how McCandless talks about feeling in his journal entries. How he could not keep track of time and days and weeks blended together. It helps us to get an understanding of how different it really is to be in a situation completely cut off from all of society and on your own fending for yourself. It gives me a feeling of respect for these people because how could anyone imagine feeling like you are going crazy and not even being able to do something as simple as keeping track of time, yet they are so calm and accepting of it and it just becomes normal to them. “I felt abandoned, vulnerable, lost.” (141) This also backs up the idea that going out into the wilderness on your own is a daunting thing and it can take a toll on you mentally. It takes a strong person to go through this and persist on and keep going to achieve a goal they have set for themselves. I did find it surprising that the author chose to add this story into the book. But I do think it was a creative way to show someone else's perspective of a journey so similar to McCandless. It opens up the reader's mind to thinking about how this could relate to McCandless' story. I think it helps tie everything together and gives us a more complex picture of what this was like for him and maybe why he did it.

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.