Notifications
Clear all
Into the Wild Chapters 10-14
4
Posts
4
Users
0
Reactions
191
Views
Topic starter
26/10/2025 9:57 pm
I’ve been thinking about the point around page 130 of Into the Wild when Jon Krakauer inserts himself into the story and tells the story of his own dangerous climb on the Devil’s Thumb. It’s a pretty striking shift. Up to that point, we’ve been following McCandless’s journey through the perspectives of others. The story has been pieced together by Krakauer. Then, suddenly, the author becomes a first-person character. Krakauer doesn’t set the expectation early that he’ll become part of the story. However, I don’t think it’s unethical so much as it is uncommon. The distinction for me is that if the author inserts themselves to clarify perspective or provide necessary context, it’s justifiable. If they do it to hijack the story or center themselves unnecessarily, then it’s a problem. In Krakauer’s case, he’s not trying to steal focus; he’s trying to explain why he empathizes with McCandless so deeply. “Had I not returned from the Stikine Ice Cap in 1977, people would have been quick to say of me–as they now say of him.” (Krakauer 155) Kraukauer relates to and has empathy for Chris because he did the same thing when he was younger; he just survived. It definitely surprised me, up until that point. The Devil’s Thumb section feels almost like a mini-memoir dropped into another book. For a few pages, it does slow the McCandless story’s momentum, but I think that pause has a purpose. The purpose is to explain and relate, that’s how you make something personable. “I pursued it with a zeal bordering on obsession, and from the age of seventeen until my late twenties, that something was mountain climbing.” (Krakauer 134) He and McCandless had similar interests and desires. No wonder Jon wanted to implement his own stories into this one.
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.
28/10/2025 1:16 pm
I agree with your point here. I think the purpose of the story he inserted was very beneficial and helpful to the book, although it could have definitely not worked had he chose to insert a story that wasn't so focused on a similar event to what is happening in the book. I also think that adding it was the right move as it helps to put us in the p.o.v of someones experiences like this. I think he did chose to add it when he did because the story overall was bouncing around from different peoples perspectives and it did help break up the flow that he had inserting a story that gives us a different perspective/understanding of what's happening. It definitely helps us to maybe understand why Mccandles did what he did, and that maybe it wasn't such an arbitrary move since we see here that this person did something very similar. Do you think the insert of this story would have been more beneficial toward the begging of the story before we get too far in or do you think it fits good where it is?
28/10/2025 3:00 pm
This is a great response! I agree with most of your points here, especially that the shift was striking. Describing it as "striking" is really effective at detailing how of putting it was. And that's not to say it was a bad thing, but it definitely startled me in a "striking" way. I definitely think the Devils Thumb narration was cool to read, but I honestly disagree that it was necessary. When Krakhauer states “Had I not returned from the Stikine Ice Cap in 1977, people would have been quick to say of me–as they now say of him.”, as you quoted, this is essential to the story. It gives context on why Kraukhauer empathizes with Chris. However, I think the Devils Thumb narration got almost braggy and felt like Krakhauer inserting his personal glory story. I looked back to this scene and found the quote "I felt my cracked lips stretch into a painful grin. I was on top of the devils thumb.", on page 153. This displays my point exactly. It seems almost more like an ego boost than a necessary tale. Overall, I loved this response. It really made me wonder; Was the Devils Thumb scene to help Chris or boost Kraukhauers personal ego?
28/10/2025 10:38 pm
For sure agree with you here. Krakauer's insertion of himself came unexpectedly, but I liked how you brought up the fact that he also never set the expectation that he would never be apart of the book. It's kind of something we as readers assumed and came to get used to. I also really like how you said "The distinction for me is that if the author inserts themselves to clarify perspective or provide necessary context, it’s justifiable. If they do it to hijack the story or center themselves unnecessarily, then it’s a problem." (edubois26) This is something I resonate with as well and I myself brought it up in my piece. If the author brings in personal experiences into a book out of nowhere, it can seem sudden and out of place, but if used correctly, it can help to aid the book and help add context and understanding. You also mentioned how Krakauer adding his own piece slows the momentum of the story for a little bit but does have a purpose and made it a useful piece, which I completely agree with, as sometimes the best pieces of writing are inconsistent but end up coming together perfectly overall. While working on this assignment I started to wonder whether or not Krakauer had any other options to add more context and depth to the piece that would have the same effect as him adding his personal experience. It was a sudden addition with seemingly no signs or warnings I wonder if he considered this when writing.
