15-Ep 🙂

I really like how you chose to word your writing, I agree that Krakauer felt a connection to Chris and that is what inspired him to write this book about him; And I agree with your argument that Krakauer wasn't making Chris's actions sound like something we should all go try to do, but he made a point to show that what Chris did was impressive. Your writing did get my attention bringing up the connection between Krakauer and McCandles, and it made me wonder if Krakauer possibly related to Chris on a deeper level with something like shared childhood struggles, or if he just felt connected to Chris on a level because of their sense of adventure. 

Do you think there might be a deeper connection than what is presented to us of why Krakauer chose to write a novel about Chris McCandles? 

I really like how you point out that Krakauer’s main goal was to give Chris a sense of humanity rather than let him remain a misunderstood headline. Your use of the quote about Krakauer being “haunted by the similarity” between himself and Chris makes your argument exceptionally strong, ultimately showing why Krakauer writes with so much empathy and refuses to let Chris be dismissed as reckless or clueless. Your response also made me think more about how people tend to judge Chris without understanding the emotional reasons behind his choices. The “feckless slacker” quote you included reminded me that Krakauer was intentionally trying to correct those assumptions. You’re right that he saw parts of himself in Chris, and that connection lets him show Chris as someone flawed but deeply human. On a broader level, your point raises an interesting question about who gets to shape someone’s legacy. Krakauer’s personal involvement complicates the line between storyteller and participant, but it also gives readers a more nuanced view of Chris than they might otherwise get. I’m also curious what you think Krakauer risks by inserting so much of himself into the story. Does it strengthen our understanding of Chris, or could it make the narrative too influenced by Krakauer’s own experiences?

I love the idea that Krakauer could have been appealing to and relating to his own views and experiences by writing about McCandless. I never thought of it that way, but after reading your piece, I have to say I am convinced. The quote you used to support your claim was also perfect, as it directly states exactly what you said. I agree with how you said, "I think Krakauer succeeds in making Chris a character with depth and complexity." as I completely agree and had a similar standpoint in my post. I find that Krakauer teetered on the line between descriptive and uninformative a lot in his text. Do you think this was on purpose and to demonstrate something, or is this a lack of foresight on his end?

I really like how you said, "Krakauer saw Chris almost as a mirror version of himself". I never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. Kraukaeur is definitely sympathetic to Chris, as you mentioned, he climbed Devil's Thumb and did other things as an adventurous kid, like McCandless. I love that you added both sides of Chris's story. Yes, he was selfish, but he had a lot of stuff going on at home. I think this is a critical piece, there are pros and cons to both sides. Forming personal relationships is important to really explore all the details. I find that if I were to write a piece like Kraukaeur did, I would definitely have a personal connection if I could relate to it. It's important to be personable.  Do you think it's important to add your own stories always, or does it draw in too much bias?

I love that you made the connection between Chris McCandless and humanity. I mean, he is human. If the novel was simply a report, there would be limited discussion of his true intentions. It would be easy to believe that Chris McCandless was nothing more than a naive and unprepared young man with no regard for himself or anyone else. Krakauer allows for that exploration of Chris being a deep and complex character (which is what most humans are!).

It is definitely worth noting that Krakauer's intentions behind choosing to write this story are perhaps that he saw himself in McCandless. Again, going back to a previous topic of discussion - Krakauer never claimed to be an impartial author. He saw McCandless's story as more than just something to report on, but as a life to explore beyond the shallow comments of reported stupidity and selfishness. I really like that you included the quote: “I was haunted by the similarity between McCandless’s stubborn idealism and my own”. This shows that Krakauer understands Chris beyond that surface level. If he didn't, do you think this novel would be half as much engaging to the readers?