The Inquiry of my Mind

Click here to edit subtitle

Into The Wild My Process..

Reading Into the Wild, by Jon Krakauer and watching the movie in class turned out to be an amazing heart-warming experience. It really changed the way I think about things. The Process that went into this piece I find to be very beneficial because this kind of piece is written very formally and we would most likely in any other higher level English or writing classes be using this similar format and analysis style again. So I really wanted to take the revising and the entire process as a whole very seriously. This is why I chose to display the process of this analysis. 


        Before I begin with the process I would like to say how much of a privilege it was to have been able to read such an interesting book. I really enjoyed it. This book really forced you to think and I love that about a book. One thing I really admired about Chris McCandless was his intelligence and his love and devotion for reading and fighting for something he believed in. Even though it may seem like he was crazy or thinking irrationally the amount of passion and adventure present in his life was unquestionable. I also really admired his passion for reading and how he got easily consumed in what he read. I really admire that kind of passion in someone.  


The Rough Draft

Jenn Tillman

Ms. Andrews

English 1102

Into The Wild Analysis


        The story of Chris McCandless, told through Krakauer’s eyes, allows us to explore the world and mind of a once living enigma. Although there may be many different speculations as to why Krakauer chose to write this book, his real intentions linger within the text and they urge us as an audience to come up with our own thoughtful conclusions to the story. Krakauer uses his characterizing prose and erratic style in order to effectively persuade his audience into believing that Chris McCandless was not only intelligent, but a curious soul whose last great adventure was not supposed to be in Alaska.

Krakauer makes use of these particular writing techniques in order to push his audience into believing certain ideas about Chris McCandless. A writer that has a deeper purpose than to just simply tell a story doesn’t stick to the typical format expected of the genre. Krakauer challenges his reader’s to connect their own ideas and come up with their own conclusions about the interesting character that Chris McCandless is and it all begins with the characterization of the people who were most affected by Chris life.


        Not only does Krakauer allow us to see into the mind of Chris McCandless he also allows us to explore the minds of the people who knew him. Through the experiences of Gallien, Wayne, Franz and many others the audience, due to the use of characterization are able to piece together many clues about who McCandless is. Krakauer throws us into the minds of these people giving the audience a chance to feel and understand. Krakauer feeds the audience with stories and personal descriptions from the people who knew Chris. “The more they talked, the less Alex, Chris McCandless, struck Gallien as a nutcase. He was congenial and seemed well educated” (5). The word nutcase stands out here because surely a man who aspires to wander off into the wilderness has to be a nutcase, but throughout most of the book Krakauer doesn’t have to explain to the reader that Chris is not a nutcase. He allows the people who knew Chris to characterize him instead. This way the text feels a lot more genuine. In the authors note’s Krakauer even claims that, “Through most of the book, I have tried—and largely succeeded, I think—to minimize my authorial presence.” This in a sense foreshadows Krakauer’s intentions.


        Krakauer used every experience Chris went through to build upon Chris’s character. Each chapter was new elaborate twist into Chris’s personality. Through Wayne’s eyes we are opened up into a new side of Chris, which Krakauer obviously felt was far too important to leave out. Wayne said, “I think maybe what got him into trouble was that he did too much thinking. Sometimes he tried too hard to make sense of the world…he got stuck on things” (18). This kind of information lets the reader know that there was more to this person than just an urge to go on a suicidal escapade. Krakauer wanted the audience to know that.

It is clear that Krakauer during the writing of this book knew how to ask questions in order to get the responses he was looking for. When he spoke to a man named Charlie he made sure to quote the most important pieces of conversation that would build onto Chris’s unique character. Charlie spoke about his thoughts of Chris saying, “Seemed like a kid who was looking for something, looking for something, just didn’t know what it was. I was like that once, but then I realized what I was looking for” (42). This gives off the essence that Chris is relatable and not someone who had no goals in life.


        Finally, before the story takes an erratic turn we are introduced to an old man named Franz whose idealization of Chris intertwines the power of religion and the power of love which Krakauer uses to shift the readers opinions of Chris into new territories. Franz like many other characters builds a special bond with Chris. Krakauer uses this connection to draw the audience in on an emotional roller coaster. Franz said “I prayed to God to keep his finger on the shoulder of that one; I told him that boy was special. But he let Alex die. When I learned what happened I renounced the Lord…I became an atheist (60). Many can look at this in many different ways, but to Krakauer the power within Franz characterization of Chris spoke for itself. Krakauer’s intentions with including something this deep and sentimental may be to keep the story interesting, but it could also be to subliminally persuade to the reader that Chris McCandless was not just an ignorant youngster. He was a man that could push an old man like Franz, to the limits and denounce his entire lifelong religion.


        The first few chapters Krakauer uses to drive the audience into creating their own perception of who Chris really is. With the use characterization through the eyes of many people other than Krakauer himself he has already encouraged the audience to believe certain concepts about Chris. There is also another more obvious, but misunderstood technique Krakauer uses to persuade his audience. Many may read this technique and confuse it for Krakauer being unorganized or untruthful, but Krakauer uses his erratic story structure to once again manipulate the audience’s perception of Chris McCandless. You would assume that a story about a person would begin with their childhood and their lives before adulthood, but Krakauer refuses to follow this traditional story order. He uses a more erratic and random approach to Chris’s story so that the audience’s built characterization of Chris can flow without too much bias.


        For example if your idea of Chris McCandless before reading the book was that he was a cocky idiot then if you knew how he was as a kid as Walt, Chris’s father says, “Chris had so much natural talent, but if you tried to coach him, to polish his skill, to bring out that final ten percent, a wall went up. He resisted instructions of any kind” (111), you would most likely turn away thinking that the book wouldn’t change your opinion of him. To avoid this, Krakauer decided to give you a different side of Chris. The Chris that touched many people’s lives in personal ways. Then he allows you to take on the other sides of Chris. As said in the book, Chris was a true enigma, but it was clear to Krakauer that to easily understand Chris, the story was best left erratic in order to keep the audience building onto to the story rather than turning away. So the more controversial topics about Chris Krakauer left in later parts of the book most likely to keep the audience building onto their ideas of Chris is a more positive way rather than negative.


        Krakauer also seems to randomly cut off into stories about himself, which in the end draws his main intentions into a full conclusion. While still allowing the audience to develop their own ideas and thoughts of Chris, Krakauer opens up more about himself. At the time in the book this seems very erratic and as if it adds nothing at all to the story, but then Krakauer makes a point. Krakauer saw pieces of himself in Chris McCandless which is why he was so motivated to make such a controversial book. Krakauer admits that, “It is easy when you are young, to believe that what you desire is no less than what you deserve, to assume that if you want it, it is your God-given right to have it” (155).


        Here Krakauer relates his story of climbing the Thumb with Chris’s dying passion to venture into the Alaskan wild. “I suspect we had a similar intensity, a similar heedlessness, a similar agitation of the soul.” “The fact that I survived my Alaska adventure and McCandless did not was largely a matter of chance” (155). Krakauer was not only trying to tell a story about a man who died in Alaska, he was trying to teach a lesson and persuade to his audience that Chris McCandless was not a fool and if he hadn’t died in Alaska he would probably be in the same position that Krakauer is in now. Using third-person characterization and erratic structure Krakauer attempts to persuade his audience into believing his own beliefs about Chris McCandless. Whether he was successful or not would easily depend, but subliminally he may have made you really think about who Chris McCandless really was.



  1. Krakauer, Jon. Into the Wild. New York: Anchor, 1997. Print.

Peer Responses for Rough Draft


Questions for Peers relating to Draft:

1. Does my argument make sense?

2. Do my quotes flow well?

3. Can you understand thesis?

4. How can I make my argument stronger?


I realize I could have made stronger questions, but these were what I really needed at the time.


Response from Zachary Roatenberry:

- I think that your argument makes sense

- Your quotes seem to give support to the points

- I think that you have a good thesis and I can understand what you are saying

- You stayed on topic and kept adding support

- The quotes ere explained well.


Response "Logan" Kenneth Pressley:

I enjoyed the paper first off, the arguments were to the point and very detailed. The quotes you use definitely support the overall argument of Krakauer trying to make Chris sound smart and curious. You stay on topic and flow well with your points. I definitely could see this paper earning as high as an A and no lower than a B. Great Job.


These responses were very helpful and really gave me the confidence I needed to make the revised draft. I didn't change to much because I wasn't sure about what to change because their responses were so positive which is why in my Writer's Info response to Ms. Andrews I asked her to give me a lot of info on what to improve on for this kind of paper.


The Revised Draft

Jenn Tillman

English 1102

Ms. Andrews


A Writing Manipulation


        The story of Chris McCandless, told through Krakauer’s eyes[KA1] , allows us[KA2]  to explore the world and mind of a once living enigma. Although there may be many different speculations as to why Krakauer chose to write this book, his real intentions linger within the text and they urge us as an audience to come up with our own thoughtful conclusions to the story. Krakauer uses his characterizing prose and erratic style in order to effectively persuade his audience into believing that Chris McCandless was not only intelligent, but a curious soul whose last great adventure was not supposed to be in Alaska[KA3] .


        Krakauer makes use of these particular writing techniques [KA4] in order to push his audience into believing certain ideas about Chris McCandless. A writer that has a deeper purpose than to just simply tell a story doesn’t stick to the typical format expected of the genre. [KA5] Krakauer challenges his readers to connect their own ideas and come up with their own conclusions about the interesting character that Chris McCandless was, and it all begins with characterization through the eyes of the people who were most affected by Chris’s life.


        Not only does Krakauer allow us to see into the mind of Chris McCandless he also allows us to explore the minds of the people who knew him. Through the experiences of Gallien, Wayne, Franz and many others, the audience is able to piece together many clues about who McCandless truly was. Krakauer throws us into the minds of these people giving the audience a chance to feel and understand. Krakauer feeds the audience with stories and personal descriptions from the people who knew Chris. Krakauer explains the initial impact Chris made on Gallien, “The more they talked, the less Alex, Chris McCandless, struck Gallien as a nutcase. He was congenial and seemed well educated” (5). The word “nutcase” stands out here because surely a man who aspires to wander off into the wilderness has to be a nutcase, but throughout most of the book Krakauer doesn’t have to explain to the reader that Chris is not a nutcase. He allows the people who knew Chris to characterize him instead[KA6] . This way, the text feels a lot more genuine[KA7] . In the author’s notes Krakauer even claims that, “Through most of the book, I have tried—and largely succeeded, I think—to minimize my authorial presence” (Author’s Note). This in a sense foreshadows Krakauer’s intentions.[KA8] 

Krakauer used every experience Chris went through to build upon Chris’s character. Each chapter was a new elaborate twist into Chris’s personality. Through Wayne’s eyes we see a new side of Chris, which Krakauer obviously felt was far too important to leave out. Wayne said, “‘I think maybe what got him into trouble was that he did too much thinking. Sometimes he tried too hard to make sense of the world…he got stuck on things’” (18). This kind of information lets the reader know that there was more to this person than just an urge to go on a suicidal escapade. Krakauer wanted the audience to know that[KA9] .


        It is clear that Krakauer knew how to ask questions in order to get the responses he was looking for. When he spoke to a man named Charlie he made sure to quote the most important pieces of the conversation that would build onto Chris’s unique character. Charlie spoke about his thoughts of Chris saying, “‘Seemed like a kid who was looking for something, looking for something, just didn’t know what it was. I was like that once, but then I realized what I was looking for’” (42). This gives off the essence that Chris is relatable and not someone who had no goals in life[KA10] .


        Finally, before the story takes an erratic turn we are introduced to an old man named Ron Franz whose idealization of Chris intertwines the power of religion and the power of love which Krakauer uses to shift the readers opinions of Chris into new territories. [KA11] Franz like many other characters builds a special bond with Chris. Krakauer uses this connection to draw the audience in on an emotional roller coaster[KA12] . Franz said, “‘I prayed to God to keep his finger on the shoulder of that one; I told him that boy was special. But he let Alex die. When I learned what happened I renounced the Lord…I became an atheist’” (60). Many can look at this in many different ways[KA13] , but to Krakauer the power within Franz’s characterization of Chris spoke for itself. Krakauer’s intentions with including something this deep and sentimental may be to keep the story interesting, but it could also be to subliminally persuade the reader that Chris McCandless was not just an ignorant youngster. He was a man that could push an old man like Franz, to the limits and denounce his entire lifelong religion.


        In the first few chapters, Krakauer uses it[KA14]  to drive the audience into creating their own perception of who Chris really was. With the use of characterization through the eyes of many people other than Krakauer himself, he has already encouraged the audience to believe certain concepts about Chris. There is also another more obvious, but misunderstood technique Krakauer uses to persuade his audience. Many may read this technique and confuse it for Krakauer being unorganized or untruthful, but Krakauer uses his erratic story structure to once again manipulate the audience’s perception of Chris McCandless. You would assume that a story about a person would begin with their childhood and their lives before adulthood, but Krakauer refuses to follow this traditional story order. He uses a more erratic and random[KA15]  approach to Chris’s story so that the audience’s built characterization of Chris can flow without too much bias.

For example if your idea of Chris McCandless before reading the book was that he was a cocky idiot. Then if you knew how he was as a kid as Walt, Chris’s father says, “‘Chris had so much natural talent, but if you tried to coach him, to polish his skill, to bring out that final ten percent, a wall went up. He resisted instructions of any kind’” (111), you would most likely turn away thinking that the book wouldn’t change your opinion of him. [KA16] To avoid this, Krakauer decided to give you a different side of Chris; the Chris that touched many people’s lives in personal ways. Then he allows you to take on the other sides of Chris.[KA17]  As said in the book, Chris was a true enigma, but it was clear to Krakauer that to easily understand Chris, the story was best left erratic in order to keep the audience building onto the story rather than turning away. So the more controversial topics about Chris, Krakauer left in later parts of the book most likely to keep the audience building onto their ideas of Chris, in a more positive way[KA18] .


        Krakauer also seems to randomly cut off into stories about himself, which in the end draws his main intentions into a full conclusion. While still allowing the audience to develop their own ideas and thoughts of Chris, Krakauer opens up more about himself. At the time in the book this seems very erratic and as if it adds nothing at all to the story, but then Krakauer makes a point. Krakauer saw pieces of himself in Chris McCandless which is why he was so motivated to make such a controversial book. Krakauer admits that, “It is easy when you are young, to believe that what you desire is no less than what you deserve, to assume that if you want it, it is your God-given right to have it” (155). This in a sense allows us to make connections between Chris and Krakauer and the motivation behind the book and a better understanding of why Chris might have done what he did.


        Krakauer then relates his story of climbing the Thumb with Chris’s dying passion to venture into the Alaskan wild. “I suspect we had a similar intensity, a similar heedlessness, a similar agitation of the soul,” admits Krakauer, “The fact that I survived my Alaska adventure and McCandless did not was largely a matter of chance” (155). This quote here wraps up [KA19] our old speculations as to why Chris might have did what he did and enlightens us with a new plausible explanation.


        Krakauer was not only trying to tell a story about a man who died in Alaska, he was trying to teach a lesson and persuade to his audience that Chris McCandless was not a fool and if he hadn’t died in Alaska he would probably be in the same position that he is in now. Using third-person characterization and erratic structure, Krakauer attempts to persuade his audience into believing his own beliefs about Chris McCandless. Whether he was successful or not would easily depend on the person, but subliminally he may have made you really think about who Chris McCandless really was[KA20].

[1]


[1] Krakauer, Jon. Into the Wild. New York: Anchor, 1997. Print.[1]











Ms. Andrew's responses:


[KA1]You may want to add the title of the book somewhere in the introduction. You could work it in here if you want… “told through Krakauer’s eyes in Into the Wild, allows…”

[KA2]You want to avoid using anything but the third person. Try “the reader” or “the audience” instead. I’m not marking all instances, but I would look for we, our, my, mine, you, your, etc. and replace them.

[KA3]If this is your thesis statement, then I am going to assume that you will be writing about Krakauer’s erratic style and Chris as being intelligent, curious, and that he wasn’t supposed to be in Alaska. Is that right?

[KA4]Be specific. What are the particular writing techniques. Re-name them.

[KA5]Why not? You could take another sentence to explain this idea.












[KA6]Great point!

[KA7]What do you mean by this? I think I get it, but as a reader I was hoping you’d add a little more.

[KA8]You’re right, but why? Give the explanation to your reader.









[KA9]I think that you are making a great point here. Is there another instance of this in the text?





[KA10]Could you write a little bit on what Krakauer may have left out? What wouldn’t work for his purposes?








[KA11]I like the point that you are making here and the ideas, but the writing is a little bulky. Can you make it clearer for your reader?

[KA12]You want to try to avoid clichés in this type of writing. Could you make your own comparison or metaphor?



[KA13]What would be those different ways? Be specific for your reader.






[KA14]What do you mean by “it”?









[KA15]Do you not think that he had a purpose? Random implies that he didn’t have any intentions behind it.






[KA16]You should combine or rephrase these sentences to make it clearer to the reader.

[KA17]Can you be more specific here?





[KA18]Good point, which also means that his approach wasn’t random.



















[KA19]Can you rephrase this?









[KA20]You may want to work on your conclusion a bit. I would go back to the living enigma idea as relating to Chris and Krakauer and possibly even the book itself. It would really tie everything together.



Introductory Reflection

Ms. Andrews gave me some really great responses and great critiques. I used the information she gave me to hopefully make a stronger more organized and explanatory paper. First of all I made sure that I added in the book name in the opening paragraph. I wasn't sure at first if I had to add it, but I know now that it is better to have it. Most importantly I understand the important of staying in third person with this kind of paper so I went through and changed every instance I could find where I was going unnecessarily into first-person. For instance I have a habit of using words like, you, us, we, and our as an attempt to put me and the readers on the same page. I realize now that I do not really need this and instead I am better off just addressing my audience as "the readers" since they would be reading my paper. One issue I noticed I kept causing was that I would not be specific enough and explain completely what I mean. I feel like I took the idea that my imagined audience would have already read the book to far and I allowed myself to not explain concepts and ideas as I usually would. So I went through in the points that Ms. Andrews said I could further emphasize and I added more explanation and even a quote. This I feel was my biggest down fall with my revised draft and I tried hard to add more without adding too much. I also changed my wording for some scenarios a little bit to make them more clear for the reader. I noticed reading through my paper multiple times I found better ways to say what I meant about certain things. Finally, my conclusion was not as strong this time around so I tried to make it better by adding more and taking points mentioned earlier which hopefully will allow it to conclude a lot better. 

        Overall I really feel I improved this paper a lot with the Final draft. I never believe a paper is perfect though and I still believe I could make the paper stronger if I looked through it again, but I still am satisfied with the result and the mental processes that i went through when I went through the final revision. I felt like I made the paper more clear for the reader and I gave further explanations in places where it was really lacking. Hopefully as a result this makes the paper easier to follow and understand.


The Final Draft


Jenn Tillman

English 1102

Ms. Andrews


A Writing Manipulation


        The story of Chris McCandless, told through Krakauer’s eyes in Into the Wild, allows the readers to explore the world and mind of a once living enigma. Although there may be many different speculations as to why Krakauer chose to write this book, his real intentions linger within the text and they urge the readers to come up with their own thoughtful conclusions to the story. Krakauer uses his characterizing prose and erratic style in order to effectively persuade his readers into believing that Chris McCandless was not only intelligent, but a curious soul whose last great adventure was not supposed to be in Alaska.


        Krakauer makes use of his characterizing prose and an erratic format in order to push his readers into believing certain ideas about Chris McCandless. A writer that has a deeper purpose than to just simply tell a story doesn’t stick to the typical format expected of the genre. Instead they use interesting writing techniques that allow the readers to analyze the story in a different way. Krakauer challenges his readers to connect their own ideas and come up with their own conclusions about the unique character that Chris McCandless was and it all begins with characterization through the eyes of the people who were most affected by Chris’s life.


        Not only does Krakauer allow us to see into the mind of Chris McCandless he also allows us to explore the minds of the people who knew him. Through the experiences of Gallien, Wayne, Franz and many others, the readers are able to piece together many clues about who McCandless truly was. Krakauer throws us into the minds of these people giving the readers a chance to feel and understand Chris’s story. Krakauer uses these stories and personal descriptions from the people who knew Chris to tell the story for him. Krakauer explains the initial impact Chris made on Gallien, “The more they talked, the less Alex, Chris McCandless, struck Gallien as a nutcase. He was congenial and seemed well educated” (5). The word “nutcase” stands out here because surely a man who aspires to wander off into the wilderness has to be a nutcase, but throughout most of the book Krakauer doesn’t have to explain to the reader that he doesn’t believe this. He allows the people who knew Chris to characterize him instead. This way the text feels a lot more genuine, because Krakauer isn’t just arguing his opinions without any evidence. Instead of making the book too much about him and his own opinions, he intelligently uses the curiosity surrounding Chris’s story to draw the readers in and subliminally he hopes to change the way they think about Chris’s story. In the author’s notes Krakauer even claims that, “Through most of the book, I have tried—and largely succeeded, I think—to minimize my authorial presence” (Author’s Note). This in a sense foreshadows Krakauer’s intentions to subliminally convince the readers of something.


        Krakauer used every experience Chris went through to build upon Chris’s character. Each chapter was a new elaborate twist into Chris’s personality. Through Wayne’s eyes the readers see a new side of Chris, which Krakauer obviously felt was far too important to leave out. Wayne said, “‘I think maybe what got him into trouble was that he did too much thinking. Sometimes he tried too hard to make sense of the world…he got stuck on things’” (18). This kind of information lets the reader know that there was more to this person than just an urge to go on a suicidal escapade. Krakauer wanted the readers to know that. Wayne also said, “If he started a job he’d finish it. It was almost like a moral thing for him. He was what you’d call extremely ethical. He set pretty high standards for himself’” (18). This kind of dialogue really allows the reader to make their own connections and ideas about Chris’s character, and Krakauer is somewhat trying to pursued and influence the readers beliefs using Wayne’s honest characterization. Why would a man who set high standards for himself expect to die in the wilderness? It really raises a lot of questions for the reader.


        It is clear that Krakauer knew how to ask questions in order to get the responses he was looking for. When he spoke to a man named Charlie he made sure to quote the most important pieces of the conversation that would build onto Chris’s unique character. Charlie spoke about his thoughts of Chris saying, “‘Seemed like a kid who was looking for something, looking for something, just didn’t know what it was. I was like that once, but then I realized what I was looking for’” (42). This gives off the essence that Chris is relatable and not someone who had no goals in life.


        Finally, before the story makes an erratic turn the readers are introduced to an old man named Ron Franz whose love and respect for Chris is displayed through his extreme actions. Franz like many other characters builds a special bond with Chris. Krakauer uses this connection to draw the readers in from an emotional standpoint. Franz said “‘I prayed to God to keep his finger on the shoulder of that one; I told him that boy was special. But he let Alex die. When I learned what happened I renounced the Lord…I became an atheist’” (60). Many would say that he is just a crazy old man or that he was simply acting irrationally due to grief, but to Krakauer the power within Franz’s characterization of Chris spoke for itself. Krakauer’s intentions with including something this deep and sentimental may be to keep the story interesting, but it could also be to subliminally persuade the reader that Chris McCandless was not just an ignorant youngster. He was a man that could push an old man like Franz, to the limits and denounce his entire lifelong religion.


        In the first few chapters, Krakauer used characterization from other people’s point of view to help drive the readers into creating their own perception of who Chris really was. Using the characterization of many people rather than himself, Krakauer has already encouraged the readers to subliminally believe certain concepts about Chris. There is also an even more obvious, but misunderstood technique Krakauer uses to persuade the readers. Many may read this technique and confuse it for Krakauer being unorganized or untruthful, but Krakauer uses his erratic story structure to once again manipulate the readers’ perception of Chris McCandless. The readers would assume that a story about a person would begin with their childhood and their lives before adulthood, but Krakauer refuses to follow this traditional story order. He uses a more erratic and unpredictable approach to Chris’s story so that the readers’ built characterization of Chris can flow without too much bias.


        Krakauer knew that a lot of people’s initial impressions of Chris were mostly negative. For instance, many people probably thought that Chris was just an ignorant and cocky idiot who died as a result. Since Krakauer was aware of this initial impression that a majority of people might already have of Chris he organized the book accordingly. Krakauer knew that if the readers were aware of how Chris was when he was younger as Chris’s father Walt described when he said, “‘Chris had so much natural talent, but if you tried to coach him, to polish his skill, to bring out that final ten percent, a wall went up. He resisted instructions of any kind’” (111), the reader would most likely turn away thinking that the book wouldn’t change their opinion of him. To avoid this, Krakauer decided to give the readers a different side of Chris; the Chris that touched many people’s lives in personal ways. Then he allows the readers to take on the other unpleasing and hard to understand sides of Chris. As said in the book, Chris was a true enigma, but it was clear to Krakauer that to easily understand Chris, the story was best left erratic in order to keep the readers building onto the story rather than turning away. So the more controversial topics about Chris, Krakauer left in later parts of the book most likely to keep the readers building onto their ideas of Chris, in a more positive way.


        Krakauer also seems to randomly cut off into stories about himself, which in the end draws his main intentions into a full conclusion. While still allowing the readers to develop their own ideas and thoughts of Chris, Krakauer opens up more about himself. At the time in the book this seems very erratic and as if it adds nothing at all to the story, but then Krakauer makes a point. Krakauer saw pieces of himself in Chris McCandless which is why he was so motivated to make such a controversial book. Krakauer admits that, “It is easy when you are young, to believe that what you desire is no less than what you deserve, to assume that if you want it, it is your God-given right to have it” (155). This in a sense allows us to make connections between Chris and Krakauer and the motivation behind the book and a better understanding of why Chris might have done what he did.


        Krakauer then relates his story of climbing the Thumb with Chris’s dying passion to venture into the Alaskan wild. “I suspect we had a similar intensity, a similar heedlessness, a similar agitation of the soul,” admits Krakauer, “The fact that I survived my Alaska adventure and McCandless did not was largely a matter of chance” (155). This quote hints at previous speculations that Krakauer is trying to persuade the readers into believing certain ideas about Chris.


        Krakauer was not only trying to tell a story about a man who died in Alaska, he was trying to teach a lesson and persuade to his readers that Chris McCandless was not a fool and if he hadn’t died in Alaska he would probably be in the same position that he is in now. Using third-person characterization and erratic structure, Krakauer attempts to persuade his readers into believing his own beliefs about Chris McCandless without taking too much away from Chris’s unique story. Chris was not the only enigma, the way Krakauer chose to write this book may have contradicted with the many disapproving speculations about Chris, but in the end the book truly displays a promising view of Chris McCandless. No matter what the readers’ current beliefs of Chris McCandless happen to be subliminally he may have made the readers really think about who Chris McCandless really was.

[1]


[1] Krakauer, Jon. Into the Wild. New York: Anchor, 1997. Print.[1]



Revisions Explained:



* I went through and changed all instance of my favorite overused words such as you, us, our and we.





* I added the title of the book in the introduction.




* I give further explanations of the particular writing techniques and how they are used.














* I explain more about why Krakauerr's use of characterization makes the text more genuine. 


* I explain how what was previously  stated foreshadows Krakauer's intentions.






* I found another quote on the same page that also adds to the point I was making here.











* In this paragraph I rephrased a lot of the sentences I used to make it clearer for the reader.






* I use to have "it" here and I further defined it for the reader so they aren't thrown off by it.




* I took out the word random and replaced it with unpredictable. Random makes it seem as if it has no purpose and that would contradict with my paper. 



* I rephrased a lot of sentences here and I added further emphasis to my points the best I could.






















* For the conclusion I really tried to make it stronger then it was before by adding a lot more to it. Hopefully it really combines all the points I was making so that it all could come full circle.