Jon Krakauer’s “Into The Wild” is a book that is based on real life events that lead a young man on his own pilgrimage, end up dead in the harsh wilderness of Alaska. But Krakauer’s purpose of this wasn't to focus exactly on the young man’s story but to remark the fact that lots of people have love for the wilderness whether it's to be independent or just because it calls them, including himself. Krakauer wrote the book in an order that makes sense. He started off with Chris McCandless story in chapters 1-7 and then in chapters 8-9 he had analogies to compare McCandless to other folks, and the love they shared with the wilderness that ended up with their death, Krakauer also included his own love for the bush in chapters 14-15 in which
…show more content…
Krakauer asserts the point that there has been many other's like Chris McCandless who have been called to the wild. In his statement, Krakauer is starting off his first chapter to help explain how there is people like McCandless who have left to the bush for some reason and ended up dead. Krakauer’s first analogy to prove his point was Gene Rosellini or “the Mayor of Hippie Cove”(73,Krakauer) what the locals call him. Rosellini was a smart and athletic person as a child who didn't have to worry about money like McCandless. Rosellini was called to the bush through an “ambitious anthropological experiment.”(74,Krakauer) Krakauer points out that Rosellini was brought to the wild by curiosity and his on belief, which is very similar to reasons why Chris wanted to get away. Unfortunately unlike McCandless death, Rosellini's death was self inflicted he committed suicide after he had came back from his failed experiment and had another “goal”. Krakauer compares the two by describing both as “a seeker and had an impractical fascination with the harsh side of nature.”(85,Krakauer).Krakauer emphasizes the point that both were very fascinated with the wilderness, which had lead them to no good …show more content…
Krakauer reflects from his past “I pursued it with a zeal bordering on obsession, and from the age of seventeen until my late twenties that something was mountain climbing,.. I devoted most of my waking hours to fantasizing about, and then undertaking, ascents of remote mountains in Alaska and Canada-...”(134,Krakauer). Krakauer flat out points out his reason for wanting to go to the wild. He fantasized about climbing the most scary, crazy mountain, that he actually ended up climbing because he had his mind on it. It was his crazy goal to accomplish and that was the reason why he made it. The story of McCandless gave him a reason to write about reasons why people get called for the wild. Chris's story was a good base to write about what he was trying to get out to people so they acknowledge why people are brought out to the wildness. The format in which Krakauer wrote the book sets up why he writes it, by starting off with McCandless death and then go on with how he got there. After that he compares McCandless to others who also ended up in the wild and dead. Leaving himself last so it goes through the reader's mind not to judge the choices others do because at the end of it everything happens for a reason. In this case all had something for the
Krakauer asserts the point that there has been many other's like Chris McCandless who have been called to the wild. In his statement, Krakauer is starting off his first chapter to help explain how there is people like McCandless who have left to the bush for some reason and ended up dead. Krakauer’s first analogy to prove his point was Gene Rosellini or “the Mayor of Hippie Cove”(73,Krakauer) what the locals call him. Rosellini was a smart and athletic person as a child who didn't have to worry about money like McCandless. Rosellini was called to the bush through an “ambitious anthropological experiment.”(74,Krakauer) Krakauer points out that Rosellini was brought to the wild by curiosity and his on belief, which is very similar to reasons why Chris wanted to get away. Unfortunately unlike McCandless death, Rosellini's death was self inflicted he committed suicide after he had came back from his failed experiment and had another “goal”. Krakauer compares the two by describing both as “a seeker and had an impractical fascination with the harsh side of nature.”(85,Krakauer).Krakauer emphasizes the point that both were very fascinated with the wilderness, which had lead them to no good …show more content…
Krakauer reflects from his past “I pursued it with a zeal bordering on obsession, and from the age of seventeen until my late twenties that something was mountain climbing,.. I devoted most of my waking hours to fantasizing about, and then undertaking, ascents of remote mountains in Alaska and Canada-...”(134,Krakauer). Krakauer flat out points out his reason for wanting to go to the wild. He fantasized about climbing the most scary, crazy mountain, that he actually ended up climbing because he had his mind on it. It was his crazy goal to accomplish and that was the reason why he made it. The story of McCandless gave him a reason to write about reasons why people get called for the wild. Chris's story was a good base to write about what he was trying to get out to people so they acknowledge why people are brought out to the wildness. The format in which Krakauer wrote the book sets up why he writes it, by starting off with McCandless death and then go on with how he got there. After that he compares McCandless to others who also ended up in the wild and dead. Leaving himself last so it goes through the reader's mind not to judge the choices others do because at the end of it everything happens for a reason. In this case all had something for the