Into the Wild: Explained
Into the Wild, the book about Chris McCandless’s eventual demise in the wilderness, written by John Krakauer is more than just a non-fiction story. It is very important to understand that the book was not just written to account the story of McCandless but also to show the background. The question is not what he did in the wilderness, but why he did it. Why did Krakauer even write this book? He previously discussed the story of McCandless in a magazine article, why come back to it? There is, of course, no single absolute answer to this complicated question, but it is not impossible to answer. Krakauer has to make a living somehow, some may think it is as simple as that, but having closely examined his book, there is …show more content…
Krakauer sees a lot of himself in Chris McCandless, the yearning of the wilderness, the fatherly issues, and the need for independence. He draws close parallels between himself and McCandless, both of their dads were iron fisted, in both relationships the love was always “conditional” (46). Both came to resent their fathers for imposing themselves on the lives of their sons when in the end both fathers wished only to see their children succeed. McCandless’s dad pushed him to get a law degree and help people as a secondary. Krakauer’s dad was a doctor and wanted the exact same path he took, for his son. Through drawing these parallels, Krakauer reinforces his point that he was connected with McCandless on an emotional level some way or other. The bulk of the book is Krakauer going around the country and retracing the steps of McCandless. Krakauer uses no less than twenty primary sources who interacted with e McCandless in some way or other, as a result this creates a very accurate account for where McCandless went and how he got there. Krakauer visits the bus that McCandless survived out of for one-hundred and thirteen days in an attempt to investigate and find out what exactly made McCandless go from sustaining to starving. It is not until after the first edition of the book is published that he figures it out but nonetheless he achieves his purpose of figuring out how McCandless died, which was no big blunder. Simply one or two mistakes that any experienced woodsman could have ended up making. In this, Krakauer proves that indeed McCandless was no idiot nor did he have a “death wish” (107). Some may still say that the fact McCandless went into the wilderness and abandoned society at all made him a nutcase, to which Krakauer also explained in such a way that said otherwise. Krakauer uses himself and many other examples of characters who went into the wilderness for one reason or
Into the Wild, the book about Chris McCandless’s eventual demise in the wilderness, written by John Krakauer is more than just a non-fiction story. It is very important to understand that the book was not just written to account the story of McCandless but also to show the background. The question is not what he did in the wilderness, but why he did it. Why did Krakauer even write this book? He previously discussed the story of McCandless in a magazine article, why come back to it? There is, of course, no single absolute answer to this complicated question, but it is not impossible to answer. Krakauer has to make a living somehow, some may think it is as simple as that, but having closely examined his book, there is …show more content…
Krakauer sees a lot of himself in Chris McCandless, the yearning of the wilderness, the fatherly issues, and the need for independence. He draws close parallels between himself and McCandless, both of their dads were iron fisted, in both relationships the love was always “conditional” (46). Both came to resent their fathers for imposing themselves on the lives of their sons when in the end both fathers wished only to see their children succeed. McCandless’s dad pushed him to get a law degree and help people as a secondary. Krakauer’s dad was a doctor and wanted the exact same path he took, for his son. Through drawing these parallels, Krakauer reinforces his point that he was connected with McCandless on an emotional level some way or other. The bulk of the book is Krakauer going around the country and retracing the steps of McCandless. Krakauer uses no less than twenty primary sources who interacted with e McCandless in some way or other, as a result this creates a very accurate account for where McCandless went and how he got there. Krakauer visits the bus that McCandless survived out of for one-hundred and thirteen days in an attempt to investigate and find out what exactly made McCandless go from sustaining to starving. It is not until after the first edition of the book is published that he figures it out but nonetheless he achieves his purpose of figuring out how McCandless died, which was no big blunder. Simply one or two mistakes that any experienced woodsman could have ended up making. In this, Krakauer proves that indeed McCandless was no idiot nor did he have a “death wish” (107). Some may still say that the fact McCandless went into the wilderness and abandoned society at all made him a nutcase, to which Krakauer also explained in such a way that said otherwise. Krakauer uses himself and many other examples of characters who went into the wilderness for one reason or