Jon Krakauer writes his book “Into the Wild” in response to the similarities in background that Krakauer and McCandless had. His his Author’s Note, Krakauer writes that he had an urge to write more about McCandless’ story given the “unsettling parallels” the two seemed to have with the events of their lives (ii). The author seems to see a little of himself within McCandless, a young man with admiration of the wilderness. Another reason why Krakauer wrote the book was that the American people felt in touch with the tragic story of McCandless. In the Author’s Note, the author writes that his article for Outside Magazine on Chris generated the most mail than any other article that was published by the magazine. Everyone had their own view on McCandless’
…show more content…
I believe that the author doesn’t have a very specific group that the author is writing towards. I believe that the author’s intended audience is the American public that can learn something from the story of Chris McCandless. Aside from that, I believe that he wrote the book hoping that those that were interested in his original magazine article. As stated previously, the author stated that he has received a lot of mail in response to the article that he wrote for Outside Magazine. As a result, I believe that a part of his wide audience are those that responded to the initial release of the …show more content…
I believe that the author’s strongest claim is that Chris’s adventure isn’t overly romantic as many other people may think. The author backs this idea by giving multiple examples of others, including himself, that traveled out into the wild. In chapter 8 he tells the stories of Gene Rosselini, John Waterman, and Carl McCunn. Within the chapter, the author states that what linked these young men were their interest in the “harsh side of nature” (85). In chapter 14, Krakauer further argues that it is caused by their “undisciplined imagination” that makes them obsessed with obtaining somethin (134). Another strong claim that Krakauer makes is that Chris wasn’t some sociopath or naive child. As he compares Chris to the other three that also failed, Krakauer makes it clear that Chris was different from them. Krakauer writes that McCandless wasn’t mentally ill (unlike Waterman) and didn’t go into the wild assuming that someone would save him if things gone wrong (unlike McCunn). He further goes to explain that if he was indeed incompetent, there would’ve been no way that he could’ve survived the 113 days in Alaska
I believe that the author doesn’t have a very specific group that the author is writing towards. I believe that the author’s intended audience is the American public that can learn something from the story of Chris McCandless. Aside from that, I believe that he wrote the book hoping that those that were interested in his original magazine article. As stated previously, the author stated that he has received a lot of mail in response to the article that he wrote for Outside Magazine. As a result, I believe that a part of his wide audience are those that responded to the initial release of the …show more content…
I believe that the author’s strongest claim is that Chris’s adventure isn’t overly romantic as many other people may think. The author backs this idea by giving multiple examples of others, including himself, that traveled out into the wild. In chapter 8 he tells the stories of Gene Rosselini, John Waterman, and Carl McCunn. Within the chapter, the author states that what linked these young men were their interest in the “harsh side of nature” (85). In chapter 14, Krakauer further argues that it is caused by their “undisciplined imagination” that makes them obsessed with obtaining somethin (134). Another strong claim that Krakauer makes is that Chris wasn’t some sociopath or naive child. As he compares Chris to the other three that also failed, Krakauer makes it clear that Chris was different from them. Krakauer writes that McCandless wasn’t mentally ill (unlike Waterman) and didn’t go into the wild assuming that someone would save him if things gone wrong (unlike McCunn). He further goes to explain that if he was indeed incompetent, there would’ve been no way that he could’ve survived the 113 days in Alaska