In the book we are reading, Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer admits that Chris McCandless was rash, but he insists he "wasn't a nutcase, he wasn't a sociopath, he wasn't an outcast. McCandless was something else -- although precisely what is hard to say. A pilgrim, perhaps" (85).
Your question:
What precisely was McCandless? Use one of Krakauer's terms or invent your own term. Choose your term carefully, and note passages as you read. Your answer to the question is your central claim. Support this claim with evidence from the text and explain how the language of the quote -- the connotations of individual words in the quotes you cite -- prove your claim to be valid.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Into the Wild (short essay prompt)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
i think this assighnment brings up a good point in which how was analyze charecters from a book and when we see things that contradict what Chris McCandless(alex) would be judged to do or see something thats out of charecter we get very confused and i forget which one but Mr. Bolos or Mr O'Connor brought up the point on this story is actually about a REAL persona and there stroy and that we have to keep that in mind when judging Alex to be crazy or suicidal and also while reading today and getting all this bachground on Alex's childhood and Billie and Walt McCandless's childhood and there parents i would like to know how long it took Krakauer to right this book and how hard it must be to do all this research and bring up memories some people might be trying to forget and i think this is parallel to Be Good Smile Pretty in which it's hard to know when researching where the line lays in appropriateness of questions and going too far with research.
Krakauer is a McCandless wannabe. I keep reading his adventures "into the wild" but when it is all said and done, he really isn't there. he has all the proper supplies, an exit strategy, and warmer clothes. he keeps interjecting his stories and it is frustrating because he was prepared, and Alex wasn't. The stress Alex put on himself to get there was huge as well. training and saving up cash, all krakauer had to do was schedule the trip and supply himself. he says the reason he didn't die and mccandless did was chance. well, is it a fair argument to say that the reason Man A didn't die in the explosion and Man B did was by chance. Krakauer was better prepared and nourished for his trip...if he went in with the same exact things that chris had, with the same rice, it still is not a fair argument. i like the book, and chris' story, but I think krakauer just wants some credit for his adventures.
check my blog...im gonna blog about this soon.
E,
I never thought about it from that angle. This was also my first time reading any of Krakauer's books, though I plan to read more.
For me, Krakauer's telling of his own journey (to climb the Devil's Thumb) was absolutely crucial for me to understand McCandless. In fact, before that story-within-a-story, I don't think I had much empathy for Chris because I have always been so risk-aversive, myself.
Until the author explained why he himself would do such a thing—something I considered almost suicidal behavior, I finally understood that Chris wasn't bent on killing himself.
This is one of the reasons I glanced around me so much when I saw the film by Sean Penn. I was worried that the missing Krakauer piece would turn the audience against Chris.
I also saw into the wild and I think Penn conveyed a side of chris through his relationships that showed he wasn't suicidal...liked his relationship with tracy, jan and bob, and franz. i think his relationship with franz showed that he enjoyed living, cherished it, and loved nature. as for people who did not see the movie, i guess they liked krakuer's side...but if he wanted to compare other peoples story-he should have talked about mcdunn, the mayor, everett ruess....it just seemed liked it was irrelevent for krakauer, who much more preparation.
I agree with eli on this one. Although it is very well needed for soem readers like Mr Bolos to understand McCandless's mission, I found that Chris was not suicidal after reading about his interactions with Franz and Carin. Krakauer further adds empathy with the use on Ruess and Mcdunn. When Krakauer chooses to talk about these people, he is helping to clear up Chris's intensions. I do find Krakauer's adventure rather interresting, but it is very much not the same concept. He has a different motive than that of Chris. Chris' was more about his freedom to do these things and live life, and i just dont see that from Krakauer. Again I do find Krakauers interpretation important for people not like me, but I do think he is trying to show off and comes off to me as a wannabe. And for reference I am yet to see the movie.
yeah, i think krakauer, although he may have come from a simliliar background, his love for his travel is also a part of his job, while chris had a love for nature, while wanted to get away as well. chris enjoyed the relationships he had and hoped to continue them because they barely questioned his past. ruess and mcdunn and the mayor shared a similiar love for nature and isolation, but the problems with them and chris i thought could have been better analyzied, taking time away from krakauers stories...
sorry it is me ELI....i posted on my mom's account by accident
I think I am going to have to agree with Eli on this one. I personally did not like the portion of the story with Devils Thumb and Krakauer's story. I think, at least for me when I read, it detracted form Chris's story. It helped me in some sense identify more with McCandless because it was like taking a step between myself, who has never had any sense of adventure close to Krakauer let alone McCcandless. It I guess made a link for me between the two characters.
Nevertheless, I found it completely detracting from the main story. It in a way annoyed me that I was so far from the plot.
I have not yet seen this movie. I think if I saw the movie though, I might have a different perspective in which I wanted the Krakauer part.
Although I did not like Krakauer's Devils Thumb story and thought it was somewhat unnecessary and boring, I am going to have to support BOLOS on this one... sorry Eli. First of all, everything Krakauer did emphazized something and was there to make a point. Through Krakauer's story we learned more about Chris and looked at him a different way. Krakauer's story was indifferent though because he did survive and as Eli says "well prepared"; however, I'd have to say Chris was also prepared in a different sense. Chris was self-efficient and more educated it seemed, he brought books with him, unlike Krakauer who brought materials to survive but they both PREPARED for the trip in just different ways that satisfied THEIR NEEDS. I know when I go on vacation I take completely different things than when my sister does. I also have EVIDENCE FROM THE BOOK explaining Krakauer's relation to CHRIS, he says, "I was a raw youth who mistook passion for insight and acted according to an obscure, gap-ridden logic. I thought climbing...would fix all that was wrong with my life"(155). Like Chris, Krakauer wanted to get away from the world, the people, their dad. Earlier on page 148, Krakauer says, "It was drilled into me that anything less than winning was failure" he was told by his father just like Chris. Both had pressure on them throughout their lives to be the BEST they could be but look where it brought them.
This makes us look at Krakauer perhaps as another character in which he now get's the opportunity to express his feelings about Chris (which I think he has been trying to do throughout) but directly.
Post a Comment