Thursday, April 15, 2010
...and Into the Wild comes to an end.
To be honest, my opinion pretty much completely switched from the beginning to the end. So i guess you could say Krakauer's methods were effective for changing my ideas about McCandless. When we wrote the initial McCandless essay, I thought he was an ignorant lunatic. I mean, who goes into the Alaskan wilderness unprepared. From what I've learned and experienced throughout my life regarding the outdoors, it seemed purely mad. But as Krakauer started exposing Chris's personality, I started respecting his drive and ambition more and more. He lived by his own means and I found that very refreshing. One of the biggest turning points for me was when Krakauer related his personal experiences to those of Chris's; I started to relate on a whole different level and was more able to understand both of them. Although there are certain things I don't necessarily agree with and decisions I find questionable, on the whole, I have truly come to respect Chris. If this story was told by someone who didn't respect Chris, my opinion might differ; but Krakauer did a great job at influencing my opinion, even if it was based on false conclusions. Chris was extremely motivated and I really appreciate his connection to the outdoors; it is something that most of us could use a little more of. He saw true, natural beauty in the world and a part of me wishes I could be a little more like him. The journal writings and accounts from people he met along his journey helped me to see his true personality and feel as though I was getting to know him on a deeper level. So yes, Krakauer's methods sure worked for me! Now it's time to revise my papers...YIKES!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree a lot with what you had to say about Krakauer's methods. Honestly, without reading the book if I had heard a story about McCandless I would've just thought it was any old adventure going into the wild unprepared and just got what was coming to him. But Krakauer's emotional attachment, though it tended to take away from his credibility, was really inspiring and influential to the story. He made McCandless different from other adventurers and we were able to feel for and get to know him through Krakauerl in a way we got to know Krakauer as well. His story has made me respect, not only nature, but those who respect nature as well. It's inspiring to see someone so driven to find truth in nature that he spends years doing it, and is at peace out there. Though I still feel McCandless tended to run from his problems, Krakauer has convinced me to look at the positives of McCandless and take him for what he is, different than me certainly, but respectable and inspiring nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteSo hahaha, I answered the wrong prompt lol! But anyways, I really liked your answer. Because I liked Chris from the start, it is really cool to hear what people that did not like him originally thought. I totally agree that Krakauer's methods were super helpful in helping the audience relate to Chris, and the best thing he did was compare himself to Chris. It is one thing to make guesses about why Chris did what he did, but Krakauer went beyond that. Sure, he was still guessing, but it was based on his own thoughts and feelings, having been in the same mindset and situations as Chris, ya know? I thought it was cool how he engaged the naysayers at the begging by just telling us the facts, but then slowly revealing Chris's past and his ideals and stuff. I think you were totally his target audience; like the people who thought he was kind of a freak, then slowly getting you to like him more and more. So, I would agree, I think Krakauer's methods were very effective.
ReplyDelete