Parallels

I found Krakauer's comparison's very helpful. I thought it was the perfect balance of showing that Chris wasn't all the way crazy, but maybe a little out there. He used the example of Carl MmCunn to show what the real crazies were like, and make an obvious distinction between men like him, and men like like Chris. Then he backed up Chris's personality type with the story of another idealistic and troubled (troubled but not crazy) youth, Everett Ruess, who "sounds eerily like" McCandless in his letters.
By comparing and contrasting Chris with other young men, Krakauer gains massive amounts of credibility. It is one thing when an author goes on and on about a person and sheds whatever light they want on them, but when the author can back that up, show what the character is and is not, the argument is much more impressive and convincing. I also thought it was awesome that Krakauer told us his own story so now we know more about where he is coming from. Props to Krakauer.

Oh Taylor Swift...

Well, first of all I never really got into her music...it isn't angry enough for me, I'm more into Nirvana, and Radiohead, and Pearl Jam. So the article we read didn't really affect me either way accept to make me realize why I didn't like her that much. I agree with the author that Taylor Swift the person is really likable, but her music is pretty simple- not that simple is bad, just that it isn't for me. My favorite part about the article was the pictures!!!! I thought it was a really perfect way to demonstrate the author's points. The old adage "show don't tell" is true, who knew?! It was refreshing to have a visual element to enhance an essay. Overall, I thought it was a really well made piece of writing!!

Ethos, Pathos, or Logos?

I think the most important aspect of rhetoric is pathos. I chose pathos because no matter how credible you are, or how many wonderful and relevant facts you can cite, none of it matters unless the reader is emotionally involved. In other words, making my reader truly care about what I have to say is my most important goal. My "Into The Wild" paper was very pathos based. The emotional connection I feel with Chris's story is what makes my argument strong, and pathos is the most useful way to communicate that. I did, however, use logos enough that it doesn't just sound like I'm ranting about the book.
On the other hand, my English Lit paper is way more logos focused. This is because I was trying really hard to sound like I knew what I was talking about, and I wanted to remove as much of my own opinion as possible past the point of saying which side I was one. Logos is handy when you are trying to write in an academic manner, but my personal writing style is focused mainly on pathos.

So What Do I Think About Chris Now...

I liked Chris from the start, and the most recent chapters I read make me like him even more. The beginning of the book made it seem like Chris might be a little on the crazy side, but the further he goes in his journey and the more people he meets, the more personable he seems. However, I noticed that there are two very distinct sides to Chris; the side that is moody and quiet and a little weird, and the side that is talkative and full of life and excited. The real world makes him seem cold and distant, but these chapters were more about his free, adventurous side, and that is clearly the side I like best. At first I thought of Chris as a bit of a recluse, but these chapters proved that once he is around people he can identify with he is very lively, and the people he got closest to on the road made it clear he was a pleasure to be around. At the same time, I feel bad for Chris because he just doesn't really fit in the real world at all, and maybe if he could have fit a little better he wouldn't be dead now. There is not much of a place in our society for such a hopeless idealist.