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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree it really upped his credibility. I gained so much more respect for Chris after reading all the comparisons Krakauer made. My favorite part of the book has been hearing about Krakauer's story. It showed vulnerability and understanding, and I really appreciated that.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well. Krakauer did an excellent job of pointing out at what points these people were going a little koo-koo but also made us realize as readers that he is not alone and just shares the same passions as other wilderness adventure seekers. It definitely helped his credibility!
ReplyDelete