While reading INTO THE WILD, one is all but bound to come to the realization that Jon Krakauer takes extreme interest in his subject. After all, not only does Krakauer paint McCandless as an idealist who actually followed his dreams, but he also draws parallels between their lives. For better or worse, the author does very little to obfuscate his bias.
However, we must ask ourselves whether Krakauer’s interest is more appropriately labeled fascination or obsession. To do this, we are going to read an article about Chris McCandless that he published just last month (September 2013)!
Click the link!
THE TASK: First, read the Krakauer article that was published in the New Yorker just last month (click here to access the piece). Then, respond to the following prompts by using the “Leave a Reply” feature at the bottom of the page. For full credit, your responses must consist of complete sentences and demonstrate active engagement.
A) In your own words, summarize the main point Krakauer is trying to express with the article.
B) Who is Hamilton? Why does Krakauer write about him? What do you think of this individual’s qualifications and/or his findings?
C) Does this article have any impact on your opinion of McCandless? Why or why not?
D) What do you think of the fact that Krakauer wrote this article about seventeen years after INTO THE WILD was first published? What does this suggest about his personality?