Eyewitness In Into The Wild

“Never judge a book by it's cover.” This statement is heard hundreds of times throughout one's life, but for some reason it is a natural reaction to do just the opposite. The notion should not have a pre thought opinion of someone because of the way they look or the things they do is baffling to some individuals. Chris McCandless, the main character of the novel “Into The Wild” by Jon Krakauer, is a victim of this scenario. In the Novel, Chris McCandless leaves the comfort of the “perfect” life that he has been given to live an independent life on the road. With no money and his own two feet, McCandless travels the country in hopes of eventually making it to Alaska to live off the land in the bush. As the reader moves through the book, they

begin to see McCandless as the kid who left the life everyone wants for no reason at all. This is the main purpose of the book. Krakauer, who had written articles about McCandless in the past, knew that there was a ot motivation behind the mysterious acts. By writing this novel, Krakauer hoped to explain the reasons McCandless chose the life on the road. To stick up for him and to leave him with a better legacy than he originally had. Through his expert use of writing techniques such as factual eyewitness accounts and structure of the piece, Krakauer is able to defend McCandless and his choice to go to walk “Into The Wild.”
In order to understand how Krakauer defends McCandless in the novel the reader must first understand the structure and organization. In the first chapter of the novel, Krakauer starts from the end. He explains that McCandless had died in his Alaskan bus, but does not necessarily explain how. This serves a couple of purposes with the main being that he wanted to keep the reader engaged. By starting from the end, Krakauer is able to stop the reader from doing what they did to McCandless, which is judging the book without receiving all the information. By keeping them engaged throughout the entire book, he is able to explain the life of McCandless in more detail without them wanting to quit reading. In addition, this allows Krakauer to use flashbacks to show that there is more to McCandless’ life than is shown in the various articles about him. For example, after chapter two, Krakauer then moves backwards to find out more about McCandless and the journey through life that led to his death. By showing the reader around McCandless’ life after they know he died, they are able to get a real understanding of the things that led up to his decision to leave. This is especially apparent in chapter twelve when Krakauer explains the difficulties Chris had with his parents. Krakauer is able to convey to the reader that there is more that meets the eye regarding his experiences before death that made persuaded him to be on his own.
Perhaps the most important element in defending McCandless is the use of eyewitness accounts to paint a picture for the audience.

Because Chris McCandless died before Krakauer ever had the chance to meet him, he had to rely solely on the information that he was given from the people that knew him on a personal level. This added the use of logos to the text so that the reader would be able to trust the information Krakauer gives them. As McCandless traveled the country, he was able to leave a lasting impression on many people along the way. As Krakauer talked with them after the death, he was able to see that people who actually knew him saw him as a stand up guy. For example, some readers might see McCandless as a lazy individual who wants to live on his own in order to avoid working a job in the real world.Krakauer is able to disprove this theory in chapter four by gathering information from Westerberg himself. McCandless was described as “Working hard, doing dirty, tedious jobs that nobody else wanted to tackle:.. (62)” Through this one account, the readers are able to see that McCandless did in fact work hard. In fact, one of the reasons why he was on his own in the first place is that he did not want things to be handed to him on a silver platter. He wanted to earn them. Another example of this occurs in chapter twelve when Krakauer uses a quote from Chris’ father Walt. Walt stressed that “if you tried to talk him out of something, he wouldn't argue. He would just nod

politely and then do exactly what he wanted (119).” This disproves the notion that people had of the “crazy kid who did not know what he was doing.” McCandless had a plan and he was doing what he wanted to when he was hitchhiking across the country. He didn't hate his life or want to go back home because as his father said, he was doing what he wanted to do.
The way Krakauer arranged his sentences also played a huge role in explaining his purpose. The use of syntax allows him to add a sort of subliminal message within the text. The use of long, complex sentences tells the reader that the main character, Chris McCandless is complex as well. Sentences such as “He’d successfully kept Jan Burres and Wayne Westerberg at arm’s length, flitting out of their lives before anything was expected of him. And now he’d slipped painlessly out of Ron Franz’s life as well (55)” confuse the reader in some ways. They may not understand why McCandless would want to cut off all of his friendships before they got too close. It is these types of complex sentences that make the reader think about the things that McCandless is doing. They then realize that he is not a clean cut person. He has many driving factors behind his actions that not everyone can see. This is exactly what Krakauer is trying to get the reader to understand. People do different things for many reasons. Even though the Chris’ actions are far fetched doesn't mean he is crazy. He just has a complex life and personality.
As Krakauer moves through the novel, he tries to tell the story of Chris McCandless as accurate as possible.

Through his use of special organization, factual accounts and complex syntax, he is able to display McCandless as a person who was living the life that he wanted to live. He was kind and respectful to the people he met along the way, even helping them through their own hardships at times. This is the type person that Krakauer wanted to paint a picture of. He wanted to make sure that people did not see McCandless as the “nut” who did himself in. To make sure that the McCandless family could be proud of their son for being brave and doing what many would be too scared to attempt even if they wanted to. By writing this novel with the impressive rhetoric that he did, Krakauer was able to defend the actions of the late Chris McCandless and paint him as the bright young man that he

was.