Into The Wild Rhetorical Analysis

1626 Words4 Pages

In the book Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer wrote about Christopher McCandless, a nature lover in search for independence, in a mysterious and hopeful experience. Even though Krakauer tells us McCandless was going to die from the beginning, he still gave him a chance for survival. As a reader I wanted McCandless to survive. In Into the Wild, Krakauer gave McCandless a unique perspective. He was a smart and unique person that wanted to be completely free from society. Krakauer included comments from people that said McCandless was crazy, and his death was his own mistake. However, Krakauer is able to make him seem like a brave person. The connections between other hikers and himself helped in the explanation of McCandless’s rational actions. Krakauer is able to make McCandless look like a normal person, but unique from this generation. In order for Krakauer to make Christopher McCandless not look like a crazy person, but a special person, I will analyze the persuading style that Krakauer used in Into the Wild that made us believe McCandless was a regular young adult. Jon Krakauer is a hiker that writes stories about wild …show more content…

He also did not have a typical childhood, he witness his parent’s fighting and he also developed a poor relationship with his father. Krakauer was able to find important connections that helped him find the roots of McCandless’ rational actions. “The boy could not pardon the mistakes his father had made as a young man, and he was even less willing to pardon the attempt at concealment… But he did not confront his parents with what he knew, then or ever. He chose instead to make a secret of his dark knowledge and express his rage obliquely, in silence and sullen withdrawal” (Krakauer 122). McCandless did not have a good relationship with his parents, which might have been the reason he decided to go into the wild. Krakauer was able to find clues that caused McCandless to make dangerous

Open Document