Rhetorical Analysis Of Jon Krakauer

Jon Krakauer uses different methods to appeal to a variety of people. Logos makes sense to those who tend to use logic and reason to rationalize while Pathos is best used when convincing those who can be moved by emotions. Krakauer also incorporates Ethos to appease those who respond well to credibility. The purpose of using these multiple techniques is to convince a broader amount of readers that many people could actually relate to Christopher McCandless.

Through his anecdote about his life as an adventurer, Jon Krakauer uses himself as an example of logos. A great way to understand the thought process of a young adult whose mistake cost him his life, is to be told of such an occurrence by older man in his earlier and more vulnerable years. Evidently, Krakauer discussed the time when he attempted to climb a mountain. He spoke of a moment when he smoked marijuana in his tent without thinking of the consequences, like many young people. The tent nearly burnt down, but a young Krakauer survived. When compared

to this blunder, Chris’s eating of poisonous potato seeds appears to be an unfortunate mistake. He also uses logos when explaining that Chris did his research, but the book he used for identifying poisonous plants misled him. This suggests that his death was not completely his doing.
Krakauer uses ethos both to strengthen his argument, and reduce support for the counter argument. For example, an individual who has negative comments about Chris has his credibility questioned by the authors choices. First, he leads up to the introduction of Charlie with a quote by Jan Burres that reads, “The only drawback is this old guy, whose name is Charlie, is something of a lunatic and it’s rather difficult to get along with him sometimes.”(41) With the inclusion of the quote right before Charlie’s comments, Krakauer causes readers to question whether they can be taken seriously. The author also brings attention Charlie’s living arrangements. “The ammonia reak of human urine rises from a nearby oleander tree.” This description simply mar’s Charlie’s credibility before his quote is introduced. Conversely, Krakauer included information about Ronald Franz that made him a more credible source. The author wrote that Franz was a veteran and the head of a family. That definitely sounds better than a man whose trailer smells of urine.
Pathos can be strong in arguments, as sympathy can change a person’s point of view.

Pathos is mostly implemented when Krakauer speaks of the moment when McCandless’s parents visit the site where their son died. Billie McCandless’s quote in this portion of the book resonates as a sad admittance. He says, ” Many people have told me that they admire Chris for what he was trying to do. If he’d lived, I would agree with them. But he didn’t, and there’s no way to bring him back.”(203) The quote serves to articulate the fact that the child of two parents are dead. This makes it difficult for people to think of Chris in such a negative way as before, because he is gone.

Hence, Jon Krakauer’s use of pathos, logos, and ethos facilitates his argument. Whether a person responds most to emotion, logic, or credibility, each is accounted for. The author’s purpose of persuading others to understand Chris’s situation is realized through the inclusion of different

appeals.