If someone told you the story of a man who left his life full of fortunes to become one with nature, what would your opinion of him be? Would you think that he’s brave? Reckless? Jon Krakauer in his non-fiction story, Into the Wild tells the journey of a young man by the name of Chris McCandless. Chris, after enduring a childhood where he was given everything in the world besides a loving household decided to leave everything behind, burn and donate all of his money and walk into the brisk wilderness of Alaska’s Denali area after hitchhiking around the continent a couple of years prior. Krakauer is impartial enough to let the reader form their own opinion of McCandless, even though his own opinions slip in at some points.

Krakauer uses negative …show more content…
McCandless writes “Alaskan hunters know that the easiest way to preserve meat in the bush is to slice it into thin strips and then air-dry it on a makeshift rack. But McCandless, in his naïveté, relied on the advice of hunters he’d consulted in South Dakota, who advised him to to smoke his meat, not an easy task under the circumstances” (166.) This detail portrays Chris in a negative way by showing that he was inexperienced in how to preserve food and naive to the fact that he should have taken advice from those who hunt game like moose in the Alaskan bush rather than some hunters from about half of the country away in South Dakota, where conditions are far different. Krakauer also acknowledges the positive perspective on Chris. He says “Living completely off the …show more content…
In the author’s note at the beginning of the story he writes “I won’t claim to be an impartial biographer. McCandless’s strange tale struck a personal note that made a dispassionate rendering of the tragedy impossible. Through most of the book, I have tried- and largely succeeded, I think- to minimize my authorial presence. But let the reader be warned: I interrupt McCandless’s story with fragments of a narrative drawn from my own youth. I do so in the hope that my experiences will throw some oblique light on the enigma of Chris McCandless” (Author’s Note.) Krakauer admits to having a connection to Chris because he relates to him and because he got so involved in the case. Though his personal opinions and thoughts slip in at some points, he still remains an impartial biographer. He adds more negative details of Chris by writing “By design McCandless came into the country with insufficient provisions, and he lacked certain pieces of equipment deemed essential by many Alaskans: a large-caliber rifle, map and compass, an ax. This has been regarded as evidence not just of stupidity but of the even greater sin of arrogance” (180.) McCandless was unprepared and arrogant. This description could cause people to have a negative view of Chris. By providing another negative connotation of Chris he proves that he can remain neutral although his opinions can shine through at