I just finished Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild and am trying to figure out why the book didn’t grab me as hard as it has some of my friends. I read the original story that Krakauer wrote for Outside Magazine back in 1993 (http://outside.away.com/outside/features/1993/1993_into_the_wild_1.html) and the letters from readers who accused the author of glorifying Chris McCandless when he was nothing but a another dumb kid from the lower 48’s that was unprepared for Alaska’s harsh conditions. At the time I didn’t have much of an opinion, but wondered why McCandless was worth so much attention.
A few years later, I read Into Thin Air, Krakauer’s account of the 1996 Mt. Everest disaster. This was after discovering The Climb by Anatoli Boukreev and G. Weston DeWalt. Boukreev was one of the head Everest expedition guides and was awarded the American Alpine Club’s highest honor, the David A. Sowles Award for his “repeated, extraordinary efforts” during the 96 Everest rescue attempts. I liked The Climb better than Into Thin Air, mostly because Krakauer’s inserted himself into to narrative so much that I didn’t really get a clear picture of anything but his view of the situation. (There were also some details that didn’t match what else I’d read and watched about the disaster.) To be blunt, Krakauer came across cocky and was very critical of mountaineers more experienced, more known, and more respected than him.
Based on my previous experience with the author, I started Into the Wild suspecting wouldn’t like narrative or care much about the boy the book was about. (So why was I reading the book then, you may ask. Excellent question. It’s assigned for a class I’m taking in the fall.) To my surprise, I was okay with Krakauer’s narrative and impressed with how well researched the book was. The author still inserts himself and his opinions into the book, but this time I didn’t mind as much because it helped explain why Krakauer got so involved in this story. He spends a whole chapter describing himself when he was the same age as McCandles.
If you are taking the medicines for chest pain or the medicines generic viagra pill for the prostrate problems, it is being advised not to take the Tadalfil as this may affect the blood pressure. These types of conditions should be brought under the knowledge of the partner and it is literally half solved and one can get the spirit to overcome this disorder. levitra samples as introduced in the market first, won the trust and reliability on its quality and effectiveness of the medications. An active sex go to the djpaulkom.tv levitra online life depends on a lot of things from praises to stickers and charts. Preventive steps: Kamagra Fizz People must never make the overdose of kamagra may lead to painful erection or permanent tadalafil tablets prices check out here erection problems in you. At the end of the book I was impressed with the amount of research and effort the author had spent getting involved in and writing this story, but the story didn’t make me like or feel strongly for Chris McCandless. Maybe I have less patience for the angst of youth now that I’m no longer in my twenties, or maybe Krakauer didn’t portray why I should care about this young man strongly enough. Another option might be that since I’m not male and has never been a young boy, the lower level of testosterone in my body doesn’t allow me to see why somebody would want to trash their parents for everything they’ve given me and set out into the wilderness unprepared, uninformed, but over-confident.
By contrast, I recently read Elizabeth Gilbert’s The Last American Man, which touches on the same topic as Into the Wild. Gilbert’s book profiles Eustace Conway, a man with similar convictions as Chris McCandless. This book I devoured. I couldn’t put it down and I’m trying to figure out why I liked this book so much while Krakauer’s tasted bland. It’s not that I liked the character any more, I actually didn’t like Conway very much. It’s not that the author didn’t insert herself or her opinions, Gilbert knows her subject personally. I do like the writing style, voice, and organization of The Last American Man more. Gilbert does more “showing” where Krakauer at times exhausts a point by “telling” it over and over again.
Both books are well researched, well written, and has met with critical acclaim. I’m left wondering if I like Gilbert’s book more because she tells me details that I as a woman relate more to. Or, is it just that by surviving his youth, although engaging in as many fantastic antics as McCandless and being just as obnoxiously arrogant, Eustace Conway is somebody I admire more?