Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer is a book that stirs the senses and awakens the inner rebel of every person. Krakauer shares this enchanting story of a young adventurous nomad who longs for adventure and succeeds in his search, but then his success becomes short-lived. The story itself is captivating, but Krakauer captivates his world wide audience mainly by the unique structure and style that he uses to create Into the Wild. His creative structure is made known from the beginning. Questions about his technique are aroused. My question lies in how Krakauer subtly makes his reader's view Chris McCandless in a more positive way then a negative way throughout the book. Even after stating, "Through most of the book, I have tried "and largely succeeded, I think "to minimize my authorial presence- (Author's note 2), I find that through hidden structures and creative writing schemes, Krakauer has largely succeeded in doing the exact opposite. His authorial presence and point of view is in fact flowing throughout his book. .
Krakauer uses a few subtle strategies to make the reader acknowledge that McCandless isn't half as crazy as he might have seemed to be at first. One strategy that Krakauer uses is in his description words. Adjectives are very powerful words and are sometimes read but not fully taken in and therefore passed by unnoticed. Krakauer uses these powerful unnoticed words to win over his audience in McCandless' favor. Krakauer writes that, " one is reminded how young McCandless was and how passionate- ( 123). Passion is a deep love and inner drive for something. Had Krakauer used the word "determined-, the positive affect wouldn't have been as great on a reader. Passion is viewed positively by the majority of humans. Describing McCandless as passionate connects the reader with McCandless. Everyone has had a passion about something, whether it was large or small, so therefore we are able to relate on a positive level with McCandless which therefore makes us view him positively.
