More than an Author's Note
On September 6, 1992, the decomposing body of a young man was discovered inside an abandoned bus within the Alaskan wilderness. In the 1993 January edition of Outside magazine, a multiple page article was written regarding this story. The author, however, was not content with what he had published, and pursued the story further. In 1996, the fruit of this labor was published: Into the Wild, the story of Christopher Johnson McCandless, written by Jon Krakauer. Though the story centers around McCandless, Krakauer makes his presence within the book known, even going so far as to include stories from his own youth into the narrative. This begs the question if such a narrative bias actually gives the reader a better understanding of the story. In regards to this, it is through both the recognition of his bias and insight on the obsession with nature that Jon Krakauer’s biased writing of Into the Wild helps the reader to better understand the story of Christopher McCandless.
The fact that Krakauer recognizes the bias in his writing has significance in that, in embracing it rather than suppressing it, he is able to motivate himself to better understand the events of McCandless’s life. This is only true if proof can be found that Krakauer recognizes his bias at all, which there is in his own introduction to the book. In his Author’s Note, he confesses that: “I won’t claim to be an impartial biographer” (Krakauer, “Author’s Note”). Due to this statement, the fact that he acknowledges his inability to be an “impartial biographer,” or capable of writing McCandless’s story without bias, is undeniable. As for how such acknowledgements could motivate him to better understand his subject, such evidence can be found in an article he wrote in 2015 regarding the truth behind why McCandless actually died. In the New Yorker article, Krakauer explains: “Because many people--both admirers of McCandless and his detractors--regard “Into the Wild” as a cautionary tale, it’s important to know as much as possible about how McCandless actually may have died” (Krakauer, par. 20). This article was written roughly 19 years after Into the Wild was originally published, by which time most authors would have already moved on from such past works. However, likely allowing himself to be motivated by his own opinions rather than suppressing them, Krakauer was able to keep his story in mind and continue to revise it for the betterment of his readers. Such persistence, drawn at least in part from the acceptance of his own bias, allows Krakauer’s own bias to aid the reader in better understanding Chris McCandless’s story.
The greatest contributions Krakauer makes to the story, however, come from his inclusion of his own life into the story, which helps the reader to better understand the obsession with nature that both Krakauer and McCandless shared. An instance of this is when Krakauer describes his relationship with his father: “My father’s faith in this blueprint [of how to live my life] was unshakable… But I was not a clone of my father. During my teens, as I came to this realization, I veered gradually from the plotted course, and then sharply” (Krakauer 148) Such insight on the part of Krakauer, gained from his poor relationship with his father, allows the reader to better conceive how Chris was also likely driven to nature: in defiance against a father who was equally as controlling of his life as Krakauer’s was to him. After this, in perhaps his greatest contribution, he then describes his opinion on the much-debated topic of whether or not Christopher McCandless was suicidal. “At that stage of my youth, death remained as abstract a concept as non-euclidean geometry or marriage… I was stirred by the dark mystery of mortality. I couldn’t resist stealing up to the edge of doom and peering over the brink… In my case-and, I believe, in the case of Chris McCandless-that was a very different thing from wanting to die.” (Krakauer 155-6). Such insight as to why someone would go into the wild are barely even imaginable to someone who had never known such a feeling before. The fact that Krakauer so eloquently describes that desire, as well as its difference from “wanting to die,” compounds with his other contributions in such a way that it helps all readers, in relation with Krakauer’s own bias, to better understand Chris’s own obsession with nature. Thusly, the reader is able to gain a better understanding of the story.
However, these claims have not gone without opposition. Ever since first releasing the story in Outside magazine Krakauer has been receiving both letters supporting and condemning the story of Chris McCandless. One such person, Tom Hoopingarner, stated that: “I take exception to the premise of Krakauer's story: I don't admire people who suffer from willful ignorance of the land and Chris McCandless seems like a classic example… In Alaska I've run into several McCandless types--idealistic, energetic young guys who overestimate themselves, underestimate the country, and end up in trouble. They've become almost cliché.” (Hoopingarner). This idea of McCandless having been nothing more than an ignorant child works against the importance of Krakauer’s bias, as having an author give support of someone as misguided as McCandless - as according to Hoopingarner - portrays him as a hero rather than as he actually was, which misguides the reader.
Such a belief is understandable, as all people value a knowledge of and the spread of what they believe to be true. However, it cannot be denied that such a belief as that of McCandless having been nothing more than other misguided adventurers is just as much an opinion as that of seeing McCandless as a hero. As previously shown by Hoopingarner and Krakauer, there is evidence on both sides to support such claims, which necessitates an argument to determine which claim is more compelling. Such an argument is exactly what Krakauer provides by adding his opinion of Christopher McCandless to Into the Wild. His opinions draw in counterclaims from countless sources, many stronger than others, which then all compound to give the reader a bank of information from which to gain insight and eventually construct their own opinion of Christopher McCandless. As a result, even if Krakauer’s view is “wrong,” the reader is still able to learn more about the story from his expression of bias.
The question of to what extent an author should be present within his own story differs from work to work. In the case of Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer seems to make his presence a necessity. Through his unrelenting research into the story past its publication, the insight he provides into what an obsession with nature truly is, and the sheer amount of information to be gained from such an argument, it is undeniable that Krakauer’s biased narrative of Into the Wild betters the reader’s understanding of the Christopher McCandless story. Though he may have been lost on September 6, 1992, the fact remains that it is truly the opinions and arguments made from those such as Krakauer that keep his spirit alive - a spirit of adventure, ideology, infinitely complex desire, and of becoming lost to find oneself: of truly going into the wild.