Into The Wild By Jon Krakauer

John Krakauer’s novel Into The Wild, tells the story of a young man who intends to disappear from society, and contains numerous relatable themes. Although difficult for many to understand his reasoning in doing so, Krakauer intends to demonstrate to readers the positives and negatives of such an experience. Upon thorough examination of this piece of writing, it is possible to truly gain a vast amount of self-knowledge in relation to the text. A tale full of invitations to face ourselves, John Krakauer’s Into The Wild prompts me to examine myself in respect to concepts of great significance such as materialism, conformity, and intimacy.

What is it that we find crazy about those who have the courage to do what we won’t? In the compelling novel “Into The Wild” by Jon Krakauer the character and intelligence of the youth in men is questioned. Through the pieced together 200 page novel we are introduced to Christopher Johnson McCandless also known as “Alex Supertramp”. A ripe 24 years of age he chose to question our reality and his meaning of life that is given to us by hitchhiking across America to the Alaskan wilderness, where after four months in the last frontier he is found dead. Krakauer throughout the novel shows that although some admire what McCandless did, others found his final journey “reckless” and “crazy”. Krakauer goes to explain this claim through interviews of those who have encountered McCandless on his adventure and through those who got to know his story.

“If you take no risks, you will suffer no defeats. But if you take no risks, you win no victories.” (Richard M. Nixon). In his investigative biography, Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer, expresses that even though young people can be ignorant and take treacherous risks, these can be used as knowledge enhancers and can be life changers.

“Happiness is only real, when shared.” - Jon Krakauer Into the wild. Jon Krakauer, the author of Into the Wild told the story of Chris McCandless. Chris escaped reality and went to go live off the land in Alaska, hoping to live a simpler life. In the novel, Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, Chris McCandless shared a similar philosophy with Jack London, as they both have a strong passion for Alaska, they both appreciated they beauty of nature, and both wanted to be reborn.

Into the Wild, by Jon Krakauer, narrates the life of adventurer and free spirit Christopher McCandless, who died August 1992 in the Alaskan wilderness; however, his journey still remains relevant in today’s pop culture due to the unresolved controversy of whether he is a saintly role model or hubristic fool. Krakauer openly states that he “won’t claim to be an impartial biographer” (Author’s Note) due to the parallels he struck with McCandless, and provides a more idealistic approach to the biography. By having this biased point of view, Krakauer readily attracts many critics such as Craig Medred, who wrote the article The Beatification of Chris McCandless: From Thieving Poacher into Saint, which discredits Krakauer’s legitimacy and emphasizes McCandless’s narcissistic personality and naïve nature. He has also sparked many questions including why McCandless’s story is so significant, which writer Laura Moss tries to answer in Why Are We Still Talking about Chris McCandless?. While it is clear that McCandless’s story has affected every reader due to its many interpretations, two distinct sides form: the avid romantics and their counterpart, the pessimistic realists, which provokes the question of which argument is more valid.

After that Chris continued to canoe and got caught by the US officers when he was trying to get back into the US from Mexico. So he spent a night in jail.

In April 1992, a twenty-four-year-old man walked into the Alaskan wilderness alone, only for his decomposed body to be found in August of that same year. His name was Christopher Johnson McCandless. Some people thought he was crazy but others who looked deeper into his past, such as Jon Krakauer and I, found that there were elements of emotional trauma and adolescent defiance that led to his sense of narcissism and avoidance behavior. Through a better understanding of Chris’s family dynamic, we can start to understand Chris’s behavior, and perhaps our own. In the novel, Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, we see the authoritarian parent personified in Walt McCandless and the long term effects that such a parenting style has on his son, Christopher Johnson McCandless.

McCandless also journeys along the Colorado River, where he encounters hazardous waterfalls and high winds. After returning from Mexico, McCandless stays in an empty

Christopher McCandless may be one of the most intriguing characters in nonfiction literature. In Into The Wild by Jon Krakauer, Chris McCandless gives up all of his worldly possessions in order to move to Alaska and travel alone into the wilderness. Chris seemed to lead a very privileged life, as he came from a fairly well off family. Chris was intelligent, having graduated from Emory University with a degree in anthropology and history. There is much ambiguity as to why Chris suddenly decides to leave his family behind and travel by himself -- although it is clear that Chris’s initial belief was that the best way to live life was alone, surrounded by nature. The overarching question is whether Chris intentionally tried to kill himself when he traveled alone into the heart of Alaska. Those who believe he did contend that he did not make enough of an effort to extract himself from the negative situations in which he found himself. They argue that Chris felt that he was betrayed by his father, and that he tries to kill himself in order to get away from his family as a whole. Yet Chris McCandless did not in fact have a death wish, and his death was the result of his miscalculating how difficult living in the wild would actually be. This resulted from Chris’s excessive pride. His main motivation to go into the wild was to run far away from his family -- who by blinding him, indirectly caused him to miscalculate.

• Authoritative parenting is attentive to their children’s needs and will typically forgive and teach versus punishment for the child’s short comings. The result is the children have a higher self-esteem and independence. This is most recommended parenting style by experts.

Thesis: The authoritative parenting style is the most effective style for producing children that have desirable traits, such as good morals, obedience, compassion and responsibility.

Authoritarian is only one of three parenting styles that Baumrind details. The other two styles include authoritative and permissive. These two variations in parenting styles were seen in the way my relatives and friends’ parents approached parenting. I observed how the parents of my close friend handled parenting. They maintained control over aspects in my friend’s life like school and chores but allowed the freedom to make decisions in areas of social activities. The most striking difference between my parents and my friend’s is the use of reasoning and the expression of warmth. Her parents provided justification behind their commands and or punishments while maintaining a sense of love and affection. The bond and love that is evident between my friend and her parents is not as strong in the relationship between my parents and me. The style that her parents exhibit is known as authoritative because of their focus on some parental control, use of reasoning and warmth. While on the other hand, my cousins raised their children in a completely different manor using a permissive parenting style. While they provide obvious love and affection towards their children, they fail to exert control and regulations. They did not have any real sense of rules in their household. Their children tend to act and do whatever they wanted with little to no repercussions.

In my recent psychology class we studied parenting styles. They are grouped into three different categories; authoritarian, authoritative, and overly permissive. This gave me insight into a couple of different programs I’ve watched on television.Authoritarian parents are parents that set strict rules to keep order and they usually do this without much expression of warmth and affection. “They demand obedience to authority.” (Coon & Mitterer, 2010, p. 91) When the child questions the parent, "Because I said so," is often the response. Parents tend to focus on bad behavior, and not positive behavior, and children are scolded or punished for not after the rules. Authoritative parents help their children learn to be responsible for

The primary focal point of the authoritarian style is on respect rather than parent-child relationships. Authoritarian parents are known for being strict. They lay out rules and expect their children to follow them without question, even if the child has a valid reason for questioning a decision. They establish many rules for the household and leave little or no room for negotiation on policies. Authoritarian parents also fail to explain why the rules exist because they believe that, as the parent, they are the authority on all decisions and shouldn’t be questioned.

The authoritative parenting style is the “In between,” of both the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles, and has a “Give and take approach.” Authoritative parents are very involved in their children’s lives: children help around the home and in decision-making processes, and homework is supervised. This approach to parenting raises children who are responsible, well behaved in school, have a high self-esteem, and good problem solving skills along with decision making skills. The authoritative approach to parenting has very positive effects on children’s lives presently, and in the future. (Marsiglia, C.,Walczyk, J., Buboltz, W., Ross, D. 2007).