Epilogue post

Though the epilogue in Into the Wild was very short, it was also extremely important. How did the epilogue change your opinion or attitude toward Christopher's family after their reactions to visiting the bus in Alaska? Also, if you were in the parents situation, would you also want to visit the bus? Why or why not?

It definitely changed my opinion of the parents. I knew they cared at first, but as a reader, it is comforting to see the Dad stressing and being nervous, as well as the mom being collective. For me, it gave them personality where there really hadn't been before. There is all this talk about how the dad betrays the wife, and that their family was being torn apart from the inside, and here they are in the forest united as a family for the last time. I didn't much care for either the mom for putting up with the dad's second marriage or the dad's betrayal but now I found them human. And of course I would go to the spot where Chris died if I was the parents. I think you have to, otherwise it would definitely bother you forever. A very good ending to a very good story.

Research paper

QUESTIONWhat is your primary source for the research paper and why did you choose that source to argue what you want to argue? If you haven't focused yet on a specific argument, why do you think your audience will want to read what you think about the source? What do you think your audience should get out of the paper you are planning to write?

My primary source is the 1971 classic, "A Clockwork Orange" which is extremely interesting and takes a political twist. It is about a young man who right away is up to very criminal acts, including assault, theft, and rape. The irony of the situation is that he lives with his mom. I believe that he is a metaphor for the American culture because soon he is put into prison after being turned on by his gang. He is then put under behaviorism psychology where he is conditioned against any villainous acts. It gets to the point where even thinking about sex literally causes him pain. He is put back out in the world. The interesting part is that the governor and government then pawn him off as a big success in modern research of controlling people.

My paper will primarily focus on the movies effect on red flagging a liberal and conservative view of such research mentioned before. The interesting part about this, is the movie glorifies the villain and makes you think for yourself. This movie also had a huge effect on censorship, as it gets pretty graphic, actually showing full frontal nudity. It was then nominated for best picture and changed all our minds on what a great picture could be. The audience itself could take the information and actually think about how they feel toward behaviorism and humanistic research. It is very controversial and hasn't been brought up much.

Show and Tell

Patricia keeps showing this "Show dont tell" aspect in her writing. Is that what she truly wants her readers to do when they write? Or does she want you to "Show" as well as other things? Do you believe this holds true for essays in school? Or would it detract from your credibility as it would appear you are writing a novel and not an essay? Patricia also goes on to say that writing a picture or physical object is an effective way of description. Pick an object in your room and describe it, "write it."

Patricia respects bot the aspect of show and tell. She comments on how writers spend too much time with description instead of just getting with the story. Sometimes there are these huge chunk paragraphs to just describe a small object or a room. She comments on how writing shouldn't all be biographies but that we as writers need to get to the point and explain theme, and character development instead of what someone's car looks like.

Essays in school don't do any show. Most essays, especially the ones read in class focus on only telling us what they think and then sub plots. Then again, maybe description doesn't belong in essays. Sometimes I feel like when I'm reading and essay that I just want the writer to get to the point so I can form a quick opinion. Sources are more important than description in a paper.

The crumpled white bag of faded hope just stares at me. It talks to me. "Look what I'm full of... stuff that you were too lazy to do, I'm crumpled because you never picked me up." I loathe this bag, and only because the stupid bag is right, I can't bring myself to it. I can't just look at its stupid M and think, I want it gone. Your sandwiches suck anyways Macdonald's.

Blog post, whyd they leave

"As we continue reading, we find the author giving more examples of men very similar to McCandless. Specifically, Ruess and McCandless both have an immense desire to be in the wild, but they also both have issues with their families. Do you think that their desire to go on these fatal journeys were caused more by their love for the wild or their issues at home? Also, do you think Chris exaggerated his family issues to use as an excuse to leave?"

It's definitely caused more by the love of the wild. Chris McCandless was a dreamer who felt trapped by the routine of his daily life. Life came easy to Chris, when it came to sports or school or money. he wanted something to challenge him. Yes his family had deep issue that Krauker touches briefly (mostly because he wasn't there). He already loved road trips, and perhaps his parents were the last straw, but this was definitely premeditated. I mean the guy donated all his money to charity, it's not so simple to say, well one problem caused his whole abandonment. And no he didn't use his family as an excuse, at all. He just felt freer and happier in the wild.

Rhetoric prompt

"In writing Into The Wild, Jon Krakauer has obvious opinions about the subject and employs rhetoric to show this. If you were writing the story of Christopher McCandless, how would your rhetoric differ from that of Krakauer? Would it? What types of rhetoric would you use, and why? What might this story be called?"

My rhetoric wouldn't differ very much from Krakauer. What I would do differently though is be more biased, because thats just who I am. I have trouble just telling a story, he doesn't. He uses a great way of siding people to his opinions by showing Chris's bravery, and his courage. He doesn't ever at any point make him look bad or selfious for abandoning his parents. To Krakauer, it's just something Chris had to do.

I would definitely be far more biased and use more narrative instead of telling a story. For instance, I wouldn't describe the events, instead I would just say, he showed courage by taking that boat so far! No one else could do what he did. My story would be called, Survival, or A Courageous Journey, or something corny like that.

Adoption Response

"If you were Christopher McCandless, you weren't fond of your family and didn't want to go back to them, and someone who you liked, respected, and enjoyed being with asked to adopt you would you do it? Why do you think Chris didn't want to? If he did would he have still gone to Alaska?"

Of course I wouldn't randomly go with some family as a new member of theres. This is silly. He never was going to get adopted, he just randomly needed jobs, and friends he met along the way in his life provided him with such. For Chris McCandless it wasn't about finding a new family, but finding all the places in the world that he hadn't explored yet. He needed to eat so he dropped by a friend and worked and at there. Chris was very independent. he didn't have to rely on anyone else. He went to Alaska because he wanted to be one with the wild, and live life with all of the animals and nature. Theres a point in the book where he wass so proud he could identify berries to eat. He didn't want to be fed those berries, he wanted to feed himself.

BEARS!!!! Second Prompt

Question:
"Do you think you could brave the Alaskan wild? What would you need to bring in order to be successful? What would be your biggest fear while out there? If you don't think you can brave the wild, why not? What if you were with a group of trained specialists? Don't relate too much to the book and Chris McCandless - use your own opinions on this. Make it about how you feel."

Answer:
Hell no I couldn't survive the Alaskan wild! I can barely get to work or class on time, not to mention how dirty my room is. I would definitely die within a week... maybe of starvation or just attacked by a grizzly bear! I would probably do everything they tell you not to do in the wild... like eat poison, or drink bad water, or run from a BEAR!
As far as trained specialist are concerned, it wouldn't matter. I'm a prideful person, plus I'd go goof off somewhere or something. They would get annoyed of me, and probably kill me themselves... or I could get attacked by A FREAKIN BEAR!!!! You get the idea. Plus I don't like the idea of being in a rediculously cold climate like that of Alaska. Doesn't the sun never set or something like that? That would get annoying, I wouldn't be able to sleep. And aren't there bears or something. Yeah, I thought so!