Into the Wild is a piece of journalistic non-fiction.
What is your opinion on Jon Krakauer's decision to begin the story at the end? How does this affect your liking or understanding of the protagonist? If you were writing a story, would you ever consider doing something similar?
Respond with minimally 5-8 sentences.
Due: Thursday, February 3rd by 11:59pm
I think that Krakauer's decision to start the story at the end was a resonable choice, but most likely not the way i would have went about telling this story. I feel that building up the plot a bit before showing how it all turns out in the end would have been a better approach. If he had givin the reader a chance to get to know Chris a bit better, they might have even believed that he actually could survive in the wilderness, and the end would have been more suspensful and would have left the reader in shock. There are many other situations where this method of writing would be more appropriate, and I myself would maybe consider using it at some point.
ReplyDeleteI think that Jon Krakauer's chose to start the book at the end of the story for this type of story wasn't a good choose. I feel like if this story was a mystery story than I would have started from the end and letting it all unfold later into the book. I would have liked to know more of Chris's frame of mind when deciding to leave and also get a better sense of his home life before leaving. I think starting the book from the beginning of his journey would have been better for actually enjoying reading the book. For learning purposing I think that it was reasonable to start at the end.
ReplyDeleteI think Jon Krakauer's idea of starting the story at the end of the story was a creavitive idea, but however i dont think it works well with this type of story.It makes me feel that the protaganist looks at the world from a different view than others and thus making his point of view different from the common person Mark D
ReplyDeleteI feel like his approach to start the book at the end was reasonable. I feel like it gives good insights to the book, but this is not a way that i would start the book. It makes me feel like the protagonist views the world differently than most and this could make him have a point of view different than most. I also feel like he can be a smart man who will give good insights. I would not start a book in this fashion because I feel like it would give too much away if I chose to write in this way. I would start a book at the beginning and possibly give flashbacks or looks to the future.----Alex Jez
ReplyDeleteI feel that Krakauer's decision to start at the end was a decision. The way that he went about doing it, starting from the end, was well exectuted though. Krakauer told the story from when he went into the forest, then his body being found. It gives a little bit of mystery of how he got to Alaska, and then how he died. Jon could have told Chris' story from the begining, rather than from a point somewhere in the end, but it would not have given that same kind of mystery and suspense.
ReplyDeleteKrakauer most likely started the book at the end with the knowledge that we already know the result. There is little point in building up to a result we already learned in the author's notes. Instead Krakauer uses the middle of the story, not the end or beginning, to entice readers. Since the author's goal was to bring light to Chris's life, this is an effective tool of making the reader interested in his story. I wouldn't use this method unless I had a similar story in mind. Starting with the end could make the readers think "What's the point?"
ReplyDelete-Sean H.
I think that Jon Krakauer's decision to start the book at the ending was a unique idea. I think this because I have never seen a book start off like that and it made me very interested and in tune with his story. It also made me wonder how he got to this point. If I wrote a story I would consider the idea of starting a book with the ending, depending on the plot. Overall, his idea madde me look at the plot in a different light and it was pleasureable.
ReplyDeleteI think that Jon did a great job of telling my story. If i were to write a book i would have done the same thing. I thought it was a very good idea to let people know the outcome of the whole story. It let alot of people know what kind of person I was, and how helpless i was. With alot of people, they usually want to know the outcome as soon as they start reading. That is why Jon made the decision of starting the story with the outcome, so he would please the readers and pull them into the story.
ReplyDeleteI think it was very creative that Jon Krakauer began the story with the ending. I would most likely do the same thing as him if I was writing a story because I feel it is such a great idea. I think it's a very good idea because it makes you want to know what actually happened before that. It makes you want to figure out the whole story. It's so much different from many of the other books because of this one aspect and being unique serves as an important quality of anything in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think John Krakauer's idea of starting from the end is a creative idea but I feel like it is not effective for this book. However since John wrote about a story that happend in the past so he probably assumed that the reader knew the outcome already. It makes me realize the protagonist sees things in a different light or has a different point of view the the average person.For me to start a story at the end would have to depend on what the story is about. If it's a story similar to this one then yes ut other then that probably not.
ReplyDeleteI think that it was a very interesting choice made by John to start the story at the end. I think that by putting his death at the beginning of this story did not really do anything for the story itself. I would have rather seen his death at the end of the story. As for the protagonist it shows me a couple of different things. First of all it shows me that the protagonist has a different way of looking at things. It also shows me that he does not like being like other people.
ReplyDeleteI think Jon Krakauer's idea to start the book at the end is clever, because as much as the ending is spoiling the rest of the story, telling you that he dies, as the story is told backwards, you learn much more about the character and how he got to where he was. It helps with most likely the way that he wanted to develop Chris McCandles as a dynamic character. The only thing that I do not like about the book starting in the middle, is in some of the chapters, it'll start off in the most random spot, and I have no idea what the point of that information in the book is until I get to the middle of the chapter. This bothers me because I lose interest in the book when I do not know what is going around. Yes I would consider writing a book this way to spark more interest. Sometimes knowing the end is the best part and then you can piece together the story as your going, kind of like a mystery.
ReplyDelete