Chapter 8-10 Questions1. Why would Krakauer interrupt the story of Chris McCandless to write about Everett Ruess, the monks from Iceland and the comments from readers of the Outside article?
2. Would you consider Chris, Everett Ruess and the Icelandic monks "outcasts" in society?
I think the author interrupted chris's story to let us know that people taking of into the wild is more common then we think since most of us have never heard of anyone doing this. Also, for us to compare these people with Chris.
ReplyDeleteIf I had met Chris before he set off in his "adventure" I would say that he was not an outcast but by removing himself from civilization, Chris made himself an outcast. As for the monks, they were kind of outcats, they chose who they were with (the other monks) and wouldn't be around anyone else.
~Sawyer Schultz
1). i agree with mostly with sawyer its to let us see that chris isnt the only person in the world that has had these thoughts and i think it makes the reader gives more of a chance on chris than before.
ReplyDelete2). no i wouldnt consider them outsiders in the society because of the fact that they were still involved with people in society and also it doesnt have to be just one society in the world, theres a lot of other countries out there with different religions and opinions and i do not veiw them as out of the so called society more of like a different branch of society
Stephen Moran
ReplyDelete1) I think the author interrupted the story to show that people have done what Chris has done before. When people read Into the Wild, they may at first think that Chris was messed up for doing what he did, so the author put this section in to make Chris seem like less of an idiot for leaving everything he had behind him.
2)I agree with Sawyer on the fact that if i knew Chris before he went into the wild, he would of seemed perfectly normal for doing what he wanted, but I also believe that from the standards of today's society, he would be considered an outcast for dropping everything he had accomplished to live a life with no possessions and love it.
1. I personally believe the author did this to allow readers to understand that Chris is not the first and the last one to do such things. Like what Sawyer and Stephen said, the author interrupted the story of Chris McCandless so that the readers can understand the fact that Chris is not a psycho who believed going into the wild would answer his problems in life.
ReplyDelete2. I would never consider Chris, Everett Reuss, or the Icelandic monks to be "outcasts" in society. People have the right to believe in whatever one believes in. If we considered them as "outcasts," I would consider the comment a bigotry comment.
Richard Nakagawa
1. I believe that the author interrupted Chris’s story to inform the reader, and make what Chris did seem clearer and understandable. Chris wasn’t crazy or idiotic he just lived his life the way he felt he wanted to and the author seemed to have a connection to him in that way. By comparing and talking about the monks, and Everett Ruess it showed the reader that Chris isn’t the only one who makes himself an outcast. Like sawyer said he chose to make himself an outcast, no one forced him into choosing that way of living.
ReplyDelete2. I wouldn’t necessarily say that they were outcast, but at the same time I do believe that they saw themselves that way. I agree with Richard when he said "people have the right to believe in what ever they want to believe in" but just because we have the right to do or believe in what ever we want doesn’t mean, we are not going to judge the ones who go out and do the abnormal. They were more of an inspiration to people than "outcasts" and they should be commended for the things they accomplished, and not for what kind of people they were.
Brooke Chapman
1.I believe that krakauer interrupted the story to show how chris isn’t the only person who has tackled an adventure that is dangerous. I also think he put the comments from the readers to show how there are going to be opionons and to show how we all are judging someone. So just like Stephen said, the author is just trying to tell everyone trips like chris’s aren’t outrageous.
ReplyDelete2.Although they aren’t outcasts, they are however different. Chris for example doesn’t like the life he lives, yet he had one some of us may have wished for. He had money, graduated from college, and a nice family. Yet he leaves all of it behind for an adventure. It’s almost as if he wanted to surprise everyone, and live a life where he didn’t depend on anyone or anything. Now that is someone who we may call crazy or unique. It just depends how you look at it, but I believe there was some stupidity behind all of these trips.
Kaitlyn Smith
1) I agree Stephen when says the author interrupted to show that poeople have done what Chris has done before. I think Chris wanted to live the way he was most happy. Even if that means he had to leave society.
ReplyDelete2) I wouldn't consider Chris an "outcast" if i had known him. I think he made himself an "outcast". He left everything he had. He had a college education, a good family, and money. He simply didn't like that life style and left it for a new one.
1.i aggree with stephen the author just added that section in there to make chris look like less of an "idiot" for leaving everything that was his to go out to the wild.
ReplyDelete2.i aggree with sawyer the monks themselves were a bit of an outcast as for chris he chose to be an outcast.
this is pissing me off the setup you have for this is dumb ms.widdop, anyhow i agree with sawyer for q1 and for q2 Im going to have to say no, we shouldent judge people by the way they live life now there are some exceptions like drug addicts and child molesters and murderers but those are not rellevant in this conversation, cris and the mnoks chose to live there lives that way because they were looking for some sort of serenity and should not be judged for that. this is actually forney
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brooke in that chris was not some crazy person who went out into the woods with no thought, he just lived his life a little bit different from the rest of "society".
ReplyDelete1.) I believe that Krakauer interrupts the main story with the stories of Everett Reuss and the Monks from Iceland to show that (like most everyone else has been concluding in their comments; i.e. Swayer, Stephen, Brooke, etc.)Chris is not the only person in the world who has tried to venture 'into the wild' -no pun intended. Also Krakauer might have added the comments from the readers of the Outside magazine for the reason that if the reader happens to be a person who sees "good" in what Chris has done, it can provide a completely different opinion for those people to be able to look at and compare with their own; or vise versa, to actually compare their similar thoughts with the thoughts of others.
ReplyDelete2.) The dictionary describes an outcast as "
a person who is rejected or cast out, as from home or society: a homeless wanderer; vagabond." ~ I do and also do not consider Chris as an outcast for the following reasons. For one, Chris was not rejected by society, he decided to reject society and do his own thing, so to speak. He himself was the one who had cast him out, not others, and thus this makes him not so much of an outcast but more of a nonconformist. For two, he has definitely put himself in a situation where he has become a homeless and wandering vagabond. Thus the reason why I think that he sort of is an outcast...in his own little way I suppose(because that is how he was before he died, pretty much a stereotypical "hobo").
Unlike what everyone else seems to be saying, I actually think that it is alright to speculate somewhat on the actions of Chris McCandless. Sure it's unjust to judge someone for their way of going about life, however he practically committed suicide and gave up a life that most people sometimes literally die striving for. In which I call his actions rather incompetent of being reasonably logical.
1. I agree with the majority of the people on here that have said that Krauker put these other stories in to show that there have been other people who have gone on living life like this.
ReplyDelete2. I also agree with Michael and how Chris had a perfectly good life but he decided that that wasn't the life that he wanted and he wanted to live his own life rather than being "told what to do" by society and seeing the "normal" way of life that is lived by people in this country.
1) I agree with everyone who has said that krakauer interrupted the story because Chris is not the only person who has gone out into the wilderness. People make it seem like Chris is the first person to go into the woods and do what he did and he's a stupid guy, when I'm sure there are many other people who have done that before him and people who are doing it today.
ReplyDelete2) I agree with sawyer about considering Chris and outcast. Like she said at first i wouldn't think this because a lot of people love the wilderness, it is not uncommon. Except he had no communication or anything to keep him connected with his family which most people do. He completely removed himself without anyone really knowing. He made himself no longer connected to society. As for Everett Ruess and the Icelandic monks i believe they were more of "outcasts" in society. Except i do agree with Tony that they still were involved with people, and who really decides who is an outcast any way? Everyones equal to one another and every one is different. Maybe they were just different to what society expects of people
For all who commented- very good job on your responses. I like how each of you read through other's responses prior to formulating your own response and included their thoughts in your response. This is what a discussion should be.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to remember- punctuation and capitalization is important as is being specific about what person/place you are refering to.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1)i agree with everyone who think krakauer paused the story to tell us about Everett Ruess and the monks from Iceland because i think he is trying to convince people that chris isnt the first person to ever go into the wilderness and also i think he did it because it makes chris not look so much of an idiot to leave a good life to go into the wild
ReplyDelete2)i agree with sawyer because i think chris made himself a outcast but the monks didnt have a chance they are loners.
1)I think everyone is right about the fact that Krakaur put the stories of the monks and Ruess to show that Chris was not the only one to go "into the wild", but when we put all these stories together it kind of makes me think that all of these guys are "idiot" that just made stupid choices that ended up killing them.
ReplyDelete2)I agree with Tony and the others who thought that Chris, Ruess, and the monks were all outcasts. They all had problems with society and made decisions that would end up costing them their lives.
1.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone else's comments on the question, however to me it seems like Krakauer may have also did it to re enforce the fact that "venturing into the wild" doesn't usually end up well, and isn't something that the average person should attempt. Even if they come more prepared then Chris did. In the cases that he mentioned many people died from some reason or another, which i think would deter any normal person from attempting such a feet.
2.)
Yes, I would consider them outcasts in society. Similar to what sawyer said, that they made themselves outcasts, by removing themselves from society. After all isn't the definition of "outcast" someone who is removed from society? Even if they did it too themselves the still fit the description.
1. i pretty much agree with most of the comments. ! think that krakauer was trying to make the readers realise that chris wasnt the only person out there with the same outlook on life and understanding of society. thats why he started talking about the monks and Ruess.
ReplyDelete2.i agree with henry they removed themselves from society by choice and made decisions such as going to africa to be away from it all.