Friday, April 16, 2010
Blog 11: Krakauer's Research
Krakauer's research did a good job of showing how each part of McCandless' journey was significant. I was drawn in by all the details and descriptions that Krakauer used to help us reader's feel the journey and to be more involved than just reading another biography. I think that it was really powerful how Krakauer went to the people that McCandless had come in contact to, and how he interviewed those people. First hand accounts are the best proof in my opinion, and I think it was important that Krakauer obtained that information. The only downfall is that not every person's memory is perfect, so some information could have been left our or forgotten or maybe altered a little by the people interviewed, not on purpose but just because that's how humans are. I think that the only weak part of Krakauer's research was how McCandless died. I felt that the rest pf the story made sense and was well supported, but there was too much emotions and byass from Krakauer in the way he described McCandless dying. And furthermore, his thoughts were proved to be wrong, so I'm skeptical about that part. Otherwise the book seemed believable and the research that Krakauer did was excellent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do agree with you on the fact that Krakauer’s research did a good job in showing how McCandless’ journey had a purpose and was important to him. He did get quality research and was able to give specific details and draw his readers into each story. I feel like that fact that Krakauer went to the individual people and interview them, I don’t think that there would be any other way to get good research for this book other than that. Having direct quotes from the people who encountered McCandless at first hand really adds to the book and the credibility that Krakauer knew a lot about what he was writing about. I totally agree with you on the fact that there is a problem to interviewing people because they might not remember everything like how it happened and people could change their story to make them look better or because McCandless was dead. Personally I think that Krakauer research on McCandless’ death was not good at all. Especially because he was disproven but still kept his research and beliefs in the book even thought they were wrong. I think to be a good writer you need to start with the facts and say the truth but Krakauer still printed information the was false. I also thought that it was good that Krakauer went to the site in Alaska where McCandless spent his final days and died. I think that it is good to have hands on research and that is what Krakauer did by going up to Alaska. Yes there were some flaws to Krakauer’s research but overall his research was good.
ReplyDelete