Krakauer's Credibility

In what ways were Krakauer's research and authoritative methods successful and unsuccessful in your opinion throughout his development of Into the Wild. Pick a couple examples from the text to back up your viewpoint.

I think that Krakauer did a beautiful job researching and writing the novel Into the Wild. In the beginning of the novel it is slightly obvious to the reader that Krakauer has a deeper connection to Chris, but this becomes more and more eminent as the book progresses. First, with the comparison to Krakauer's own experience Mountain climbing, second when Krakauer makes the journey to Stampede Trail to see where Chris spent his remaining time, and finally with the depth he goes to find what exactly killed Chris. All three of these narrative techniques reach out to the readers showing how others can relate to Chris and his situation. However, these techniques should also be noted for their ethos and the way they force the reader to feel. Krakauer bluntly states in the beginning of the novel that he wants the reader to make up their own mind about Chris, yet he has his own agenda for continually portraying Chris in "good" light. For me Krakauer was very successful with his authoritative methods. He showed a story and side of Chris which I deeply want to believe is true. This makes me both ignorant and biased because like Krakauer I want to believe that Chris's death was not his fault, and he would have been successful and proved his critics wrong. For other readers who were expecting to be given just the facts, and no in-between emotions, I could see how they would frown upon Krakauer's twisted research and think less of him.