can Krakauer write a book where he doesn't interject himslef into the story?
Well, he can be excused for Into Thin Air because he WAS part of the story, but I agree with you on Into the Wild. Seemed as if he really did not have enough material for a book, but he had a book deal so he really stretched.
Well gosh...if a few pages of known text from a 250 page book corrupts your reading pleasure, then...
EXCUUUUUUSE ME....!!!!
Not complaining, but now the books foibles will be oh-so apparent when reading it for the first time. That would be expected from a good book review, but might make this book less enjoyable.
Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 809
Loc: hamlet's hand
(76.15.48.93)
Offline
Originally Posted By: alicex4
can Krakauer write a book where he doesn't interject himslef into the story?
I find most narratives way more engaging when the writer is part of the story. That's why I'll take outdoor writers like Abbey, Frazier, Krakauer, Roberts, and Quamman over the accomplished but dispassionate voice of someone like John McPhee. When McPhee finally inserted himself into one of his narratives via the shad he wrestled for hours trolling the Delaware between Lambertville and New Hope, The Founding Fish outdid his many acclaimed "objective" books.
Objectivity is an imperious fiction; I want to hear how a writer is moved by the subject. Krakauer's 20 something, self-involved Alaskan exile and Freudian father conflicts paralleled McCandless' excruciatingly modern form of initiation. Where Krakauer survived his to become a significant writer, McCandless ended up dead.
To this pilgrim, that's an important, New Journalism take on Coming-of-Age literature; one I found to be a far better read than Into Thin Air.