Tarczynski/Bennett
Literature
February 19, 2007
Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.
- G. K. Chesterton
If we are totally balanced in everything we do than we don’t have our own opinions. We can't choose a side if we are always worried about others opinions.
Krakauer demonstrates his positive bias towards Chris though several writing strategies.
He uses literary conventions when he quotes McCandless’ diary. He uses word choice to show his favor towards Chris by using positive words. He uses syntax to show the connection between him and Chris. “Like McCandless, figures of male authority aroused in me a confusing medley of corked fury and hunger to please” (Krakauer 134). This is opinion and therefore subject to bias. “My convictions should be apparent soon enough…” (Krakauer I). He warns of his own bias. He organizes the story so that we see the end and then the journey is more important to us. He uses formal presentation to present characters in the story with accuracy. He builds his authority by backing research and telling of his personal experiences.
Often it is less taxing to gather an opinion from a dialogue than a treatise. With both beliefs presented one can weigh the two ideals against each other and gain perspective. Krakauer uses every available chance to sympathize and rationalize Chris’ choices. Krakauer considers himself similar to Chris; to some this would jeopardize his integrity and to others it would simply back his arguments with experience. In reality it can do both or neither or one or the other. I cannot agree that he is attempting to indoctrinate anyone because he informs us of his bias. At the same time I cannot agree that he isn’t in some sense trying to validate his own opinions even more by stating this. “I won’t claim to be an impartial biographer. McCandless’s strange tale struck a personal note that made a dispassionate rendering impossible” (Krakauer I). This builds his authority. Yet at the same time it weakens his factual basis in a sense. “…I interrupt McCandless’s story with fragments of a narrative drawn from my own youth” (Krakauer I). By relating his own youth to McCandless’s he is trying to make people understand Chris.
One’s likes or dislikes can vary but with matters of fact there is no interpretation. There are absolute truths and personal truths in life. Krakauer manipulated the facts, in themselves true, and added subtle inflections to present his feelings. As I just used “manipulated”, a word seen as negative to illustrate Krakauer’s bias. The words that are chosen have an affect on the message the author is trying to portray. When Krakauer writes of the potato and sweet pea seeds he slants every word to fit his opinion. “Although a slightly smaller plant, wild sweet pea looks so much like wild potato that even expert botanists sometimes have trouble telling the species apart” (Krakauer 191). Was Chris arrogant? Or did he make a small mistake that even some experts do? Krakauer doesn’t leave too much room for debate in his conclusion. The use of the word “expert”, botanists make Chris’ mistake seem innocent. The truth is that nobody really knows for sure. One can only speculate.
Krakauer presents Chris’ story with a genre of adventure. This sheds positive light on McCandless’s journey and proves Krakauer’s bias. Along with his word choice and authority this makes it difficult to not see some bias. Ultimately it is up to the reader to decide what to believe. This becomes difficult when Krakauer’s view is so accessible. This forces readers to sift through to find what they consider the truth. He does present some opposing views and accounts yet they seem to have been picked for a reason. “Warning that it was 1:00 A.M. and he was well into a bottle of Seagram’s, Jans let fly...” (Krakauer 71). This in regard to one of the letters he received about his article from Outside magazine. Jans was drunk while he wrote the letter. I don’t know if the ones he picked were the best out of what he had to work with, but assuming that there were some sober writers I think he used this to build his authority, furthering his credibility. “The author describes a man who has given away a small fortune, forsaken a loving family, abandoned his car, watch and map and burned the last of his money before traipsing off into the ‘wilderness’ west of Healy” (qtd. in Krakauer 71). This quote goes without elaboration so again it is left to the reader to decide.
In life there are personal truths often called opinions and absolute truths often called facts. Sometimes people have facts wrong, or confuse fact and opinion because they believe it so strongly. To say that Krakauer is bias is to say he has opinion in a negative way. He used facts to attempt to prove his opinions. Sometimes opinions are facts and sometimes facts are opinions depending on how people see them. Opinions can be personal facts and facts can be personal opinions. Krakauer warned of his ‘bias’ so that the readers could sift through and forge their own path. Also there is something that I value highly called the Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech.Anyone wanna edit my paper?
Yes, for sure. I am professional proof reader. I will do this job for free for you. send me your paper on my e-mail address.
afzalsaima@yahoo.comAnyone wanna edit my paper?
Try this:
Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.
- G. K. Chesterton
If we are totally balanced in everything we do than we don’t have our own opinions. We can't choose a side if we are always worried about others’ opinions.
Krakauer demonstrates his positive bias towards Chris though several writing strategies.
He uses literary conventions when he quotes McCandless’ diary. He uses word choice to show his favor towards Chris by using positive words; he uses syntax to show the connection between him and Chris. “Like McCandless, figures of male authority aroused in me a confusing medley of corked fury and hunger to please” (Krakauer 134). This is opinion and, therefore, subject to bias. In stating, “my convictions should be apparent soon enough…” (Krakauer I), he warns of his own bias. He organizes the story so that we see the end and then the journey becomes more important to us. He uses formal presentation to present characters in the story with accuracy. He builds his authority by backing the story with research and the telling of his personal experiences.
Often, it is less taxing to gather an opinion from dialogue than from a treatise. With both beliefs presented, one can weigh the two ideals against each other and gain perspective. Krakauer uses every available chance to sympathize and rationalize Chris’ choices. Krakauer considers himself similar to Chris; to some, this would jeopardize his integrity and to others, it would simply back his arguments with experience. In reality, it can do both, neither or one or the other. I cannot agree that he is attempting to indoctrinate anyone because he informs us of his bias. At the same time, I cannot agree that he isn’t, in some sense, trying to validate his own opinions even more by stating, “I won’t claim to be an impartial biographer. McCandless’ strange tale struck a personal note that made a dispassionate rendering impossible” (Krakauer I). This builds his authority; yet, at the same time, it weakens his factual basis in a sense. “…I interrupt McCandless’ story with fragments of a narrative drawn from my own youth” (Krakauer I). By relating his own youth to McCandless’, he is trying to make people understand Chris.
One’s likes or dislikes can vary but with matters of fact there can be no interpretation; there are absolute truths and personal truths in life. Krakauer manipulated the facts, in themselves true, and added subtle inflections to present his feelings. The words that are chosen have an effect on the message the author is trying to portray. When Krakauer writes of the potato and sweet pea seeds, he slants every word to fit his opinion. “Although a slightly smaller plant, wild sweet pea looks so much like wild potato that even expert botanists sometimes have trouble telling the species apart…” (Krakauer 191).
Was Chris arrogant? Or did he make a small mistake that even some experts do? Krakauer doesn’t leave too much room for debate in his conclusion. With the use of the word “expert”, botanists make Chris’ mistake seem innocent. The truth is that no one really knows for sure; one can only speculate.
Krakauer presents Chris’ story with a genre of adventure. This sheds positive light on McCandless’ journey and proves Krakauer’s bias. Along with his word choices and authority, this makes it difficult to not see some bias. Ultimately, it is up to the reader to decide what to believe. This becomes difficult when Krakauer’s view is so accessible. This forces readers to sift through to find what they consider the truth. He does present some opposing views and accounts; yet, they seem to have been picked for a reason. “Warning that it was 1:00 A.M. and he was well into a bottle of Seagram’s, Jans let fly...” (Krakauer 71). This was written in response to one of the letters received about the article in Outside magazine; Jans was drunk while he wrote the letter. I don’t know if the ones chosen were the best out of what he had to work with, but assuming that there were some sober writers, I believe he used this to build his authority, furthering his credibility. “The author describes a man who has given away a small fortune, forsaken a loving family, abandoned his car, watch and map and burned the last of his money before traipsing off into the ‘wilderness’ west of Healy” (qtd. in Krakauer 71). This quote goes without elaboration so again it is left to the reader to decide.
In life, there are personal truths often called “opinions” and absolute truths often called “facts”. Sometimes people have facts wrong, or confuse fact and opinion because they believe in something so strongly. To say that Krakauer is biased is to say he has opinions in a negative way but he did use facts to attempt to prove these opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment