Response to Week of Apr 19th Prompt

Out of the papers you are putting into your English portfolio, which one do you think shows your best work and which one do you think needs to be edited the most? Explain why. Be specific. Provide examples of your best and weakest areas.

The paper that I think shows my best work is my epigraph essay. Regardless of what my readers think I am a really big fan of it mostly because it was something I actually enjoyed writing about. The last epigraph that had been written by Thoreau that I close read was actually really interesting to me and I felt like I had a pretty good grasp on it. My conclusion was something that I actually really believed in and hopefully that has translated into a good communication of that idea. Obviously I still am trying to revise it so I hope that by portfolio time it has accomplished what I desire it to accomplish. The one that I think needs to be edited the most is my Research Paper. This is because I believe I am currently walking a fine line between writing a good one and having it fall apart. I submitted that essay as my third essay submission to my group and hopefully their reading can give me a good idea of how I need to approach it from this point till it is final. Also, I feel this needs to be edited the most, or at least the most carefully, because it is the longest paper and therefore I need to make sure I keep the reader engaged through the whole thing and I don't lose them. I believe one of my better areas is style of writing. I think I use good language and am not overly generic. Of course it is not incredible or anything, but it is one of the things that I feel best about in my writing. One of my worst areas, unfortunately, is putting myself in the readers shoes. I feel all to often I do not supply enough meta-commentary to adequately explain my thought processes. I tend to understand what I am writing about pretty well, so I sometimes overlook the fact that my reader may not be following me.

Response to Week of Apr 12th Prompt

Describe the kind of things you think Chris would do if he did make it out of the wild alive? Would he contact his parents? What would he say to them? Would he get a job, go back to school?

First off, if Chris had made it out of Alaska, he would have first contacted the people he had spent the most time with during his previous travels. This would include Wayne Westerberg, Jan Burress, and Ronald Franz. Based on the assumptions that Krakauer makes, Chris may have been leaning towards returning to typical life. How long that would have lasted, no one can even assume, however, I think he would have taken a little longer to contact his parents. I also doubt that he would just show up at their house. Based on his feelings that they were always worrying about him when they shouldn't, I feel that he would abhor their reaction to his arrival. Most likely he would send his sister Carine a letter from some distant location, allowing for a slower integration into renewing contact. Therefore he would be able to deal with a preferred family member. In terms of getting a job, I suspect he would remain close to either Westerberg or Burress, whom he had worked for previously. Beyond these initial reintegrations, any other thoughts on his future would be pure speculation and, in my opinion, are not worth discussing.

Response to Group C Prompt

At the beginning of chapter 17 of Into the Wild, author Jon Krakauer refers to the fact that McCandless did not have a topographic map a few times. In fact, McCandless did not have any map at all (174). This brings up the issue of how prepared Chris McCandless was for such an adventure. Krakauer often brings up letters from angry Alaskans or outdoorsmen who wrote letters complaining about this very issue, something that they saw as elementary knowledge and common sense. It is extremely difficult to argue that not having a map is not a sign of being unprepared when going out into the wilderness. However, it is important to note, as Krakauer does, that Chris had no intention of being 'prepared' in a conventional way with modern equipment (174). As we approach the end of the this documentation of McCandless's journey, has your overall view of Chris McCandless changed at all regarding this topic? Do you think that this is a sign of arrogance, ignorance, or just a human being challenging themselves? The chapter appears to be heavily defending Chris's mistakes in the wild, while still acknowledging them. Are Krakauer's methods effective for you in this case?

My view has not changed. As stated in the question, Krakauer says that McCandless had no intention of being prepared. Therefore i believe it is wrong to fault him for his decisions, especially since they didn't harm anyone else. Not to take his death lightly. It was tragic. However, I had believed from the beginning that McCandless was someone who did what he was passionate about, and he should be commended for that. Therefore I believe it was just a sign of a human being challenging themselves. Regarding Krakauer's writing, I found this chapter very effective. It does bring up a lot of the mistakes that Chris made, and I could definitely see where people could get upset with it. But right after that Krakauer addressed the mistake with such conviction that I was back on his side. If you are trying to make people see something one way, then the best way to accomplish that is to rebuke what the others say, and I believe Krakauer did that very effectively in this chapter.