While Krakauer has great writing when telling the story of Chris McCandless, my rhetorics in my writing would be somewhat different as well as has the same fell that Krakauer shows in his writing of McCandless. Firstly Krakauer isn't basing his whole writing on McCandless alone, he includes other people that has similarities in McCandless's quest to Alaska. This is a great way to show that he wasn't a special case, but doesn't have complete proof and jumps into their shoes. When really the only ones that can tell the tales are the ones that we're right there with the person. Otherwise its strictly knowledge based instead of facts about McCandless. So my rhetoric would include alot more investigation and maybe photographic evidence rather thank what these people are telling Krakauer.
The oly problem with using the photos is there isn't many of McCandless unlees you were going to show the placces he was then it would be ok. Trying to do use facts in his life is going to be hard, because there man that we know of anymore. I agree though that Krauker jumps to conclusions way to often.
ReplyDelete