2010年2月19日星期五
about " Into the Wild"
The author of "Into the Wild" Krakauer uses others' comments of Chris McCandless to express his own feeling. Most of the comments are positive and few of them are negative, which means that the author has positive attitude about Chris McCandless, otherwise he wouldn't use these positive comments. For me, I still think that McCandless's death is not very significant. If I write a book about this guy, probably I would choose both sides of him. For example, McCandless has a bad relationship with his family, and he is a nice guy who impressed Charlie very much. Although it's a little bit paradox, it shows McCandless's paradox. In strangers' eyex, he was a nice and popular guy, but he didn't get well with his family. In addition, he decided to go to the wild, he read so many books, but he only took few stuffs with him, which is also a paradox. If I write a book about McCandless, I will name my book as "Innocent or significant", which describes his death.
订阅：
博文评论 (Atom)
I kinda understand what you mean about this. I had never even heard of Chris McCandless until I read this book, so it would seem his death didn't signify much or seem important. I like reading the book and its very interesting; however, I think he incorporates mostly pathos. Pathos is a good rhetoric but a book which only shows emotion only gives you part of the whole effect of the idea of the book.
回复删除