Friday, February 19, 2010
Group D response
I think the approach Krakauer takes towards his novel is on the right track. He employs plenty of pathos to help stir the emotions of the reader and get them to feel what it is he feels about Christopher McCandless. If i were writing this though, I would most likely employ a balanced view of pathos, ethos, and logos. Pathos to draw the reader into an emotional state that is appropriate. Follow this with logos, so that there are facts for the reader to believe and understand. And after the combination of emotions and facts, lay out a few good sentences as to why, and why you should believe me. I think that type of outline could help diminish those that would tear down McCandless for what he did, and further help support my opinion, as well as Krakauer's (as they are the same). But i do not see a more fitting title that "Into the Wild." Its plain, yet much can be drawn from those three words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. The pathos used Into the Wild is overwhelming but necessary since the author needs you to connect emotionally with Chris if he wants you to actually finish his book. Logos is a definite must have if you want to engage the naysayer as well. If the book wasn't called Into the Wild it would probably have to be something that sums up Chris' journey. I said "Nature vs. Nurture: Nature Always Wins"
ReplyDeleteNah, what pathos if any did he employ in his book. there wasn't anything. he never even states why he's credible at all. And he definitely was not balanced, he used little tricks to make Chris a hero. Serious.
ReplyDelete