Book Test #2
#1) In both novels, explain the author’s: use of research to tell a story: In “Into the Wild”, Jon Krakauer clearly does much research for the novel. He tells a story through his findings and through himself doing his own research. Since Chris McCandless was a traveler or nomad, Krakauer had to travel to many different places in order to find the information. In his book he writes about the interviews that he conducts, he sets the scene, and describes the people he is interviewing. “Samuel Walter McCandless, Jr., fifty-six years old, is a bearded taciturn man with longish salt-pepper hair combed straight back from a high forehead. Tall and soldily proportioned, he wears wire-rimmed glasses that give him a professional demeanor.”
a)
In, “The True Story of Hansel and Gretel”, Louise Murphy clearly shows that she did a lot of research on the historical backround of the second world war. She probably also read a lot or even conducted interviews with holocaust survivors. She probably was told of the situations, feelings, environment in certain areas of europe and how it was for poles and jews. For example, “Hansel woke first, but he couldn’t bear to move. He was terribly cold, but the air outside the leaves was colder. he wasn’t hungry now and smiled at the feel of his stomach with no pain in it.” In this part of the book, the boy is glad that his stomach is no more pain from hunger in his stomach, but it’s not good, because the children are starving are near death. How would anyone know this if they didn’t experience it themselves or research it?
b) awareness of audience: Krakauer is very aware of audience because he is trying to find out the truth about Chris McCandless. He is upset that people are looking at him as crazy so he is trying to inform them of the truth. I think the target audience is for anyone who is interested in the story, but it is also an adult book. He also gives a lot of passages from Chris McCandless’s favorite books, which he often had highlighted or circled. This also defines audience because some of the passages can be difficult to understand. “The dominant primordial beast was strong in Buck, and under the fierce conditions of trail life it grew and grew. Yet it was a secret growth. His newborn cunning gave him poise and control. -Jack London, The Call of the Wild”.
Louise Murphy is aware of audience. i think that this book can be read by anyone, but it would be better understood if you have an idea of WWII and the Holocaust. There are a lot of terms or places that are mentioned without much explanation. ” …he survived the Russians by being a mechanic for them. He survived the Bialystok ghetto by being a mechanic for the nazis….He had gotten all of them out of the ghetto before rthe August deportations, hiding the children in tires strapped to the back of a truck, cutting their stepmother’s hair and giving her mens clothes…”
c) rhetorical style: Krakauers rhetorical style is very appealing to me. I liked how he brought in a lot of emotion and immportance about what Chris McCandless was doing. He often did this by including much of chris’ own writings and some of his favorite passages. I also like how he related himself to Chris and felt passionate about it. “As a young man, i was unlike McCandless in many important regars; most notably, i possessed neither his intellect nor his lofty ideals. But i believe we were similarly affected by the skewed relationships we had with our fathers. And i suspect we had a similar intensity, a similar heedlessnes, a similar agitation of the soul.”
Murphy has her own rhetorical as well. She does a good job on including many different perspectives in the book. For example she includes the perspectives of Hansel and Gretel, Magda, Nelka, Telek, the Meckanik, the stepmother, the German Soldiers, etc. there are many different perspecives of a wide range of people throughout the book. She also expresses a lot of opinion and emotion within her writing from all different people. ” A beautiful example of how the Aryan blood comes out even in the worst dung heap”, says Sister Rosa a member of the Nazi Regime.
d) awareness of genre: Krakauer is aware that he was writing a research novel. There is no way he could have wrote this book without researching Chris McCandless. Not only from what he read, but from traveling and interviewing and going on location. He also had to gain access to his personal items and writings. He says in his acknowldgements, “Writing this book would have been impossible without considerable assistance from the McCandless family.”
Murphy is aware that her novel is historical fiction and that it was also a research novel. Without research the novel would not exist, because she didn’t live through it. She includes a lot of details that could not have been known if not through research and imagination. “It was cold and he ached but suddenly he felt happy. The trees were solid and lifted to the sky where the sun tried to break through the clouds which moved quickly above them.”
e) knowledge of field: I think that both authors were very knowledgable of their feild because they researched it to a great extent. Krakauer traveled to talk to many of the people that McCandless came into contact with. He went to the east coast and talked to his family, he read his books, his writings, and even traveled to Alaska to the location where he died. ” A year and a week after Chris McCandless decided not to attempt to cross the Teklanika River, I stand on the opposite bank—the eastern side, the highway side—and gaze into the churning water. I, too, hope to cross the river. I want to visit the bus. I want to see where McCandless died, to better understand why.” Murphy is also very knowledgable of her field because of all the historical evidence that she had to include. It had to be accurate, because if not her book may not have been published. Some things she heard of through people who experience it, “She hadn’t seen paper since last summer.No one had paper except the Major.”
#2) Tell me what you got out of this entire novel experience with regard to thinking about and understanding research writing. I enjoyed reading the novels because they were both very good. I kind of liked how we had to relate it to research because i have never had to do that before. It got me started on thinking about other novels research. I definilty have a greater appreciation for those who write and mush have a lot of research, because it’s hard work. I really liked how Murphy wrote 2 little bits at the end that invited the reader in or made you think about what you just read, and the importance of it. “Caught between green earth and blue sky, only truth kept me sane, but now lies disturb my peace. The story has been told over and over by liars and it must be retold. Do not struggle when the hook of a word pulls in into the air of truth and you cannot breath. For a little while, i ask this of you. Come with me.”
I know i have said this a few times already, but i loved how Krakauer included passages from some of McCandlesses favorite books and from his own writing. I think without this the book would not have been nearly as good. ” The very basic core of a man’s living spirit is his passion for adventure. The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizen, for each day to have a new and different sun.” (McCandless). This has taught me that you don’t have to just present the facts but you can be creative with your research and really draw in the reader.
