You guys are going to have to bear with me because i just got my wisdom teeth out haha. Anways, I definitely think that Karakuers use of comparing Chris's stories to other peoples adventures makes the story stronger. I really had no idea that there were so many other people out their who had the same motives and actions as Chris. It helped to find other people to relate him to, made Chris's actions seem a little less crazy. An example of this is about Everette Russe in Chapter 9, where Sleight makes a statement that "Everett was kind of different. But him and McCandless, at least they tried to follow their dream. That's what was great about them. They tried. Not many do" (96). This just shows that many people out their did the same things that Chris did. It still makes me believe Chris doesnt deserve all the attention he has recieved since other people have gone ot on similar adevnetures.

Overall, I think pathos is the most effect when writing a paper. I believe that the emotional aspects when making an arguement, just makes the arguement stronger. It gives people the chance to relate to those emotions. I feel like for my Into the Wild Essay, the pathos was definetly helpful for my arguement. I am not saying that all three are important, because they definetly are. Logos is important just so there are facts to back up where your emotions are coming from. I think ethos is the least important depending on what kind of paper you are writing. For our essays so far, just getting facts and peoples opinions is making the papers stronger. We are not to the point where you need that credibility to make a point. However, my essay definetly needs some revising so I can make it stronger and have more facts, and possibly some credibility.

"After intially writing the essay on your opinion of Christopher McCandless, has further read in the book Into the Wild changed your opinion of McCandless or set or more so set it in stone?"

As I continue to read further and further into the book Into the Wild my views about McCandless are still the same. When I wrote my essay I thought that McCandless did not deserve all the praise that he has recieved and that he was naiive about the whole thing. I totally understand wanting to go and live off the wilderness, be one with nature. But McCandless would accept help from people, worked jobs, lived in certain places while on his trip. In I believe chapter 2 it talks about the people finding Chris and that he had been living in a bus. I think if he really wanted to experience nature he wouldn't be living inside a bus, but instead out in the wilderness. I also just can not get over the fact that Chris just stopped having contact with his family. Im really close to my family, and I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose contact with my sister for two years to finally find out that she had died. I still don't understand why he would want to do that... Im still trying to keep an open mind, so we will see if my opinion of him changes as I continue on reading.