Final Revisions.. the end is near

I think my worst paper is definitely my epigraph essay, which is why I have been delaying sending it to you guys... hopefully I will get a lot of the kinks worked out tonight. I think my main problem is trying to make my thesis concise. It is easy to think of what I want to say but I can't figure out a way to convey that message through my work. I am struggling to find what exactly is "truth", and why McCandless as well as others feel the need to pursue it. I want to be like - THEY JUST DO!!! that's their prerogative to go explore the wilderness, something that not all of us understand and that's what makes them unique. Ugh it's very frustrating. Anyway, my best paper so far I think is the Simpsons research paper. I really like this topic because it deals with the media and I am very interested in the effect that the media has on the public. However, I am having a little trouble with this one as well because I need to find sources that back up my claim that comparing families to ones that are relatable makes them more successful. I'm confident in my argument, but am lacking the credentials that prove it and that is my biggest weakness. However, I have really enjoyed analyzing each of the characters and it fun to see what roles each family member plays and how they can relate to my own family. I'm also having some problems with MLA format... stupid I know. But I don't have the Maimon book!!! oops. I'll have to borrow someone's before the weekend is over.

Krakauer: Successful or Unsuccessful?

Throughout the development of Into The Wild, Krakauer certainly took me on a literary roller coaster. First, I pitied McCandless. Then, as the story went on, I began to despise him and the way he treated his family. And finally, as the book neared the end, I began to admire and respect him for what he had done. Krakauer was successful in his authoritative approach because he allowed you to make an opinion for yourself of McCandless, yet let his own opinion become evident as the story developed. You were able to see evidence from his background, like the insensitive letters he wrote to his home, and his angry letters regarding his parents to Billie. Through these, the reader gets a sense of the bad part of McCandless, the one that makes him unlikeable. Nearing the end, the approach gets a little more complex. Krakauer goes into GREAT detail describing how McCandless' death was not of stupidity or suicide, but by being poisoned by mistake. He talks about the Potato Seeds and how the fungus ended up killing him. But because this theory is SO complex and investigated, it makes Krakauer less credible in his argument. Apparrently, like Rachel said, that theory had already been disproven by the time the book came out. And it makes sense, because I feel like anyone who felt this passionate about something, even if it was against Krakauer's beliefs, could come up with some sort of theory/argument to prove otherwise. I think that at the end, the reader is left a little confused about what exactly happened to McCandless. Deep inside, I believe that it was simply a mistake and was not a suicide. In that regard, I think Krakauer, though he has flaws, is successful throughout this book. He has for the most part, changed my opinion about this man, and that is something which is hard to do through literature.