Journalists and authors of investigative literature often struggle to keep their writing 100% truthful when researching cases with few clues and vague details. Writers tend to teeter on the edge of truth to leave readers satisfied with as few questions as possible at the end of their work. Although Jon Krakauer uses this style of storytelling in his short story Into the Wild, while using pieces of both, it almost seamlessly combines fact and fiction to create an intriguing yet honest story. Using standard definitions of complex concepts such as nonfiction and “new” journalism, this article aims to compare Krakauer's use of fiction and nonfiction in relation to new journalism/literary journalism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The fictional elements of Into the Wild do not outweigh the actual facts stated by Jon Krakauer but are well balanced allowing the novel to be classified as a work of new journalism. Fiction is defined as “something invented by the imagination or fictional,” while nonfiction is “writing or film that deals with real facts or events” (Webster). These two types of writing are linked in a recently new way of writing nonfiction known as New Journalism or Literary Journalism. New Journalism is “journalism that presents authors' subjective responses to people and events and that often includes fictional techniques intended to illuminate and dramatize those responses” (Webster). As mentioned in Krakauer's author's note at the beginning of his book, he tries his best to remain fair and impartial, but with a story with so many holes and uncertainties, he had to make a lot of assumptions about Chris McCandless's actual character, and about the thought process and events that took place. Krakauer gathers his facts by following McCandless' trail, meeting and interviewing everyone who knew or saw Chris during his adventure. Through these interviews, Krakauer gained a lot of information, but with that he developed more questions, forcing him to improvise and make logical conjectures even as he worked with McCandless's known traits. In these respects, Into the Wild combines all the useful, factual information Jon Krakauer collected and combined it with the ideas and hypotheses he had created in his head to produce a compelling piece of literary journalism. This is demonstrated when Krakauer writes “[Chris] probably understood that if he was patient and waited, the river would eventually collapse…” (171). This line was created with deductive reasoning in relation to the evidence. However false it may potentially be, including it does not affect or change the events that follow that are true. This use of fiction is completely acceptable for the genre. On numerous occasions in the book, Jon Krakauer manages to relate McCandless's life to his own in an attempt to understand what he might be thinking. At the beginning of the reading, the author explains the pressure and stress that Chris was under due to the domineering control that his father had over him. He uses this fact to support his personal belief that part of Chris's reason for leaving society was to escape and experience an extreme form of "no pressure." On page 155 Krakauer explains how he thinks he and Chris were "similarly affected by the distorted relationships [they] had with [their] fathers", this quote was also said to defend his idea that his, and especially Chris's, adventurous spirit was fueled by their families. This reasoning is just speculation, of course, since Krakauernever fails to remind readers that he can't be sure what McCandless was thinking, the inclusion of these ideas only entertains readers and, for some, inspires them. However, the goal of this novel is not to make its readers wonder further what Chris was thinking and why, but to answer those already developed questions. Krakauer makes the decision to link to McCandless to give his readers possible, if not definitive, answers to information gaps. He doesn't want to leave the reader dissatisfied or wanting more. Krakauer's hypotheses do not arise only from his personal experience. Chris McCandless documented his daily experiences in his diary, the 113 days he spent alone in the wilderness. His entries were not long hour-by-hour descriptions, but often short one to ten words. Alongside these, he also wrote down his thoughts and ideals in notes within the books he carried with him. After a long investigation into these rumors, Krakauer seems to try to find a possible meaning behind even McCandless's simplest words. In one, it is written “'HAPPINESS IS ONLY REAL WHEN SHARED'” (189), a quick thought that Krakauer pays close attention to. In a way that almost seems like a leap of faith, due to all the backtracking, Krakauer offers his analysis of this quote. The thing is, he believes this quote explains that Chris realized that social isolation was not the key to happiness, but that other people make something great. He explains that with this Chris would have liked to return to the real world and be a little more vulnerable and open. This is an extreme assumption to make with little to no context on McCandless' part, but as before, Jon is sure to reiterate that this is only his opinion and cannot be proven correct or incorrect. Even this kind of not entirely accurate information is completely justified. Including ideas like this, especially at such crucial moments in Chris' journey, shows readers that McCandless may have come to a positive realization. With his death occurring so soon after writing this quote, it offers readers comfort that he did not leave without achieving at least one of his goals, finding happiness. In a sense, Krakauer throws readers a bone by giving them a sort of 'happy out', despite not being sure of the truth behind McCandless's diary entries. Chris McCandless's diaries not only did not specify the content, but also overlooked the date. His notes only tracked time by numbering them from one to one hundred and thirteen, presumably the amount of time spent in the woods (Read, Pictures). This could be because Chris lost track of time, he forgot the day or maybe he doesn't want to know, but nevertheless Krakauer takes it upon himself to add that piece. In the novel, Krakauer refers to specific days, he says on May 22nd Chris lost the crown of one of his molars (164), and on the 28th. July McCandless finished the book he was reading (189), and much more. It is impossible to establish with certainty about these days, unless McCandless specifically mentions them Krakauer assumes that the date he claims is a fact based on interviews with people who met Chris during his travels, postcards sent before the onset of Chris' real disappearance, and the date commonly believed to be the last time he was seen, April 28. , 1992 (7). If someone interviewed missed a day, or Chris was off enough to miss a day in his notes, or many other possibilities, Jon Krakauer's entire timeline could provide false information and leaves no comments of.