Journalists and investigative writers often struggle to keep their writing 100% truthful when researching cases with few leads and vague details . Writers tend to teeter on the edge of truth in order to satisfy readers with as few questions as possible at the end of their work. Although Jon Krakauer uses this style of storytelling in his narrative tale Into the Wild, while using pieces of both, he combines fact and fiction almost perfectly to create an intriguing yet honest tale. Using standard definitions of such complex concepts 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get the 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 simulated,” while nonfiction is “writing or film that deals with real facts or events” (Webster). These two types of writing are linked in a new way of writing nonfiction known as new journalism or literary journalism. New journalism is “journalism that presents the author's subjective responses to people and events and often includes fictional techniques intended to illuminate and dramatize these responses” (Webster). As mentioned in Krakauer's author's note at the beginning of his book, he does his best to remain unbiased and unbiased, but with a story with so many holes and uncertainties, he had to make many assumptions about the Chris McCandless' real-life character, and about the thought process and events that took place. Krakauer gathers his facts by following in McCandless's footsteps, meeting and interviewing everyone who discovers or saw Chris during his adventure. Through these interviews, Krakauer gained a lot of information, but also developed more questions, forcing Krakauer to improvise and make logical conjectures even as he worked with McCandless's known traits. In this regard, Into the Wild combines all the useful and factual information from Jon Krakauer. brought it together and combined it with the ideas and hypotheses he created in his head to produce a captivating piece of literary journalism. This is demonstrated when Krakauer writes, “[Chris] probably understood that if he was patient and waited, the river would eventually go down…” (171). This line was created with deductive reasoning in relation to evidence. As false as it may be, including it does not affect or change subsequent events that are true. This use of fiction is completely acceptable for the genre. Many times throughout the book, Jon Krakauer manages to connect 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 Chris was under due to the authoritarian control his father had over him. He uses this fact to support his personal belief that Chris abandoned society in part to escape and experience an extreme form of "no pressure." On page 155, Krakauer explains how he believes that he and Chris were "affected equally by the asymmetrical relationships [they] had with [their] fathers", this quote also being said fordefend his idea that his, and more importantly, Chris's, adventurous spirit was fueled by their families. This reasoning is of course only speculation, as Krakauer never fails to remind readers that he cannot be certain of what McCandless was thinking, the inclusion of these ideas only entertains readers and, for some, inspire them. However, the purpose of this novel is not to make its readers question further what Chris was thinking and why, it is to answer those already developed questions. Krakauer makes the decision to connect with McCandless in order to give his readers possible, if not definitive, answers to information gaps. He doesn't want to leave the reader unsatisfied or needing more. Krakauer's hypotheses do not arise solely from his personal experience. Chris McCandless documented his daily experiences in his journal, 113 days spent alone in the wilderness. His entries were not long detailed hour-by-hour descriptions, but often short one-to-ten words. At the same time, he also wrote down his thoughts and ideals in notes contained in the books he had brought with him. After a long investigation of these entries, Krakauer seems to be trying to find a possible meaning in McCandless's simplest words. In one of them, “HAPPINESS ONLY REAL WHEN SHARED” (189) is written, a quick thought to which Krakauer pays much attention. In a way that almost seems to be grasping at straws, because of all the flashbacks, Krakauer offers his analysis of this quote. The point is that he thinks this quote explains Chris's realization that societal isolation isn't the key to happiness, but that other people are what makes something great. He explains that with this, Chris would have wanted 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 from McCandless, but as before, Jon is sure to reiterate that this is just her opinion and she cannot be proven correct or incorrect. These types of not-quite-accurate information are also completely justified. Including ideas like this, especially at such pivotal points in Chris's journey, shows readers that McCandless may have come to a positive realization. With his death occurring so soon after he wrote this quote, it offers readers comfort in that he did not pass without accomplishing at least one of his goals, finding happiness. In a way, Krakauer throws readers a bone by giving them a sort of “happy.” out', although he is unsure of the truth behind McCandless's diary entries. Not only were Chris McCandless's diaries inaccurate in their content, but they also neglected to note the date. His entries only accounted for time by numbering them from one to one hundred and thirteen, presumed to be the time he spent in the woods (Read, Pictures). This could be because Chris lost track of time, forgot the day, or maybe he doesn't want to know, but Krakauer nevertheless takes it upon himself to add this detail. Throughout the novel, Krakauer references specific days, he says. on May 22, Chris lost the crown on one of his molars (164), and on July 28, McCandless finished the book he was reading (189), and much more. It is impossible to be certain about these days unless McCandless specifically mentions them. Krakauer speculates that the date he claims are facts is based on interviews with people who met Chris during his travels, postcards sent before Chris's real disappearance began, and the date.