Before he even divulges his feelings towards McCandless, he obnoxiously begins mentioning, excuse me, "warning that it was 1:00 A.M., & he was well into a bottle of Seagram's...". I took this little crumb of information into account before I began reading and analyzing his response, so much so that I was expecting
His argument was clear, well-constructed, and saturated with elevated vocabulary <20th>, the use of antithesis, colons, semicolons, em dashes, and other stylistic moves that suggest a high level of thinking. And then he has to end with "-- or am i missing something?"; translation, "--am I right or am I right? Ya, I am."
I hate when people try to be modest, especially when they know good and well that they're talented. And then they try to justify any ounce of failure or weakness, before they even begin, for fear that someone might detect a weakness or a flaw in them, making them not-so-great.
This is exactly what Jans did.
He composed a perfectly competent critique of McCandless's life, but lets on that he's drunk late at night. This is the lamest excuse ever. And all this just in case his response sucked, and he still wants to make himself look good.
Or am I missing something?
1 comment:
I find it interesting to note how the harshest criticisms delivered upon McCandless were by residents of Alaska. I really don't get why they throw such a fit over McCandless and others like him.
And if that's how well Jans could further an argument drunk, I'd be interested in seeing him do so while sober, yikes!
I love that last little line as well.
Post a Comment