This article is organized by topic of the metaphors. It is almost arranged like a text book. There is a heading at the top of each new subject. The metaphor the stuck out at me the most was about the eagle and the artificial bait. I can relate to the feeling of accomplishment, only to be shot down by a stupid error. The thesis of this article was how the writers view themselves. This was not like an argument or persuasion paper, where the thesis is supported by concrete facts. This thesis was supported by flowing metaphors and other literary techniques.  "Good" writers view themselves in a positive, optimistic way, while "bad" writers view themselves negatively or out of control of their situation.

Wikipedia is a useful tool for research. It provides good insight and a broad understanding of most topics. With this said, it should not be used for in depth research. Wikipedia is good for getting general data on certain non controversial topics, like when Hans Zimmer was born. Die hard Encyclopedia lovers point out that they have the same information in book form. What they fail to mention is that encyclopedias are heavy, expensive, and not always up to date. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that it is always being updated and changed. It has articles from topics that happened only last week. It might take years for that to reach print. Just because something is printed on paper, doesn't necessarily make it true. The negative aspect of Wikipedia is that some topics, such as abortion, Christianity, the war in Iraq, and which way the toilet paper should fall, are disputed and not always accurate. ( the paper should always come from the top!!!). So, with these points being out there, Wikipedia is a tool for getting base knowledge of a topic, but it should not be used as a crutch to sustain an argument.

No. I still feel like he was a stupid, arrogant, dumb@$$ who got him self killed. His die was preventable, and not romantic like it is portrayed. He starved to death, which is a painful way to go. He caused unbelievable pain to his parents and family. No child should die before their parents. I feel sorry for his mother and father. They know in their heads that their son died a horrifically painful death. I feel like Chris deserves some pity, but not idolized like he is in the book. He thought he could survive, and he was wrong.

The author included these chapters to show that Chris wasn't alone in the goal to find "himself" in the wilderness. Some of these stories end the same way as Chris's, like "Nemo". Nemo went by that name to reflect the personality of Capt. Nemo in 20000 Leagues Under the Sea. This fit his personality better. Ironically, Nemo in real life ends up like Nemo in the book, they both disappear in strange circumstances, whether that being a desert or a Malstorm. The other outcasts like John Waterman and Carl McCunn, all die. Does anyone else see a common theme in this? Whats the point of finding yourself if you die in the pursuit?

These epigraphs exemplified what Chris wanted to do. These talk about travel, and the freedom associated with it. Chris wanted to truly be free from material, government control, and anyone telling him what to do. I think these quotes can help establish a balance of freedom and attachment. One should not be so attached to what they have, that when an opportunity comes along, you don't take it. One the other hand, being attached can give you a stable base to live on. Friends and family are a part of being attached. I am sure most people would not give up all contact for the sake of "freedom".