Menlo School English 2
Into Thin Air: Bias in Non-Fiction
Name ______________________________________________________
Wessler
We assume non-fiction accounts are “true,” but what does that really mean? Is it possible for a writer—or for
anyone—to view and to report “things as they really are”? Do humans in general, and writers in particular, wittingly
or unwittingly skew “reality”? Is it possible to be objective (rather than subjective) about anything?
Let’s explore bias—direct or indirect, intended or unintended—in Jon Krakauer’s Into Thin Air.
In fact, for the purposes of uniformity, let’s define bias as “an author’s direct or indirect, intended or unintended,
wording of a passage so as to nudge the reader toward liking/not liking a particular character or viewpoint.”
In other words, for our purposes: bias = writing that prejudices readers (whether done on purpose or not).
1. Read the following paragraph (p. 48: “The transformation of the Khumbu . . . anthropological museum.”)
Concerning bias, what do you notice? No bias, lots of bias? Direct or indirect (a.k.a., on the surface and easily
detected, or hidden and tougher to see)?
2. Read the following paragraph (p. 67-68: “People were drawn to Fischer’s . . . immune to the attention.”)
After reading this passage, how do you feel about Scott Fischer? Why? What did Jon Krakauer do to the ink on the
page to get you to feel that way? Tell us and show us.
3. Read the following passage, a four sentence paragraph from page 69:
• Fischer’s assurances notwithstanding, his peripatetic alpine career was rough on his family.
• He was crazy about his kids, and when he was in Seattle he was an unusually attentive father, but climbing
regularly took him away from home for months at a time.
• He’d been absent for seven of his son’s nine birthdays.
• In fact, say some of his friends, by the time he departed for Everest in 1996, Fischer’s marriage had been badly
strained.
a) What elements of CREC do you notice.? Identify and justify them.
b) Do you think he is trying to get you to feel a certain way about Fischer or not? Do you think the author is trying to
be objective or not? Explain.
c) For you, what is this paragraph’s “takeaway”? In other words, what does John Krakauer want you to remember
or take away from this passage?
4. Read the following paragraph (p. 121: “At five foot eleven, Sandy Pittman . . . failed first marriage.”)
After reading this passage, how do you feel about Sandy Pittman?
To answer why, attend to these elements:
a) Diction = word choice. Think about a word’s denotation (value free or neutral definition) and its connotation
(what the word suggests or implies), e.g., “inexpensive v. cheap.”
List words in the paragraph that suggest bias, words that are value-rich (rather than neutral), words that
emotionally move you for or against Sandy Pittman.
b) Syntax = sentence structure.
Notice anything about any/all of the four sentences in this paragraph? Does the sentence structure promote or not
promote bias? Explain. [This is a tougher category to explain than is diction, but give it a try.]
c) Selected details = the specific examples or anecdotes that a writer chooses to put on paper.
A writer can’t write about everything—a writer has to choose what details to include, what details not to include.
Are the details-examples-stories Jon Krakauer includes “neutral,” or do they influence your way of thinking/feeling
about Sandy Pittman? Cite examples and explain.
4. Now, choose your own passage -- a paragraph or a passage spanning several paragraphs -- to analyze for bias.
If you are stuck, here are some characters and passages worth exploring:
Rob Hall, 33-34
Neal Beidleman, 207-209
The Taiwanese Team, 97-98
Anatoli Boukreev, 218-223
Any passage where Krakauer writes about himself.
The South African Team, 98-104
Favorite passage of your own choosing!
Sandy Pittman, 119-124, 165
Yasuko Namba, 184
Respond to the following questions:
a) Who and what is your passage about? What’s the literal meaning?
b) Do you notice bias in this passage?
If so, how would you characterize it—direct or indirect, intended or unintended, balanced or imbalanced, subtle or
flagrant, apparently objective or openly subjective?
c) Identify specific elements and analyze them for bias:
• diction and connotation
List and discuss words that could create reader bias; can you think of a more “neutral” word the author could have
used instead? How do these words affect your attitude toward the character or subject?
• syntax/sentence structure/phrasing
Can you locate sentences or clauses or phrases (not individual words) that could create bias? Could the phrasing
have been more “neutral”? How do these groups of words affect your attitude toward the character or subject?
• selected details/author’s choice of examples
Jon Krakauer chose to include or exclude specific details, examples, or anecdotes. What does this inclusion suggest to
you? Do they give you a full, even, balanced portrayal of the character, or do they tip the scales for or against the
character? Does Krakauer select details or examples that paint a picture that he wants you to see, or does he select a
balanced, relatively unbiased, collection of details or examples? Identify and explain.