Chris Mccandless Crazy? In the Essay

Krakauer believes it was mere luck that he survived and Chris did not. However, McCandless was offered many opportunities to save his own life, all of which he rejected. It was deliberation, not chance that took his life. Chris was so clearly headed on a path to destruction, when he was found, his identity was almost immediately obvious to those who had met him: "The police don't know who he is. Sounds a whole lot like Alex" (Krakauer 102). Chris caused tremendous suffering for his family, and although he had a determination to prove himself and possessed compassion as an abstract value, he could not exhibit this in real life, rather he shunned real people. Observed one of the people who tried to help: "How is it…that a kid with so much compassion could cause his parents so much pain?" (Krakauer 106)

Question 2: Krakauer as biographer

Krakauer reproaches himself for not being as idealistic as Chris in his own venture 'into the wild' as a young man. He seems to have some sense of 'survivor guilt' regarding his own exploits.It is probably true that Krakauer did not appreciate the reality of death as an eighteen-year-old as much as he does as a mature man and some of Chris' actions can be attributed to youth and foolishness. But Chris' disregard for the human consequences of his actions, his refusal to take even basic safety precautions, and utter lack of concern for those who tried to help him make the decision to isolate himself in Alaska more than a youthful 'mistake' but a sign of pathology. Krakauer's determination to make Chris' death seem like a noble sacrifice rather than a tragic waste of life even extend to the author's denial that the emaciated Chris could have starved to death, attributing his condition to accidental poisoning. Although a reader may respect some of Chris' ideals, the way he fulfilled them is not laudable, despite Krakauer's desperation to frame….....