Analysis Of Chris Mccandless In Into The Wild, By Jon Krakauer

These anecdotes serve as contrasts to Chris’ adventures. Many of the other individuals are described as foolish, arrogant, or mentally imbalanced. Krakauer makes it very obvious that he does not believe that their negative traits applied to McCandless in any way. At the end of the chapter he goes as far as to explicitly state, “... unlike Waterman, McCandless wasn’t mentally ill. And unlike McCunn, he didn’t go into the bush assuming someone would automatically appear to save his bacon before he came to grief. McCandless didn’t conform particularly well to the bush-casualty stereotype. Although he was rash, untutored in the ways of the backcountry, and incautious to the point of foolhardiness, he wasn’t incompetent—he wouldn’t have lasted 113 days if he were. And he wasn’t a nutcase, he wasn’t a sociopath, he wasn’t an outcast. McCandless was something else—although precisely what is hard to say. A pilgrim, perhaps.” (85) This is one of the most blatant statements of the author’s true thoughts on Christopher McCandless and for good reason. Krakauer has just expounded the stories of some of Alaska’s worst wilderness casualties and he wants it to be flawlessly clear that the purpose of these anecdotes is to delve into a discussion about how Chris wasn’t just a casualty or a rebel or a fool

Chris was a very stubborn individual and never wanted to compromise his morals to please others. Chris never listened to suggestions or advisement of others as he was on his journey. His incompetence and inability to take other people’s advisement into account was ultimately was caused his death. Gallien tried to warn McCandless of the rough conditions by telling him “the hunting wasn’t easy where he was going, that he could go days without killing any game” (Krakauer 5). Gallien is just one example of someone who tried to help McCandless realize that living alone in Alaska would be very gueling, but McCandless assumed that if he could survive for a month in the Gulf of California, he would also be able to thrive in Alaska. Of course Chris ignored Galliens advice and did things his own way because he’s stubborn. One of Chris’ flaws was that he had very strong opinions that were so different from the rest of society and was fiercely independent. Chris’ beliefs and points of view led to him going into the wild without anyone aware of his whereabouts. Chris never wanted help from anyone and he expressed this when he said, “I won’t run into anything I can’t deal with on my own”(Krakauer 6). Chris also “hadn’t spoken to his family in nearly two years”(Krakauer 6). Both of these quotes emphasize the fact that he felt the need to be utterly alone. If Chris had told someone his real name and his desired destination then he wouldn’t have died alone in Alaska. Chris would’ve been better off if he had listened to the advice he was given and if he had told people about his whereabouts.

The story of Chris McCandless has become a pop culture phenomenon. Many are fascinated by his desire to abandon his family and society and “walk into the wild” (Krakauer 69). Newscasts, magazine articles, movies, and books have tried to define what motivated him to give up everything for his Alaskan odyssey; however, the answers died with McCandless. People make assumptions about him without knowing his entire story. McCandless chose to do the unconventional, making people think he was either foolish or brave and determined, but ultimately he was selfish for doing what he did.

For someone to have plans to survive in the harsh wilderness of the Alaskan frontier many have said that McCandless was completely un prepared as recalled in the first chapter of the book by Jim Gallien who picked up McCandless outside of Fairbanks Alaska and drove him to the stampede trail, the beginning of Chris’s journey into the wild. “He wasn’t carrying anywhere near as much food and gear as you’d be expecting a guy to be carrying for that kind of trip.” (Krakauer 4) Through the research that Krakauer completed we know that Chris was carrying only a ten-pound bag of rice and some paperback books along with other camping supplies. Jim

Little things in one’s childhood can affect them in the long run and affect the decisions you make. In the book, Into the Wild, the author Jon Krakauer, tries to make the valid point that Chris McCandless was a hero, a noble and inspirational character. In the book, Krakauer fails to persuade the reader into the belief of the role that Chris McCandless was a “hero.” Chris McCandless was the son of two wealthy parents, and had so much great things going for him with a chance to a good working job and great opportunities, but instead to pursue in those opportunities he decided to get rid of all his possessions, and give everything up, even his family, and went on the journey to Alaska.

He underestimates the terrain and climate, and, “…came into the country with insufficient provisions, and he lacked certain pieces of equipment deemed essential by many Alaskans…” (180 Krakauer). Chris lacked the necessities, so it made his survival rate drop. Information is key in the wilderness, which, “not only did McCandless die because he was stupid, one Alaskan correspondent observed, but ‘the scope of his self-styled adventure was so small as to a ring pathetic-squatting in a wrecked bus a few miles out of Healy, potting jays and squirrels, mistaking a caribou for a moose (pretty hard to do)…only one word for the guy: incompetent’” (177 Krakauer). Chris lacked the knowledge needed to survive the Alaskan frontier, which dropped his survival rate.

Chris McCandless was a loner, a fierce believer in the spiritual revolution, and a hopeless dreamer, traits that, combined with his dislike of society, ultimately led to his “climactic battle to kill the false being within” in the harsh Alaskan wilderness. Until his “great adventure,” Chris increasingly compared himself and the society around him according to a strict moral code. As a result, he was disheartened by the realization that the majority of people he encountered were not taking initiative to improve the quality of life for themselves and for others. Along with his own efforts to rid himself of the pretenses and prejudices of society, McCandless continually encouraged

In April of 1992, a young man of the age of twenty-four, later determined to be Chris McCandless ' body, was discovered in an old Fairbanks bus in the Alaskan bush. Four years after his death, Jon Krakauer wrote a novel titled Into The Wild, the book traced McCandless 's journey around much of the United States, across the West side of Canada, and even down to the boarder of Mexico. Over the many years since his death, speculations have arisen about how death was brought upon him. Most believe starvation was the only reason, but with extensive research Jon Krakauer discovered another theory, that a substance in the seeds that Chris McCandless was ingesting was a contributing factor to his death. Even with this conclusion many around the world despise Chris for his being naive and unprepared when walking into the wild. While others believe he was brave for following his dreams and never letting anyone talk him out of his plans. Chris McCandless was an adventurer who was brave enough to never back down, but in the end his luck turned for the worst and was misfortunate enough to have ate the wrong type of food. McCandless was an inspiration and a lesson to people of all ages, that dreams aren 't meant to be taken lightly and even with possible risks they should be followed. Jon Krakauer 's book tells a marvelous story of a young man who left behind the outside world to do what he loved the most.

Into the Wild, by Jon Krakauer, narrates the life of adventurer and free spirit Christopher McCandless, who died August 1992 in the Alaskan wilderness; however, his journey still remains relevant in today’s pop culture due to the unresolved controversy of whether he is a saintly role model or hubristic fool. Krakauer openly states that he “won’t claim to be an impartial biographer” (Author’s Note) due to the parallels he struck with McCandless, and provides a more idealistic approach to the biography. By having this biased point of view, Krakauer readily attracts many critics such as Craig Medred, who wrote the article The Beatification of Chris McCandless: From Thieving Poacher into Saint, which discredits Krakauer’s legitimacy and emphasizes McCandless’s narcissistic personality and naïve nature. He has also sparked many questions including why McCandless’s story is so significant, which writer Laura Moss tries to answer in Why Are We Still Talking about Chris McCandless?. While it is clear that McCandless’s story has affected every reader due to its many interpretations, two distinct sides form: the avid romantics and their counterpart, the pessimistic realists, which provokes the question of which argument is more valid.

How can what one sacrifices define who they are? For most, sacrificing junk food or In the novel Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, Chris McCandless sacrifices intimate relationships and his own life in order to achieve ultimate freedom.

Trekking along the cold dark trails of the Alaskan interior famished from society, family, and food the average person could not help but ponder why they are in that situation. Chris McCandless however, would say otherwise and probably give you a list why that is his, ideal lifestyle. McCandless’s death in 1992 has baffled the world in numerous ways and has received very mixed reactions. Many questions have been asked about Chris McCandless’s ideology. In the novel, “Into the Wild” John Krakauer has presented his own ideas on what may have been McCandless’s motivation to leave everything behind.

Life is about considering others and their feelings, but there are people who only think about themselves, sometimes on purpose sometimes inherently. In the book Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer the main protagonist Chris McCandless was inherently selfish in his journey into Alaska.

To most people, Chris McCandless is a brave and courageous man who went into the wilderness at his own will. Jon Krakauer is one of these people. In his book called Into the Wild, Krakauer writes about the case of Chris McCandless. It has multiple findings and interviews from people and objects that Chris McCandless had. While reading his book, Krakauer shows multiple signs of supporting McCandless’s actions. His reasoning comes from the fact that McCandless reminds him of himself. Krakauer feels that he understands the reasoning behind Chris McCandless’s sudden disappearance, making him biased towards the thought Chris McCandless being a noble and inspirational person. This isn’t a bad thing, it just makes Krakauer’s opinion turn more to Chris McCandless’s side. It gives him a different point of view

The novel Into the Wild is written by Jon Krakauer and is a biography about how people aren’t accepted in society and how finding your true self doesn’t work with the population. The main character Chris McCandless is an adventurer that went on a trip to Alaska right after college. He wanted to prove that everything doesn’t have to be plans. The astonishing thing was that McC came from a family of weath. Some people believe that it was a modest, good hearted thing to the, but on the other hand some people believe that it was a real selfish, arrogant, and ignorant thing to do. That was selfish because he didn’t follow any rules, had plenty of childish killings, and was me, me, me.

In 1992, a man was found dead after his great adventure in the Alaskan bush. The national bestseller Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer introduced readers to a man by the name Chris McCandless who had dreamt of connecting with nature and God by living as one did before the technological advance of the 20th century. This modern day transcendentalist was an intelligent man with an inspirational idea who died from a foolish mistake. McCandless was not a hero nor a fool, but the idea of pursuing his “Great Alaskan Odyssey” without properly preparing or adjusting his strategies after being arrested and almost killed suggests that he must have been naive and irrational.