Analysis Of Chris Mccandless In Intro The Wild By Jon Krakauer
Jon Krakauer’s book, Intro the Wild, has this controversial character that raised different opinions about his main personage, Chris McCandless. While some fiercely defend Chris as this open-minded and selfless person, others ferociously argue that he was an ill-prepared and arrogant individual unworthy of the reader’s empathy. According to the first group, their vision of Chris McCandless as being this selfless, open-minded, honest and well-prepared individual justifies seeing Chris as an individual worthy of empathy and respect. First, according to them, Chris was a deeply honest person who wasn’t afraid of the truth even though it made him uncomfortable sometimes. Second, they state that he was worthy of admiration because he was a selfless
…show more content…
individual who was able to touch and assist many needy fellows, while he was living as a tramp. They also claim that he was an open-minded person who was willing to learn from his mistakes and miscalculations, from people’s advice and all the books he could find on his way. Finally, they state that he was this bright and well-prepared person, and whose death cannot be blamed on his lack of information. Even though this group arguments sound very well-founded, Chris McCandless was an arrogant, ill-prepared and deceiving individual whom made reckless and childish decisions which cost him his life.
The only point that I believe that Chris McCandless admirers are right to state is that he was a truly honest person. His honesty was visible on several occasions. This honesty is illustrated many times as the story goes on. A few months after Chris’s body was found while talking to Krakauer in Carthage, South Dakota, Westerberg says “If he started a job, he’d finish it. It was almost like a moral thing for him. He was what you’d call extremely ethical. He set pretty high standards for himself” (Krakauer 18). I believe that what Westerberg meant is that Chris McCandless was an extremely honest person. And that he would always try to give the best of himself. No matter what was the situation he would always try to be real to himself, and in what he believed. For him being honest with himself came before than being honest with people around him. I think that was the best point of Chris’s personality. Even though the truth might bother him we would still stick to his beliefs. That can be seen when two nights before he left for Alaska, Westerberg did everything in his power to make him give up on that trip. Mrs. Westerberg recalls “Unlike most of us, he was the sort of person who insisted on living out his beliefs” (Krakauer 67). Mrs. Westerberg wanted to clarify that usually we give up on our dreams as time goes by, but it was different with Chris. He would get stuck on something and as long he wouldn’t accomplish it, he wouldn’t let it go. Sometimes this kind of stubbornness can be seen as something good. We can clearly see that he was true to himself that he was honest about what he believed in. But at the same time its common knowledge that things in life don’t usually go according to our plans and sometimes being able to let things go doesn’t mean that we are less honest to ourselves. I believe that is clear in both examples that McCandless was a very truthful and honest person about his beliefs, and he would go to the end of the world to prove himself right. Chris McCandless cherishers are extremely misguided when they affirm that Chris was a selfless person. In fact, Intro the Wild exposes him as a selfish and self-centered person. His actions lead people to the thought that he didn’t care about no one but himself. Krakauer clearly illustrated this point when on March 14, Franz left McCandless on the edge of Interstate 70 outside Grand Junction and returned to southern California. Krakauer writes, “He had fled the claustrophobic confines of his family. […] And now he’d slipped painlessly out of Ron Franz’s life as well. Painlessly, that is, from McCandless’s perspective-although not from the old man’s” (Krakauer 55). It is clearly implied that Chris wasn’t a selfless person. His main concern was not to create bonds and escape from the prison called family. Chris was selfish and egocentric; he didn’t care much about people around him. As long as they fit his purpose it was fine, but from the moment they started to get attached he would find a way of avoiding new bonds. He would just go back to his own aspirations. The fact that Chris was a selfish person is once again illustrated when his mother Billie explains Chris’s plans to run away without anybody noticing it. In early August of 1990, his parents drove to Atlanta trying to find out what happened to him and why they didn’t hear from him in such a long time. Billie recalls, “Chris has instructed the post office to hold them until August 1, apparently so we wouldn’t know anything was up, it made us very, very worried” (Krakauer 22). The whole point of being a selfless person is to place the needs of the people you care about above your own. And this quote clearly demonstrates that Chris wasn’t thinking at all about his family psychologically well-being because if he was, he wouldn’t just disappear without saying a word for over two years. His family cared for him. Even though their relationship wasn’t the best, they truly cared for him. That’s what your family is supposed to do, care for you. If he really was this person that his admires claim he was, I believe that he would have maintained any sort of contact with his family; he wouldn’t have left his family in pain and worried about where he was. He would have given them the chance of at least saying goodbye or remembering what he looked like the last time they saw him. Krakauer gives clear examples that exhibit that Chris wasn’t this selfless person but instead this egocentric and self-centered individual. I believe that with the examples above the readers can see the kind of person that McCandless was, and it doesn’t look anything like what his admirers claim. Chris McCandless admires are truly wrong when they describe Chris as an open minded individual. In fact, the author implies that Chris was an over confident individual and had a hard time listening to people’s advice . An example that can clearly illustrate this point is when Krakauer was talking to Burres. She remembers of the period Chris stayed with them in Niland on December, 1991. She recalls of how Chris loved certain authors. Krakauer writes “McCandless conveniently overlooked that fact that London himself had just spent a single winter in the North and that he’d died by his own hand on California estate at the age of forty, a fatuous drunk, obese and pathetic, maintaining a sedentary life existence that bore scant resemblance to the ideas he espoused in print” (Krakauer 44). Chris had this ability to “not see” his idols faults or people he cared about and burden everyone else, like his parents. If he wanted to criticize and judge people, he might as well be fair and judge them all according to the same standards. Part of being an open-minded individual is literally having an open mind which means not judging people according to certain standards. Chris had a blind admiration for certain people while we would crucify the other half that he didn’t like. Once again Krakauer is able to demonstrate Chris’s closed nature. While talking with Krakauer in Chesapeake Beach, Walt talks about how close-minded Chris was, and how hard was for him to listen to people’s guidance. Walt demonstrates this by saying, “Chris had so much natural talent, […] He resisted instruction of any kind” (Krakauer 111). Being an open minded individual is having the ability to listen to people’s opinions and advice over a subject that they have more knowledge than you do. Chris thought that his opinion and his vision of things were the only ones to be followed. He created his own standards and followed his own rules, and somehow he expected that people around him play by the same book. The fact that Chris resisted to guidance or any kind of help proves that he was everything but open-minded, when being open-minded means having the ability to understand and respect other’s opinions. Due to Krakauer’s implications on the examples above, it’s inferable that Chris wasn’t an open minded individual but otherwise he was a very stubborn and hypocrite person. The supporters of Chris McCandless are inaccurate when they affirm that Chris was a well-prepared individual, and the only reason why he perished was because of the fallacious information in the book Tanaina Plantlore.
He was an ill-prepared individual and over confident. His over confidence reached a point where it scared people around him. We can see an example of his lack of preparation and arrogance when in April1992, he meets Gallien, a union electrician, while hitchhiking. Gallien recalls “He wasn’t carrying anywhere near much food and gear that you would expect a guy to be carrying for that kind of trip” (Krakauer 4). This is a crystal clear example of how ill-prepared Chris was. He was blind by his over confidence in that he didn’t see how dangerous this trip could be. He didn’t have adequate gear or food, but yet he expected to survive for four months. He thought he had everything he needed in his bag pack and the rest wasn’t worth having or carrying with him. . He wanted to proof to himself that we could live without civilization, help or anything man made. He thought that because he survived in Mexico, with Alaska the situation would be the same. Chris’s overconfidence was so present in his personality that everyone who surrounded him could notice it. His father, Walt recalls Chris reaction in 1986, by the end of the summer, when he tried to talk to Chris about his overconfidence. Walt said, “Chris was good at almost everything he tried, which made him …show more content…
supremely confident. If you attempt to talk to him out of something, he wouldn’t argue. He’d just nod politely and then do exactly what he wanted” (Krakauer 119). I believe that Chris’s main purpose with that trip was to prove to him and the world that he was self-sufficient. The problem is that we just went too far. He got to a point where there was not turning back, and because he was so good at everything he tried he overlooked the fact that there are some boundaries that aren’t meant to be crossed. Due to the fact that he had talent to everything that he tried to do, Chris thought that he didn’t need to play save. He lived on the edge and lived fearless. He was so reckless that he made decisions without thinking about consequences. His natural aptitudes to succeed made him think that he didn’t have to be prepared to face life’s obstacles, made him go to Alaska completely unprepared. Krakauer makes it able to see which the examples above that he lacked preparation and adequate gear for a trip that dangerous, and his stubbornness, arrogance and talent cost him his life. Chris McCandless was a person who inspired many contradictory opinions.
His admires are inaccurate when stating that he was a selfless person while it’s clearly seen that he was a very selfish individual. As well as an open-minded person when Krakauer gave straight examples of situations, where he would smoothly overlook some facts about people he cared about. Furthermore we can all agree that he was an ill-prepared individual, who made stupid choices like going into the wild without appropriate gear. I believe that it’s really hard to understand Chris’s personality and choices he made over these two years. But if his admirers tried to read chapters 10 to 13 with different eyes, they would be able to catch few gaps in his line of thought while he grew. Even though he had many faults we can all agree, critics and admirers, that he was a very honest person and truthful to his beliefs and standards. We might have learned a lot from Chris’s adventures and point of views about reality. It’s really sad realizing that a young soul like his didn’t have time to share his experiences and thoughts with the world before it was too
late.
individual who was able to touch and assist many needy fellows, while he was living as a tramp. They also claim that he was an open-minded person who was willing to learn from his mistakes and miscalculations, from people’s advice and all the books he could find on his way. Finally, they state that he was this bright and well-prepared person, and whose death cannot be blamed on his lack of information. Even though this group arguments sound very well-founded, Chris McCandless was an arrogant, ill-prepared and deceiving individual whom made reckless and childish decisions which cost him his life.
The only point that I believe that Chris McCandless admirers are right to state is that he was a truly honest person. His honesty was visible on several occasions. This honesty is illustrated many times as the story goes on. A few months after Chris’s body was found while talking to Krakauer in Carthage, South Dakota, Westerberg says “If he started a job, he’d finish it. It was almost like a moral thing for him. He was what you’d call extremely ethical. He set pretty high standards for himself” (Krakauer 18). I believe that what Westerberg meant is that Chris McCandless was an extremely honest person. And that he would always try to give the best of himself. No matter what was the situation he would always try to be real to himself, and in what he believed. For him being honest with himself came before than being honest with people around him. I think that was the best point of Chris’s personality. Even though the truth might bother him we would still stick to his beliefs. That can be seen when two nights before he left for Alaska, Westerberg did everything in his power to make him give up on that trip. Mrs. Westerberg recalls “Unlike most of us, he was the sort of person who insisted on living out his beliefs” (Krakauer 67). Mrs. Westerberg wanted to clarify that usually we give up on our dreams as time goes by, but it was different with Chris. He would get stuck on something and as long he wouldn’t accomplish it, he wouldn’t let it go. Sometimes this kind of stubbornness can be seen as something good. We can clearly see that he was true to himself that he was honest about what he believed in. But at the same time its common knowledge that things in life don’t usually go according to our plans and sometimes being able to let things go doesn’t mean that we are less honest to ourselves. I believe that is clear in both examples that McCandless was a very truthful and honest person about his beliefs, and he would go to the end of the world to prove himself right. Chris McCandless cherishers are extremely misguided when they affirm that Chris was a selfless person. In fact, Intro the Wild exposes him as a selfish and self-centered person. His actions lead people to the thought that he didn’t care about no one but himself. Krakauer clearly illustrated this point when on March 14, Franz left McCandless on the edge of Interstate 70 outside Grand Junction and returned to southern California. Krakauer writes, “He had fled the claustrophobic confines of his family. […] And now he’d slipped painlessly out of Ron Franz’s life as well. Painlessly, that is, from McCandless’s perspective-although not from the old man’s” (Krakauer 55). It is clearly implied that Chris wasn’t a selfless person. His main concern was not to create bonds and escape from the prison called family. Chris was selfish and egocentric; he didn’t care much about people around him. As long as they fit his purpose it was fine, but from the moment they started to get attached he would find a way of avoiding new bonds. He would just go back to his own aspirations. The fact that Chris was a selfish person is once again illustrated when his mother Billie explains Chris’s plans to run away without anybody noticing it. In early August of 1990, his parents drove to Atlanta trying to find out what happened to him and why they didn’t hear from him in such a long time. Billie recalls, “Chris has instructed the post office to hold them until August 1, apparently so we wouldn’t know anything was up, it made us very, very worried” (Krakauer 22). The whole point of being a selfless person is to place the needs of the people you care about above your own. And this quote clearly demonstrates that Chris wasn’t thinking at all about his family psychologically well-being because if he was, he wouldn’t just disappear without saying a word for over two years. His family cared for him. Even though their relationship wasn’t the best, they truly cared for him. That’s what your family is supposed to do, care for you. If he really was this person that his admires claim he was, I believe that he would have maintained any sort of contact with his family; he wouldn’t have left his family in pain and worried about where he was. He would have given them the chance of at least saying goodbye or remembering what he looked like the last time they saw him. Krakauer gives clear examples that exhibit that Chris wasn’t this selfless person but instead this egocentric and self-centered individual. I believe that with the examples above the readers can see the kind of person that McCandless was, and it doesn’t look anything like what his admirers claim. Chris McCandless admires are truly wrong when they describe Chris as an open minded individual. In fact, the author implies that Chris was an over confident individual and had a hard time listening to people’s advice . An example that can clearly illustrate this point is when Krakauer was talking to Burres. She remembers of the period Chris stayed with them in Niland on December, 1991. She recalls of how Chris loved certain authors. Krakauer writes “McCandless conveniently overlooked that fact that London himself had just spent a single winter in the North and that he’d died by his own hand on California estate at the age of forty, a fatuous drunk, obese and pathetic, maintaining a sedentary life existence that bore scant resemblance to the ideas he espoused in print” (Krakauer 44). Chris had this ability to “not see” his idols faults or people he cared about and burden everyone else, like his parents. If he wanted to criticize and judge people, he might as well be fair and judge them all according to the same standards. Part of being an open-minded individual is literally having an open mind which means not judging people according to certain standards. Chris had a blind admiration for certain people while we would crucify the other half that he didn’t like. Once again Krakauer is able to demonstrate Chris’s closed nature. While talking with Krakauer in Chesapeake Beach, Walt talks about how close-minded Chris was, and how hard was for him to listen to people’s guidance. Walt demonstrates this by saying, “Chris had so much natural talent, […] He resisted instruction of any kind” (Krakauer 111). Being an open minded individual is having the ability to listen to people’s opinions and advice over a subject that they have more knowledge than you do. Chris thought that his opinion and his vision of things were the only ones to be followed. He created his own standards and followed his own rules, and somehow he expected that people around him play by the same book. The fact that Chris resisted to guidance or any kind of help proves that he was everything but open-minded, when being open-minded means having the ability to understand and respect other’s opinions. Due to Krakauer’s implications on the examples above, it’s inferable that Chris wasn’t an open minded individual but otherwise he was a very stubborn and hypocrite person. The supporters of Chris McCandless are inaccurate when they affirm that Chris was a well-prepared individual, and the only reason why he perished was because of the fallacious information in the book Tanaina Plantlore.
He was an ill-prepared individual and over confident. His over confidence reached a point where it scared people around him. We can see an example of his lack of preparation and arrogance when in April1992, he meets Gallien, a union electrician, while hitchhiking. Gallien recalls “He wasn’t carrying anywhere near much food and gear that you would expect a guy to be carrying for that kind of trip” (Krakauer 4). This is a crystal clear example of how ill-prepared Chris was. He was blind by his over confidence in that he didn’t see how dangerous this trip could be. He didn’t have adequate gear or food, but yet he expected to survive for four months. He thought he had everything he needed in his bag pack and the rest wasn’t worth having or carrying with him. . He wanted to proof to himself that we could live without civilization, help or anything man made. He thought that because he survived in Mexico, with Alaska the situation would be the same. Chris’s overconfidence was so present in his personality that everyone who surrounded him could notice it. His father, Walt recalls Chris reaction in 1986, by the end of the summer, when he tried to talk to Chris about his overconfidence. Walt said, “Chris was good at almost everything he tried, which made him …show more content…
supremely confident. If you attempt to talk to him out of something, he wouldn’t argue. He’d just nod politely and then do exactly what he wanted” (Krakauer 119). I believe that Chris’s main purpose with that trip was to prove to him and the world that he was self-sufficient. The problem is that we just went too far. He got to a point where there was not turning back, and because he was so good at everything he tried he overlooked the fact that there are some boundaries that aren’t meant to be crossed. Due to the fact that he had talent to everything that he tried to do, Chris thought that he didn’t need to play save. He lived on the edge and lived fearless. He was so reckless that he made decisions without thinking about consequences. His natural aptitudes to succeed made him think that he didn’t have to be prepared to face life’s obstacles, made him go to Alaska completely unprepared. Krakauer makes it able to see which the examples above that he lacked preparation and adequate gear for a trip that dangerous, and his stubbornness, arrogance and talent cost him his life. Chris McCandless was a person who inspired many contradictory opinions.
His admires are inaccurate when stating that he was a selfless person while it’s clearly seen that he was a very selfish individual. As well as an open-minded person when Krakauer gave straight examples of situations, where he would smoothly overlook some facts about people he cared about. Furthermore we can all agree that he was an ill-prepared individual, who made stupid choices like going into the wild without appropriate gear. I believe that it’s really hard to understand Chris’s personality and choices he made over these two years. But if his admirers tried to read chapters 10 to 13 with different eyes, they would be able to catch few gaps in his line of thought while he grew. Even though he had many faults we can all agree, critics and admirers, that he was a very honest person and truthful to his beliefs and standards. We might have learned a lot from Chris’s adventures and point of views about reality. It’s really sad realizing that a young soul like his didn’t have time to share his experiences and thoughts with the world before it was too
late.