Chris Mccandless Character Analysis

Faith A. Scow
Mr. Proctor
AP Language- Period 0
7 October 2014
Chris McCandless, or Alexander Supertramp? Writers and film makers such as John Krakuaer, Sean Penn and Ron Lamothe have been studying Chris McCandless and juxtaposing his actions with societal characteristics. These people have spent so much time trying to characterize McCandless, they forget to look at him as an individual, as Alexander Supertramp. True sympathetic characters only exist in fiction, and this is true with unsympathetic characters as well. Chris is the type of person who didn’t know what he wanted until he had already done it. It’s pointless to apply these social norms to him. Chris is a sympathetic character because of how others can relate to him and how he was not suicidal but was non sympathetic in the sense of his narcissistic decisions. The way people can relate to Chris on a deeper level is what makes him a likeable person. Other people, such as myself and my peers can agree with Chris in the words of Emerson that “a man needs to retire as much from his chambers as
from society” (Emerson 1). This retirement from society is a prime description of Chris’s odyssey. He dared to do what others wish they had the courage to do, retire from their society into the beauty of the wild. Readers can also sympathize with Chris with his ideal to “kill the false being within” (Krakauer 163). Everyone has some type of flaw within that they wish to diminish like Chris. Chris acting upon this false being makes him admirable to others whom relate to him, such as Ron Franz who ultimately chose to live the nomadic life such as Chris did. This goes to prove how much of an unfluence he was on others. If Chris’s character has the ability to sway someone to abandon all of their material needs and to live a life among the wild, I don’t know what could make him more sympathetic (Krakauer). If a reader can relate to a character, it makes that character easier to view as sympathetic. Chris is relatable to many children such as I who’s only desire was to leave the household of my parents. Even those who are fine living under authority may have other reasons to leave such as feeling imprisoned in standard society such as Chris. The way so many people can mentally relate to him makes Chris easy to sympathize with. Some spectators state that Chris was suicidal and went into the wild as death wish (Krakauer). I STRONGLY believe this statement to be false for several reasons. One, an individual who is suicidal wants to die in the moment. Suicidal people don’t go out into the wilderness for several months and wait to die. It’s illogical. If a person wants to pass he doesn’t want to waste any more time in fear that he may change his mind and want to live. The fact that Chris’s journey lasted approximately two years completely rules out suicide as a possible answer. Secondly, Chris brought food, supplies and MONEY along with him (Lamothe). Why would a dead person need $300 in cash? Why would a person wishing to die bring SURVIVAL equipment with him? The answer to these questions is a dead person wouldn’t, Chris was not suicidal. Simple. He just wanted new experiences like the rest of us, to have to luxury of not having any responsibilities. True sympathetic characters only exist in fiction, because Chris was a real human being he undoubtedly has some unsympathetic characteristics as well. Chris made several egocentric decisions without thinking of the negative consequences it would have on other people. I felt bad for the people that Chris built relationships and then left such as Ron Franz, Wayne Westerberg, Jan and Bob and others. Chris left these people worrying about his safety and well-being. It’s not responsible of Chris to leave unannounced, especially after these people have done so much to help him, that’s just plain inconsiderate. There was a narcissistic side of Chris that was impossible to ignore pointing out the flaws in his character. My personal opinion of Chris McCandless is that he was just a nomadic hippie, traveling around just for shits and giggles and to enjoy the freedom of what mankind should be.
I think him going on this two year odyssey was Chris’s voice saying “f-you government, f-you parents and f-you materialistic individuals,” and Alexander Supertramp was born. All Alex wanted was to be free from the chains of the standard controlled life. Society says “go to school, graduate college, have a career, start and family and repeat the cycle.” Krakauer, on the other hand tried to glorify him, and put him on a pedestool to be admired. He described Chris as a pilgrim, or intellectual being with a higher purpose. Krakauer almost made him out to be a victim which is far from the case. Alex defied society in a way of grace and freedom because of his ability to detach from others, which is both sympathetic and unsympathetic in different
ways.

Works Cited
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, and Walt McLaughlin. The Laws of Nature: Excerpts from the Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic, 2010. Print.
Krakauer, Jon. Into the Wild. New York: Anchor, 1997. Print.
The Call of the Wild. Dir. Ron Lamothe. Terra Incognita Films, 2007. DVD.