Krakauer’s Argument In Krakauer’s argument he does make an effective case justifying McCandless behavior. Krakauer mentions in his argument, he stated, “McCandless wasn’t as stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate, but instead paints a sympathetic picture of a young man with a profound moral compass seeking a higher truth”. This means that Chris McCandless just wanted to get away from the society he once knew before and just go find his peace in himself and the world. He thought by going out into the wild, that it would solve the problem, even though he did not really know how to actually survive in the wild.. He knew the basics like food, water and shelter. Chris McCandless did not really plan out what he was going to do, he just wanted to go and do whatever he wanted to do. Chris McCandless …show more content…
At this time Chris McCandless is still in his young years and adolescents tend to, “engage more in unknown risks than they do in known risks”, according to Agnieszka Tymula, a postdoctoral student at New York University. McCandless parents were just trying to protect him from the unknown but Chris wanted to know what the unknown felt like. It was almost like his parents were trying to tame Chris McCandless in a world that is not tame at all. “Adults have long reckoned with ways to protect adolescents from their own misjudgement”, Says, Maia Szalavitz. Krakauer argues with Christian about the situation about McCandless, that Chris McCandless was not inconsiderate or stupid, he just wanted to get away from the root of all evil, in other words, money and the overbearing world he has known to grow up in. However Christian mentions that he once knew Chris McCandless and how he was, that he is not some special guy and other people in this world go out into the wild and die. Which is true that people do go out into the wild and die because they are not well prepared or they just want to get away. On the other hand Christian was not surprised of the death of