*Edit* I originally gave this book three stars, but after doing some additional research about Christopher McCandless, I've decided to lower my rating to a two star. Basically, the author strung together this tenuous novel based on some very shaky 'evidence'. He ignored pieces of evidence that didn't fit his narrative, which I find very manipulative and frustrating. I'm leaving the bulk of the review up because I still think it accurately represents my viewpoint, but doing the extra research has left a sour taste in my mouth regarding this novel and its author.

First of all, I do think that the book is well-written, for the most part. It was obvious that Jon Krakauer did extensive research when he was crafting this story, interviewing the McCandless family, the people Chris met on his journey, and various other experts to provide context and background information to the narrative.

I also liked the fact that he included the stories of other nomads/explorers in order to draw parallels and/or show the differences between them and Chris. He even includes stories of his own adolescence, which makes this book semi-auto-biographical in nature as well. And I think that's where my problem lies.

I don't mind that Krakauer uses his own wanderlust to illustrate that such a thing is common for people who are naturally adventurous, but it felt a little like he was defending Chris McCandless's ignorance and ill-preparedness with a 'boys will be boys' kind of excuse.

There is also a part, about 40% of the way into the book where he asserts: "McCandless wasn't mentally ill," as if it's not even a possibility, to which I would ask: How can he be so sure? I was waiting for some actual evidence to back up his assertion, because there are so many points throughout the book--both before and after this point--that could lead many to suggest that Chris McCandless may have suffered from some form of mental or emotional instability.

In doing a little research after the fact, I came across an article that his sister wrote where she talked about their tumultuous childhood at the hands of physically and emotionally abusive parents. That kind of thing happening to a young child can cause mental instability, especially if a person is already predisposed to it.

I read another article that suggested that he may have been suffering with undiagnosed schizophrenia. The author of that article points to the fact that many of McCandless's journals are written in the third person and the fact that he randomly decided to start calling himself by another name. I also see it as a possibility when you look at his strong distrust for any kind of authority figure of body. Couple that with the fact that schizophrenia is most likely to present itself in males from the ages of 15-25, and I think there is a strong case to be made there.

Even Jon Krakauer himself on page 120 says that Chris "had a darker side as well, characterized by monomania, impatience, and unwavering self-absorption, qualities that seemed to intensify through his college years."
Later on the same page he quotes one of Chris's college friends who said that Chris changed drastically during his college years. He became much more introverted and cynical. When the friend saw him after their sophomore year, he greeted him by saying, "Hey, good to see you, Chris," to which Chris's response was "Yeah, sure, that's what everybody says."

All that said, neither I nor the writer of the aforementioned article are psychologists, so it isn't for me to armchair diagnose anyone. But I feel like it is irresponsible of Krakauer to assert that Chris wasn't suffering from mental illness when there is no earthly way he could know that.

The story of Christopher McCandless is tragic, regardless of his mental capacity in the months before and at the time of his death. The idea that he was so close to help (he was only about 25 miles from Healy, AK) and yet he may as well have been a thousand miles from another living soul is just heartbreaking. And I want to give the author the benefit of the doubt and say that he isn't trying to manipulate the story of Christopher McCandless to make him look like some sort of misunderstood romantic hero, communing with nature in order to find himself, but I wish there had been a bit more about how ill-equipped he really was. It was there, but it was always rebutted by Krakauer talking about some other adventurous person doing something similar. It definitely felt like Krakauer felt a certain level of admiration for McCandless, and that's just not something I can get on board with.

As a person who lived in Alaska for 30+ years, I have a healthy respect/fear of the Alaskan wilderness. I have personally known many people who have died or gone missing directly because of the Alaskan Wilderness. Boating accidents, hunting accidents, encounters with wildlife, encounters with poisonous plant life, plane accidents, four-wheeler accidents, starvation, dehydration, exposure (freezing to death), and just plain disappearing into the wilderness. And most of those stories are about people who have lived in Alaska for years if not decades. Many of them are Alaska-born. Because Alaska doesn't give a fuck.

There is a huge difference between Henry David Thoreau communing with nature while living in a cabin near Concord, Massachusetts and being on your own in the Alaskan wilderness with no map, no compass, and no food. For crying out loud, Walden Pond is less than two miles from the city of Concord. TWO MILES. And it was where Thoreau was born and died. He wasn't exactly all on his own. He had friends and family help him with things like food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. So for McCandless to take that and turn it into 'live in an abandoned bus in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness' is not romantic or admirable. It's foolish. It's ignorance and hubris. Because, again, Alaska doesn't give a fuck.

Intention and intellect are irrelevant without common sense, and while McCandless may have possessed the first two, he was completely devoid of the latter. I know that it sounds like I am being harsh, but I am just frustrated that this is portrayed as anything other than what it is: a completely preventable tragedy. Just a little research and preparation could've resulted in an entirely different outcome. And I think that is the most sad thing of all.