Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
09/10/2025 6:48 pm
I believe Krakauer was too forgiving of McCandless. He made McCandless out to be an idol or hero in a situation that could’ve been avoided with common sense. At the beginning of the account, Krauker doesn’t delve into McCandless’s shortcomings. Krakauer writes, “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). Although Krakauer was referring to McCandless's hard work, saying that people would refer to him as extremely ethical is a bold statement. It brings me to wonder, is it ethical to leave your family behind without warning? Was he setting high standards for himself when he ditched a promising future to be alone, traversing the land? Krakauer has shown sympathy for McCandless. Overlooking the fact that McCandless’s ignorant choices had led him to his demise.
14/10/2025 9:10 pm
I agree with your point that Krakauer can be too forgiving of McCandless at times. Calling him “extremely ethical” seems to ignore how his choices hurt his family and led to his death. Your post made me see how Krakauer’s sympathy might make readers view McCandless as a hero rather than someone who made some reckless decisions. I think Krakauer admired McCandless’s courage but sometimes overlooked his irresponsibility. Do you think Krakauer wanted readers to sympathize with McCandless, or do you believe it was to question his idea of morality?
