Chris Mccandless Character Analysis

753 Words4 Pages
I am in agreement with Krakauer on the fact that Chris McCandless was not a sociopath because he was intelligent, socialized very well, and was able to take care of himself, but he did have his flaws. Being able to be independent, his achievements and his friends all prove the “outcast bush causality” stereotype wrong. Since Chris was a human, he did have his faults. In some cases they were extreme, but they were rooted from an anger that makes it hard to label as “sociopath”. In the end, however, his stubbornness and tendency to dream big left him for dead. When Chris wasn't treading in the wild, risking his life, he was busy leaving an unintentional and lasting mark on the people that he met without even knowing. At a lone bar in Carthage,…show more content…
As well as being book smart, he was independent, which is another type of intelligence. Aside from living alone in the wild , for the most part he spent 2 years traveling and seeking out adventures alone. He held up extremely well considering the circumstances. Since Chris was human, he had his flaws. “..part of what got him into trouble was that he did too much thinking. Sometimes he tried too hard to make sense of the world.” (pg 18) McCandless spent too much time thinking of the world's flaws, it pained him, in turn he chose to live a type of transcendental life. The life that ultimately bid him death, a big part of it at least. The second part that ruined him to this life was his tendency to act out of anger. At the fault of his father, he reacted rashly. “When Walt’s double life came to light, the revelations inflicted deep wounds. All parties suffered terrible.” This would be a negative turning point in anyone's life, but Chris was wrong to just pack up and take himself to his death. Though Chris indeed had his flaws, more evidence points to him being sane. He was moral, made decent decisions for the most part and was intelligent and likable. He wasn't crazy, he was simply just
Open Document