Can I 2 Quotes for this question Why does Krakauer Offers a sympathetic portrayal of Chris McCandless?

Many people feel that Krakauer was rather sympathetic if not outright biased towards Chris. In his writing some people find is a certain heroic slant to Chris's story. I think the novel becomes more readable not because of bias but rather that Krakauer understands MCandless. He sees in Chris similar motivations and attitudes as he had as a young man. This gives the book a depth of meaning because Krakauer is a great writer and Chris somehow inhabits parts of Krakauer's belief system. I think Krakauer is critical of Chris when it comes to Chris's treatment of his family. I think, however, that there are the sensibilities of a kindred spirit going on here that gives us a unique access into Chris's world.

For most of the sixteen-week ordeal…McCandless more than held his own. Indeed, were it out not for one or two seemingly insignificant blunders, he would have walked out of the woods…as anonymously as he had walked into them. Instead, his innocent mistake turned out to be pivotal and irreversible, his name became the stuff of tabloid headlines, and his bewildered family was left clutching the shards of a fierce and painful love.

In trying to understand McCandless, I inevitably came to reflect on…the grip wilderness has on the American imagination, the allure high-risk activities hold for young men of a certain mind, [and] the complicated, highly charged bond that exists between fathers and sons.