Is Krakauer successful in convincing you of McCandless’ point of view? In your response, include emotive words to describe how you feel. ie. angry, sympathetic, impressed, etc.

I think Krakauer is successful in giving the reader an understanding of Chris. Chris's intense idealism and obsessive quest to find the romance of his favourite writers like Thoreau and Emesrson is conveyed. 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.