I am not sure what to think about Chris McClandess. Was he not right in the head? Why or why not? Why do so many people feel attracted to his tragic story? Is it Krauker's writing or the story itself, or both?
I don't believe Chris McCandless was crazy. I think we are tempted to write him off to quickly as somebody consumed by arrogance, but let us remember that, if the author is correct in his conclusions, he managed to survive by himself in conditions that many of us would have perished in. Yes, he certainly did die in the end, but this was through a botanical mistake that he could hardly have expected to have been aware of. He was intelligent and resilient and, yes, arrogant, yet I think we all admire him for putting into practice what he believed, even if he did this in a rather extreme fashion.
He was certainly foolish. Probably at least a bit ignorant. Add a dash of arrogance. But I don't know that I would call him crazy. He felt betrayed by life and that sense of betrayal drove him to some ultimately foolish acts. The question for me is, if we could ask him today, would he consider them foolish, or is that just from my perspective and definition?