But exactly how Chris died is kind of beside the point: Krakauer has suggested about half a dozen similar theories over the years, only to have them sequentially debunked. He then comes up with a new one as soon as the previous one is no longer tenable. This approach is not only wrong but it is in opposition to the idea of truth-seeking in that it goes to great lengths to avoid the obvious conclusion of the available evidence. If he had just said what you wrote, that the truth is somewhat uncertain that would be fine. But he didn’t, he has pursued his pet theory beyond all reason or evidence. I am assuming this is an ego issue and it raises big questions about the facts in his other reporting which have not been investigated as deeply.
I don’t want to dunk on Chris but he died because he was inexperienced and unprepared for the situation he put himself in. Whether that makes him an idiot is for up for debate but it’s not true that he was a victim of some unforeseeable tragedy. He didn’t have enough food or the means to obtain it, which is something most people realize before traveling to a remote area where they cannot easily escape.
I’ve read Krakauer’s responses and followups and have a very different take. I see guy being attacked from two contradictory sides, simply trying his best to defend his reputation as an author. Not saying he handled it perfectly, but I disagree that it’s pure ego and wild theories driving him. He’s very open that he’s speculating, he’s owned up to being wrong at times, and he’s trying to show the know-it-alls that they do not have the definitive answer either.
The available evidence strongly suggests he starved (from lack of food, not protein poisoning) and has strongly undermined the poisoning theory. You can read a pretty detailed outline of his claims and contrary evidence here: https://freshlyworded.com/2020/05/17/re-reading-into-the-wild-what-killed-chris-mccandless/
But exactly how Chris died is kind of beside the point: Krakauer has suggested about half a dozen similar theories over the years, only to have them sequentially debunked. He then comes up with a new one as soon as the previous one is no longer tenable. This approach is not only wrong but it is in opposition to the idea of truth-seeking in that it goes to great lengths to avoid the obvious conclusion of the available evidence. If he had just said what you wrote, that the truth is somewhat uncertain that would be fine. But he didn’t, he has pursued his pet theory beyond all reason or evidence. I am assuming this is an ego issue and it raises big questions about the facts in his other reporting which have not been investigated as deeply.
Here’s another article that goes over even more factual issues in this section: https://www.adn.com/books/article/fiction-jon-krakauers-wild/2015/01/10/
I don’t want to dunk on Chris but he died because he was inexperienced and unprepared for the situation he put himself in. Whether that makes him an idiot is for up for debate but it’s not true that he was a victim of some unforeseeable tragedy. He didn’t have enough food or the means to obtain it, which is something most people realize before traveling to a remote area where they cannot easily escape.
I’ve read Krakauer’s responses and followups and have a very different take. I see guy being attacked from two contradictory sides, simply trying his best to defend his reputation as an author. Not saying he handled it perfectly, but I disagree that it’s pure ego and wild theories driving him. He’s very open that he’s speculating, he’s owned up to being wrong at times, and he’s trying to show the know-it-alls that they do not have the definitive answer either.