Krakauer is definitely a great writer but the factual issues in into the wild kind of made me wonder just how accurate the rest of his books are.
I don't know about Into the Wild, but I have read plenty about the FLDS church since to know that he at least got those details right in Under the Banner of Heaven.
I've read all of these. The streamingseries adaptation for under the banner of heaven was pretty good too.
Now I have heard that the steaming adaptation had some accuracy issues. I haven't seen it yet.
I don't recall the s
Specifics enough to comment on the accuracy, because I read the book at least 15 years before seeming the show. but it is enjoyable and it I think anyone who doesn't read books should check it out to see how crazy Mormons really are.
The show does differ from the book. The main character in the show (Andrew Garfield) is not in the book. He's a detective searching for answers. It helps tell the narrative in video form. The book doesn't need that. Both the book and show are good. They just tell the relevant story in slightly different ways.
He admitted to some errors. He's trustworthy overall. That story has always been surrounded by a cloud of emotions and conflicting "takes". Which is very understandable. But I would also question the sister's version. Not saying she is lying, but a family member will always be biased.
I think there have been a lot of questions raised by people even before the recent book came out. In particular, the cause of Chris’s death by poisoning was more or less invented by Krakauer and contradicts what the coroner wrote and several independent analyses done on this topic. But Krakauer stood by this and has tried to revive his pet theories even after they were debunked.
Wasn't only Krakauer, though. McCandless himself wrote it in his journal, and many others have speculated he was poisoned by this or that. Krakauer didn't make it up out of whole cloth.
Truth is we don't know and probably never will. But it's kind of irrelevant. People always want to know an exact cause of death. Which is understandable, but ultimately the kid got killed by something he did or failed to do. Even if it was simple rabbit starvation (malnourishment) he failed to survive in the wild on his own.
I admire Chris and what he did. I don't think his death means he was an idiot. Quite the opposite. I think he was brave and adventurous and lived a much better life, if cut tragically short, than 99% of humans. But there's still some lessons to be learned from his avoidable passing.
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.
Krakauer is definitely a great writer but the factual issues in into the wild kind of made me wonder just how accurate the rest of his books are.
I don't know about Into the Wild, but I have read plenty about the FLDS church since to know that he at least got those details right in Under the Banner of Heaven.
I've read all of these. The streamingseries adaptation for under the banner of heaven was pretty good too.
Now I have heard that the steaming adaptation had some accuracy issues. I haven't seen it yet.
I don't recall the s Specifics enough to comment on the accuracy, because I read the book at least 15 years before seeming the show. but it is enjoyable and it I think anyone who doesn't read books should check it out to see how crazy Mormons really are.
The show does differ from the book. The main character in the show (Andrew Garfield) is not in the book. He's a detective searching for answers. It helps tell the narrative in video form. The book doesn't need that. Both the book and show are good. They just tell the relevant story in slightly different ways.
He admitted to some errors. He's trustworthy overall. That story has always been surrounded by a cloud of emotions and conflicting "takes". Which is very understandable. But I would also question the sister's version. Not saying she is lying, but a family member will always be biased.
I think there have been a lot of questions raised by people even before the recent book came out. In particular, the cause of Chris’s death by poisoning was more or less invented by Krakauer and contradicts what the coroner wrote and several independent analyses done on this topic. But Krakauer stood by this and has tried to revive his pet theories even after they were debunked.
Wasn't only Krakauer, though. McCandless himself wrote it in his journal, and many others have speculated he was poisoned by this or that. Krakauer didn't make it up out of whole cloth.
Truth is we don't know and probably never will. But it's kind of irrelevant. People always want to know an exact cause of death. Which is understandable, but ultimately the kid got killed by something he did or failed to do. Even if it was simple rabbit starvation (malnourishment) he failed to survive in the wild on his own.
I admire Chris and what he did. I don't think his death means he was an idiot. Quite the opposite. I think he was brave and adventurous and lived a much better life, if cut tragically short, than 99% of humans. But there's still some lessons to be learned from his avoidable passing.
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.