Chris Mccandless Character Analysis
Faith A. Scow
Mr. Proctor
AP Language- Period 0
7 October 2014
Chris McCandless, or Alexander Supertramp? Writers and film makers such as John Krakuaer, Sean Penn and Ron Lamothe have been studying Chris McCandless and juxtaposing his actions with societal characteristics. These people have spent so much time trying to characterize McCandless, they forget to look at him as an individual, as Alexander Supertramp. True sympathetic characters only exist in fiction, and this is true with unsympathetic characters as well. Chris is the type of person who didn’t know what he wanted until he had already done it. It’s pointless to apply these social norms to him. Chris is a sympathetic character because of how others can relate to him and how he was not suicidal but was non sympathetic in the sense of his narcissistic decisions. The way people can relate to Chris on a deeper level is what makes him a likeable person. Other people, such as myself and my peers can agree with Chris in the words of Emerson that “a man needs to retire as much from his chambers as …show more content…
I think him going on this two year odyssey was Chris’s voice saying “f-you government, f-you parents and f-you materialistic individuals,” and Alexander Supertramp was born. All Alex wanted was to be free from the chains of the standard controlled life. Society says “go to school, graduate college, have a career, start and family and repeat the cycle.” Krakauer, on the other hand tried to glorify him, and put him on a pedestool to be admired. He described Chris as a pilgrim, or intellectual being with a higher purpose. Krakauer almost made him out to be a victim which is far from the case. Alex defied society in a way of grace and freedom because of his ability to detach from others, which is both sympathetic and unsympathetic in different
Mr. Proctor
AP Language- Period 0
7 October 2014
Chris McCandless, or Alexander Supertramp? Writers and film makers such as John Krakuaer, Sean Penn and Ron Lamothe have been studying Chris McCandless and juxtaposing his actions with societal characteristics. These people have spent so much time trying to characterize McCandless, they forget to look at him as an individual, as Alexander Supertramp. True sympathetic characters only exist in fiction, and this is true with unsympathetic characters as well. Chris is the type of person who didn’t know what he wanted until he had already done it. It’s pointless to apply these social norms to him. Chris is a sympathetic character because of how others can relate to him and how he was not suicidal but was non sympathetic in the sense of his narcissistic decisions. The way people can relate to Chris on a deeper level is what makes him a likeable person. Other people, such as myself and my peers can agree with Chris in the words of Emerson that “a man needs to retire as much from his chambers as …show more content…
I think him going on this two year odyssey was Chris’s voice saying “f-you government, f-you parents and f-you materialistic individuals,” and Alexander Supertramp was born. All Alex wanted was to be free from the chains of the standard controlled life. Society says “go to school, graduate college, have a career, start and family and repeat the cycle.” Krakauer, on the other hand tried to glorify him, and put him on a pedestool to be admired. He described Chris as a pilgrim, or intellectual being with a higher purpose. Krakauer almost made him out to be a victim which is far from the case. Alex defied society in a way of grace and freedom because of his ability to detach from others, which is both sympathetic and unsympathetic in different