Why is there so much vitriol directed at this book?

THAT'S NOT FAIR I READ AT LEAST 4 PAGES

It's a nice book, it's just that Krakauer is pathological liar, greedy bastard, and should not receive a cent from it's sale. So, ether pirate it, or wait till he dies before you buy it.

Elaborate?

Check forewords, backwards, number of editions of his works. He alone backtracked on several occasions. I can only say for certain regarding this one and Everest one, but he was wrong in both. It's established that he plainly invented some things, and his theories on the death are widely disputed.
As for Everest one, he actually lied there. He threw a crazy tantrum because of Everest film, partly since they didn't pay him for adaptation, partly because they painted him badly. Not defending that film in any way, it has holes of it's own, but Krakauers version is nearly fiction in comparison. He blackfaced Russkie alpinist completely in his first magazine report, later had to retract some words, but he's still painted nearly as a villain in the novel, at the same time he omitted his own shortcomings.

>Krakauer's recounting of certain aspects of the ill-fated climb has generated considerable criticism, both from some of the climb's participants and from renowned mountaineers such as Galen Rowell. Much of the disputed material centers on Krakauer's accounting of the actions of Russian climber and guide Anatoli Boukreev. An experienced high-altitude climber and guide for Scott Fischer, Boukreev descended the summit prior to his clients, ostensibly out of concern for their safety and in preparation for potential rescue efforts. Boukreev later mounted repeated solo rescue efforts, saving several lives. In his book, Krakauer acknowledged Boukreev's heroism in saving two climbers' lives, but questions his judgment, his decision to descend before clients, not using supplementary oxygen, his choices of gear on the mountain, and his interaction with clients. Boukreev provides a rebuttal to these allegations in his book, The Climb.

Galen Rowell criticized Krakauer's account, citing numerous inconsistencies in his narrative while observing that Krakauer was sleeping in his tent while Boukreev was rescuing other climbers. Rowell argued that Boukreev's actions were nothing short of heroic, and his judgment prescient: "[Boukreev] foresaw problems with clients nearing camp, noted five other guides on the peak [Everest], and positioned himself to be rested and hydrated enough to respond to an emergency. His heroism was not a fluke."[4]

The account has also been criticized for not informing the reader that the team members were receiving accurate daily weather forecasts and knew about the storm in advance.[5]

In Krakauer's 1999 paperback edition of Into Thin Air, he addresses some of the criticism in a lengthy postscript.[6]

What's not mentioned is that he stuck with his Boukreev story until pictures from the top proved him wrong.

McCandless clearly wanted to die, and normies have a hard time understand that mindset.

cringe image lmao

bruhh just EAT! PRAY! LIVE! LAUGH! LOVE! BARCELONA! AIDS!

This post was written by someone who never genuinely wanted to kill themself

It would be a good idea if depression usually didn't come with anhedonia and avolition as well.

He wasn't suicidal

He was. One of the last letters he wrote to the people who took him in, in Carthage South Dakota, detailed who would get his possessions if he didn't come back and how much he loved them all etc. His boss's wife / girlfriend said he was like a stray kid who couldn't comprehend being loved. McCandless also had vague plans to start a family once he got back and to work or a charity, but I think he wrote about that when he was in Alaska starving to death.