I think that his credibility could really go either way after his recount of his own story. In many ways, it made me appreciate Chris and Krakauer so much more because it added in a personal interest element. I was exposed to a deeper side of both men and was able to relate better. Krakauer's critical analyzing was important for helping the audience understand himself, and Chris. Whether Krakauer is manipulating the details of Chris's life to meld better with his own, it's hard to say since Chris isn't here as living proof. Our basis and trust have to come from what Krakauer has told us, and the pieces seem to fit the puzzle. But on the otherhand, emotion is able to twist certain details in our favor, possibly creating bias in his conclusions of Chris's life and personality. While some may have doubts, I am beginning to trust Krakauer more and more as the book goes on; maybe just because I like the story, I'm not really sure. Either way, I think Krakauer is a great writer. If he is inaccurate or trying to make Chris relate to himself, well, I guess he's got me fooled.