Kilduff-Taylor’s tired handwashing here is not so much an indictment of the problem of two interpretive communities — whose existence and cross-reference is facilitated by the internet as a mode of critical reception — as it is an attempt to escape the problem entirely. At some undesignated time before now, people just would have read the game correctly, no problem! Meaning would have been obvious, and interpretation would have been a pleasant exercise in riffing upon its verities from that point on. We’ve thus already lost, and all we can do is take solace in our own knowledge and interpretation as things fall apart. This is disingenuous because the fact that anyone is even taking issue with the implication that Wreden should not be paid for his work is a sign that, indeed, people are not willing to let the patently worse interpretation of the game stand.

Not so much 'debunked', but this article calls out Krakauer on a number of conclusions and omissions from his book (and the subsequent movie). To summarize: the poison/moldy seeds theory doesn't hold water, and McCandless probably just simply starved to death. McCandless had money and a map with him on his final trek, but the book and movie omit this. Also, one of the final self-portrait photographs might have a clue as to the "injury" alluded to in his final note: one sleeve of his shirt looks armless.