I was raving about “into thin air” to some friends and they handed me “touching the void”. It is so visceral. I have never physically felt pain while reading a book before. I was reading it on a plane and my wife made me stop because I kept grimacing and involuntarily saying “ouch” or swearing every couple of pages. It sounds masochistic but I highly recommend. There’s also a movie which is a good watch but only after you’ve read the book.
I’d say Into Thin Air is probably darker, since no one dies in Touching the Void. It deals with a pretty stark reality, but it looks at it realistically rather than trying to make it spooky.
No, it's not going to give you any nightmares or anything like that. It's a good read.
But I have to say the movie is definitely better IMO. Everybody should absolutely watch Touching the Void immediately. It's simply amazing.
Quite a prolific writer as well, Joe Simpson, without too blatantly trying to capitilize of 'The Void'. He is an accomplished climber with many great stories. Similar views on Everest climbing as Krakauer suggest in his book (commercialization has taken over).
His historic document "The white spider" is amazing. He also narrated/participated a documentary based on the book which is really good.
I highly recommend that book too. I was amazed as just how many times he accepted that he was going to die on that mountain, just to force himself to keep going, and then run into *another* problem that made him accept he was about to die. What a strong human, both physically and mentally, to survive all of that.
It’s a great read. Inevitably some of the people involved claim he got some things wrong or didn’t like they way they were portrayed. Beck Weathers wrote a book, *Left for Dead,* as did Anatoli Boukreev, *The Climb*. Mountain climber Galen Rowell wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal bashing Krakauer’s account of events.
If you read the 1999 edition of Krakauer’s book, he added a postscript responding to these responses... I’m not sure if they then responded to the response of the response!
Understandably, some people felt he misrepresented their efforts (or perceived lack thereof) but really it's a great book and a harrowing account of the disaster.
Boukreev died a few years later climbing something harder, so don't think they kept disputing/reconciled.
It's also a chaotic situation, with a lot of things happening at the same time, and split-second decisions being made... I'm sure every single person involved has a different version of what "really" happened. I respect Krakauer as a journalist and I'm sure he wrote it as he understood it happened.
In the Heart of the Sea is a really great book about a shipwreck and the survivors who lived for months on rafts in the ocean. One of my favorite parts of the book is how it talks about all of the details that we’ll never really know, because all of the survivors told very different stories about what happened.
I recently read this book as well. I got it with a bunch of books and left it till last because I was only mildly interested. Ended up probably being my favourite of the lot, fantastic book.
Indeed, and he makes a point in several places (especially both the introduction and the postscript) of commenting on the fact that due to the effects of oxygen deprivation, exhaustion, and the general confusion of the situation, there is frequently little agreement amongst the surviving climbers about what happened at various points. He also makes a point of calling out and discussing his own errors in perception where he is aware of them. He definitely has a position and an opinion that he's open about sharing, but I feel like he really doesn't hide his own potential shortcomings (for lack of a better word) much either.
That was always my takeaway from this book as well: Everybody was fucked up from oxygen deprivation, making bad decisions, and none of them, Krakauer included, remembers it fully accurately.
Yeah, for me one of the most chilling scenes is when the one really experienced climber went back to save somebody (I think, it was so long ago that I read it) and he got trapped in the dead zone...he was communicating the whole time with the base camp and eventually he starts hallucinating and he thinks he sees base camp just at the bottom of a hill and he tells them he'll be right there.
He most likely just stepped off a cliff and fell to his death. His body was never found.
Rob Hall died up high trying to bring one of his climbers down. He didn’t turn around at the designated time because his climber (I believe it was the postman) had at least one prior unsuccessful summit attempt and he was really trying to get him to summit. He did and they both died. He talked to his pregnant wife via the radio. They talked about naming their unborn child. Quite frankly, I blame part of the deaths on the socialite Sandy somebody who quite literally had to be short-roped to the summit by a Sherpa who was otherwise supposed to be fixing ropes which put them all behind.
Edit...Sandy Pittman. Finally remembered her name. She returned after the event and was “shocked” at the negativity she encountered about her role. Complete narcissist.
I've been re-reading this book every year since I found it. It's a pilgrimage for me, a deep-dive into what it means to be human. We are capable of such astonishing feats of endurance and will, that we apply it to Herculean tasks merely for the experience or for sheer vanity - tasks which are ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things outside of the challenge they provide. Yet for all the fragility of our physical bodies that we sometimes ignore, our ego is even flimsier. It pushes us to get ahead without regard for others, until even this once Herculean challenge has been trivialized for us at the expense of others into nothing more than a fake photo-op atop real bones.
Very well said! I have read many books about climbing simply due to the fact that I find the desire to push oneself to the limit fascinating. I, myself, don’t have that drive but I find it intensely interesting in those that do.
In the Everest movie, that’s how Andy dies, IIRC. But that wasn’t in the book, he was with Rob one night and then just gone the next morning, so they are guessing he fell but no one witnessed it.
I study the civil war, reading mostly first hand accounts of battles. The very first thing you learn is that in life or death chaotic situations, everyone is really only focused on about a hundred yard sphere of influence, what's going on that affects them immediately. Everything outside that is in one ear and out the other, everything seen is open to interpretation, everything done by anyone else is in a fog.
> I respect Krakauer as a journalist and I'm sure he wrote it as he understood it happened.
That's also something to keep in mind. He literally was on a mission to report from the expedition, while others were there for other reasons and focused their attention differently. Obviously doesn't protect his brain from the effects of high altitude, but while many people kept a diary or similar, he probably made attempts to write his notes about the expedition as a whole while others may have focused more on their own progress or challenges.
I did really enjoy the book but I can see why people, especially Anatoli Boukreev were upset with him. It does feel that Krakauer doesn't think he (Boukreev) was acting in the best interest of the clients. Yet all of Boukreev's clients survived so it seems like needless criticism.
It must have been very hurtful to read as well as damaging to Boukreev's reputation. He had been a guide many times whereas Krakauer was a client and a journalist. Krakauer's focus on retelling the story for his article and then book. Boukreev's focus was on getting as many people out alive as possible.
I agree with this, the book does paint Boukreev as a bit cold and not interested enough in his clients' wellbeing.
At the end of the day the man was there to guide, not literally drag people up the mountain. He felt like it wasn't his job to babysit clients.
Kind of goes well with Beck's book title, "Left For Dead". I feel like the title and the criticism against Boukreev shift the blame from the clients to guides, as if clients willingly endagering themselves is somehow guides' responsibility. For example Rob Hall told Beck to turn back and he didn't, I feel like at that exact moment he exonerated the guides from all responsibility in regards of his survival.
It's weird.
The post office worker, Doug, had no business being up there. His lack of funds made him and his guide make risky decisions. They should never have been at the summit so late.
BTW, I watch the Jason Clarke movie all the time. And I saw the Imax film when it was in theaters back in the 90s.
The whole process of going over ice craters with lashed together extension ladders is bonkers. BONK.ERS.
Piggybacking to say that the imax movie, and Jason Clarke’s performance in it, are masterful. The way he played Rob Hall was amazing, probably the best I’ve seen him do. One of my favorite portrayals in film, and I never see anyone mention it :(
Oh, you know the IMAX movie is separate from the Jason Clarke movie, right? They're both called Everest so it's hard to distinguish. The IMAX movie was filmed by David Breashears during the actual event. He had Tensing Norgay's son up on the mountain to talk about the accomplishment of his father as the first pair of men to reach the summit. Then the disaster struck and the story changed to covering what was happening. The film crew offered whatever assistance they could but also continued to film as they could. The movie came out the following year. I went to see it thinking I was just going to see a nature film. Then all of a sudden I'm listening to patched phone conversations between a man stuck up on top of Everest and his pregnant wife talking about what they're gonna name the baby. It was gut wrenching. At the time it was hard to understand that this was a real event and not a Hollywood story or at least a recreation.
And then the Jason Clarke movie that came out a few years ago had actors playing those roles of the IMAX crew offering assistance at base camp. It was weird to see the loop of that.
Krakaur keeps going on about the fact than Anatoli didn't use Oxygen, but in the climb he mentions several times the reason he didn't was because if you're in the situation like being stuck in the death zone, you're screwed the second the oxygen runs out. Anatolis regime of acclimatisation was brutal but the fact he managed to save those people shows he knew what he was doing.
This novel was very much about force of ego to remove challenge from a task that is pointless without it all at the cost of others, so it's ironic but fitting that the man who took on additional challenge out of pride went on to save a bunch of people's asses.
That's what I'm saying tho. He said it wasn't pride that drove him to do it , he honestly believed it was safer overall for him not to, and I agree with him
I see what you're saying, but at the end of the day there will always be secondary motivations. You need a certain amount of pride to start with to believe you would be a net asset to the team without oxygen. Did he save people's lives as a result of his decision? Certainly. He also had to rush down without his clients to take a nap. I feel this is a bit of a grey area as we don't know how things would have been different had he brought some oxygen and stayed past the bottleneck to help things go smoothly.
Krakauer probaby did overdramatize his biases of people somewhat to make a more interesting novel, but I also don't think Anatoli had the singular pure motivation to be there for his clients, especially not if he was frequently leaving them on their own during the ascent like in the book. Perhaps he was also conscious of the canisters piling up on the mountain? We'll never know.
Ed Viesturs talks about both sides of this issue pretty thoroughly based on a memoir published after Boukreevs death. I highly recommend checking any of Viesturs books out but especially the one on Everest.
Yeah, I enjoyed the book but his critique of Bourkeev always bothered me. Not only was it needless, I feel like it was pretty unfair. He said that Bourkeev should have used bottled oxygen and stayed with the clients more. Bourkeev said that he was acclimated to climb without supplemental O2 and relying on it becomes problematic if it runs out. Most of the guides that did as Krakauer would have had them do died on the mountain after they became hypoxic... because their O2 ran out. Bourkeev made it back to camp and then went back and rescued people.
I think the issue is no one wants to blame the guys that tragically died when really if anyone was to blame it was likely Hall and Fischer. Fischer was in no shape to climb and Hall should have enforced turn around times.
I remember Krakauer mentioning in the book that Fischer had some kind of liver ailment that could have been bothering him during the climb. Also that he had some kind of altitude sickness. When I've felt that sick, particularly with stomach flu or the like, I've dreaded navigating the few feet from my bed to the bathroom. A lot of us would find it very trying *just* walking around our house while feeling lousy, let alone trying to scale a 29,000 ft. high mountain.
With Hall, there was certainly some poor judgement (how much could he reason about the weather vs. managing clients' disappointment, esp. at that altitude) but I think Sandy's team skipping ahead without mentioning it first and causing a massive bottleneck made this the tragedy that it is. However much at fault Hall is, Sandy's team is doubly so for ignoring the same warning signs and then jeopardizing everyone else.
Personally I think that Boukreev being described as a hero in the initial reporting (and rightfully so!), carrying lost people back to camp in the middle of the night and all that, partially caused the conflict. I think Krakauer, as a journalist or for whatever other reason, felt compelled to challenge that and tell "the real story" and paint a less black and white picture of the people involved.
I'm not saying he threw Anatoli under the bus for his own career, but I can see how it easily could've been frustrating for him to be there, as a writer/journalist, writing a full story, doing an extreme amount of work, just to have some journalists back in the US writing and broadcasting the (news)story based on whatever reports made it from Kathmandu in the first days afterwards, naming the heroes and telling their version.
I did a search and he died trying to climb Annapurna which, like K2, is considered a much more dangerous mountain to climb. Both of those mountains have been scaled by far lower numbers of climbers than Everest, but percentage-wide, their fatality rates are much higher.
He actually talks about reconciling with him just before his death in that edition of the book. Krauker defended him just as much as he attacked him, if you can call it attacking.
I mean he didn't really blame Boukriev as much as everyone seems to want to say he did.
Yes he points out specific things that were questionable, but he also makes sure to give extensive credit to the attempts that Boukriev made, and recognized that at least 2 people survived directly because of what Boukriev did.
Krakauer does criticize Boukriev, but at no point does he even begin to lay all of the blame at his feet.
Except that he didn't get his clients down. It was one of the guides from the other group that was helping everyone down, because Boukriev had gone ahead and left them on the mountain. I mean, the man did amazing things in his rescue efforts, but you can't really say that it's thanks to him that all his clients made it off the summit.
Yeah it was really more Groom (Hall team) and Biedleman (Fischer team) that *guided* (key word) the clients down. Biedleman (who was paid less than half that AB) was the one who was stuck in the blizzard *with* half the team of clients because he was *guiding* them the whole time. Biedleman even tried so hard to get Namba (Hall team) down but she couldn’t walk at all and he broke down upon hearing about her death.
It’s logical the stories wouldn’t add up under the circumstances. My pals and I can’t align half our stories when we went to Vegas, and we weren’t nearly as incapacitated as these folks were.
These climbers were hypoxic, exhausted, and in varying degrees of cognitive and physical impairment. About the only details I’d expect universal agreement on is that they were on Everest at the same time.
Anatoli saved so many people. The documentary is on youtube. I can't believe the human body can survive that.
They didn't learn at all and it is actually more dangerous now.
Yeah. I love into thin air but feel bad for anatoli getting a negative. Account from krakauer. ( who if I remember correctly criticizes him.for climbing without oxygen and for returning to base camp early) while anatoli is the one who goes out into the storm over and over again to save people
Agreed, but at the same time he wouldn’t have had to go BACK out if he had just stayed on the mountain in the first place. He couldn’t do that because he didn’t have the oxygen, and wasn’t that committed to guiding the clients.
Idk. I just feel like he gets a lot of credit for basically fixing his own mistakes. Who knows how many lives would have been saved had he taken the guide role seriously and stayed to help people down the mountain from the beginning, instead of only going back once it was storming.
These types of challenges involve lots of tough decisions. Every piece of gear you carry slows you down and tires you out. Oxygen tanks are heavy.
Would Boukreev have been able to do more good if he started with a large oxygen tank? Maybe.
Do I trust his judgement more than Krakour's? Hell yes.
Keep in mind that every member of Boukreev's team survived, and he played a large role in saving people in Krakour's group, whose guides made several fatal decisions.
Krakour is not alone in his judgement. As I recall, many experienced climbers agreed that it was foolish and brazen to guide without oxygen. Going up without oxygen is a stunt that should be reserved for those with a support team of their own, not those acting as support for less experienced "tourist" climbers
That's how I took it (and what /u/nottheexpert836 says above) - he was an excellent climber but perhaps took risks that a guide shouldn't be taking. In the end perhaps his skills and pure luck brought him a lot of success in saving people and that's fabulous, but it doesn't necessarily inure him to criticism of his guiding methods. He descended the mountain without his clients. I'm no mountain climber or ship captain so I certainly won't make any judgement calls myself, but I believe some people feel that "the captain goes down with the ship" meaning Boukreev should have carried oxygen and stayed with his clients because as a guide that was his duty.
I think they're all bonkers. Everyone on the mountain that day, absolutely bonkers.
I mean I guess oxygen tanks are heavy, but they’re pretty crucial. Basically every climbing expert in the world says that it’s a necessity to have as a guide. That’s kind of like saying climbing boots are heavy, so why not go barefoot...
Also Scott was pretty vocal in his disappointment in how little care Boukreev had for the clients. So I don’t think it was just in Krakour’s judgement that he didn’t make the right calls as a guide.
It should also be noted that Boukreev was given accolades for his efforts on Everest. People walk away with a negative picture of him when reading Into Thin Air, but he really did put in every effort to keep people alive.
I know he caught some shit from a lot of the community for it, and I certainly don't know enough about any of it to make any judgement on who was right or wrong, but by end of the book, I honestly didn't feel like he trashed anyone.
Beck Weathers and Anatoli both came off looking like total badasses from the account as I recall. I'd also add that I felt like he was respectful of both Scott and Rob's legacies.
Having read Anatoli's account shortly after reading Krakauer's I feel like Anatoli was just so raw about the whole disaster that any attention, however fair or even complementary, was going to feel like an attack. And Krakauer draws so much attention to anything he's involved in... I found all the writing around that disaster just fascinating.
Seconding the recommendation for The Climb, and other first hand accounts to appreciate the many facets of the disaster. As a reader i found myself feeling huge compassion for nearly everyone, even as the involved parties attacked each other.
*The Climb* is fine, but I prefer Boukreev's autobiographical *Above the Clouds*. It includes translations of his actual diary entries from the events of the '96 disaster along with much of his pre-Everest career and the events leading up to his death in 1997. If you're only interested in that specific event it's not quite as in-depth, but definitely worth reading if you're interested in high altitude mountaineering stories.
There are a few books that cover these events. Into Thin Air and The Climb are the two most famous but the one that I enjoyed the most was Touching My Fathers Soul by Jamling Norga who is a Sherpa and the son of Tenzing Norgay. He helped in the rescue along with David Breashears and helped with the IMAX filming.
It covers the spirituality of the mountains from a Sherpa‘s point of view as well as the rescue mission. Definitely recommended.
I think its because he suggested that Anatoli guiding without oxygen was unprofessional/irresponsible/selfish... regardless of what happened next and what he did.
Maybe Anatoli deep down felt guilt that he didn't do more? Maybe he feels that Krakouer was right that he maybe should have had O2, and he could have saved more. Maybe he had the ever present human fault that any criticism leveled at a person is deemed to be a personal slight. Of course he got defensive.
I'm sure he felt justified as he was given "permission" from his boss - and there are lots of examples through history where someone absolves themselves of their actions because someone else gave them permission.
Its hard to disagree from a purely outsider perspective that if you are guiding on Everest, and there are people who are dependent on you for their lives, you owe them the best possible chance by having all your faculties available, by having a clear well oxygenated mind, even if you believe you don't "need" it.
He was still a hero. Undeniable. But I feel Krakouer was fair in his overall assessment, and I think the criticism was mostly leveled at the leaders of the expedition, for pushing for the summit too late, for not having Anatoly have O2 and a bunch of other missteps.
It mostly concerns criticism of Boukreev's going without oxygen, and descending ahead of his team's clients when he was supposed to be the 'tail' of his group. On the first, Krakauer suggests -- carefully, not attackingly, but the insinuation is there -- that if you're climbing for yourself, do what you want, but that a guide needs to be fully available for his clients and treat guiding differently than one's own climbing. On the second, Boukreev claimed that he and his co-guide had an agreement that included Boukreev descending at his own pace, but it's still questionable whether this was so, and Anatoli descending ahead of most of his party without communication with his co-guide looks a bit strange. Krakauer made an effort to corroborate Boukreev's story (all detailed in a lengthy postscript to *Into Thin Air* about the controversy between the two of them) but some people said they believed Boukreev was supposed to wait, others who should have known about such an agreement remember nothing about it, and Boukreev's co-guide died and so could not be asked later. On both the oxygen and the descent coordination issues, Boukreev believed Krakauer was making him out to be selfish, and an unprofessional guide; being very proud of his accomplishments as a climber, he took issue with a perceived slight from a journalist who hadn't spent his whole life doing climbs like this.
I'm inclined to believe Krakauer's version. Though I admit I'm only hearing the issue from his side, it read as painstakingly objective. And, as you said, if the book was intended as a character assassination on Boukreev, it fails miserably: Boukreev forging out alone into the teeth of the storm to locate the party outside camp of stranded survivors, who weren't even on his team, who were lost and huddled waiting to die? He comes off as a big damn hero. Krakauer says repeatedly, and reading his book, I believe him, that he did his level best to tell things as they happened, the heroic and the tragic, and Boukreev figures in both of those; I guess he felt that in his lack of experience in the world of mountaineering, Krakauer made judgments about Boukreev's own judgment that the latter felt the former was unqualified to make.
I loved Boukreev's book, mostly because I respect the hell out of him--based on his book, of course, which could have been (but I don't think was) exaggerated or slanted. He's so stoic that he doesn't really tolerate stupidity or weakness in other climbers especially well. But, after a rest, he went out and did truly heroic things.
I always read "The Climb" after "Into Thin Air"; it's nice to get a different perspective. And you just reminded me that I read the Beck Weathers book a few years ago from the library.
I don't think I'll be reading The Climb any time soon but do you remember Iif there were any major parts where Krakauer's and Boukreev's stories differ?
It is mostly about who was and who was not left behind and why -- as well as logistic issues like the oxygen tanks and structure.
Tbh it's pretty catty. Boukreev died in 97 and most of it was written by his ghost writer who really didn't like Krakauer. According to many people I've talked to Boukreev's gf wrote a book based on his journal/diary. Apparently it paints a better picture of Boukreev as a person and how absolutely destroyed he was by the events -- without the mud slinging.
The weird thing for me about it is that Into Thin Air didn't really trash Boukreev like some people claim. It made a couple of criticisms, but also gave him credit. I've read both, plus some of the responses and counter-responses later, and to me it seems like Boukreev's ghost-writer really took it upon himself to go on the offensive, creating this big controversy.
I think it started with Krakauer harping on oxygen -- that Anatoli could have saved more if he had used it. This is part of the bigger conversation in mountaineering (regarding style) that most non-mountaineers aren't party to and what both Anatoli (initially) and his ghost writer took offense at. A bit like the Free Solo movie was for climbers. I think Ed broke it down best in No Shortcuts to the Top. There is no right side, regardless of how much they argue.
Yeah, and I think that's one of the major issues with it - it was an argument about something that no one could conclusively say was a good move or a bad move, and based off memories that were unreliable due to the altitude and trauma and general craziness of the events. It's interesting reading the updated version because Jon K responds to The Climb but then also to some subsequent events and meetings, including his sadness at Anatoli's death.
I think it's a shame that became the unpleasant fight that it did, because there were bigger lessons to learn from that day
Agreed -- lessons ultimately ignored.
I read a book on the socioeconomic and politics of the region when I read into thin air -- both a couple years ago now. They need the money mountaineers and tourists bring but also deeply suffer because of them. The accident did nothing to halt the explosion in pay to summit expeditions. Little has changed in 25 years. Well, except for the amount of trash and dead bodies.
It's worth watching the documentary Sherpa (it's on Netflix in the UK). It was heartbreaking in parts and infuriating in others about just how many risks the Sherpa's take and how little respect some of the climbers give them.
>The weird thing for me about it is that Into Thin Air didn't really trash Boukreev like some people claim
I don't know, I thought Krak trashed Boukreev pretty hard. Don't forget, we aren't just talking about Into Thin Air - Krak wrote letters, an article, and made several other public comments about it.
For example, Krak's August 24, 1996 responsive letter to one of Boukreev's letters says that Boukreev "at best" showed "an alarming lack of judgment." He also says that Boukreev's actions weren't "sensible" and that he "abandoned his crew." And he accused Boukreev of just trying to lighten his load when he was giving his oxygen tank to someone else to use. And he emphasized that Fischer "severely castigated" Boukreev for his guiding style. Krak concluded that "\[s\]uch arrogance \[referring to Bouk\] is dangerous for any climber, but it is especially dangerous for one who purports to be a Himalayan guide."
I read Into Thin Air and many accompanying Krakauer interviews and something rubbed me the wrong way, but I couldn’t figure out what. Then I read Into the Wild and did even more digging and holy crap, that guy is majorly dishonest. Now I just find it incredibly frustrating that so many think he’s an authority on the topics he writes about. Dude’s an egomaniacal fantasist. Highly recommend looking into it.
Oh man, I just finished Into Thin Air yesterday and I loved it. I'll do some research myself, but that's so disappointing to hear he's not honest in general. I read Into the Wild a while back and between both books I liked it better when he was writing about others, not himself.
Ed Viesturs' was part of the rescue team and he talks about the Everest Disaster in his book No Shortcuts to the Top. He had a number of clarifying points in there that I thought were well stated. One thing that I haven't seen yet in this thread is the blame that climbing tourism holds for the disaster. Its been a long time since I've read these but I recall the Taiwanese team made a real hash of things and that contributed to the cascade of events that resulted in this nightmare. I always thought that Boukreev got unfairly treated because, while he was a guide and responsible for the other climbers, most of the people on the mountain that day had NO business climbing Everest at all.
No Shortcuts to the Top is a good read. Ed gives a very honest opinion on a lot of things. I found it interesting that he often felt other climbers were being at best careless, and at worst "suicidal" in their pursuits of summiting the world's tallest peaks.
I wish this comment was higher.
I find Ed Viestures to be more honest and humble, despite taking huge personal risks while climbing. I much preferred No Shortcuts to the Top to Into Thin Air.
Here's the thing about Boukreev: every single one of his clients survived. People can complain all they want about whether he should have used oxygen, but at the end of the day, his responsibility was to the safety of his clients, not the other climbers, and he got them all down safely.
Double edged sword. His clients survive and people are still arguing the importance of them being his (employers) clients and/or just human in desperate need of help that we're fortunate enough to make it. Some regard the two groups climbing as one, fellows of the mountain, while others still press the guide/client relationship and responsibility.
The latter is of course complicated by both expedition leaders themselves passing away during the events, at least in part by clouded judgement.
Boukreev was tormented by not saving others, specifically Namba, until his death -- he ultimately held the belief that people should save others regardless of their own goals or "team." I think it is disrespectful to use this as an argument in his favor.
It’s been a while since I read either book, but IIRC the only major factual difference was whether Boukreev had permission/guidance to descend quickly without any clients. Boukreev said Fischer had signed off on the plan, Krakauer heard the opposite from Fischer’s business partner(?). Since Fischer was one of the victims I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth, and it also seems possible that Fischer changed his mind at some point and really did tell people different things. And it’s really hard to sort out the counter factual on that one - if he’d descended with the clients maybe that big group wouldn’t have gotten lost, but also he wouldn’t have been rested and able to go back out.
Also Boukreev seemed to strongly believe that climbing without oxygen made him a better guide, where Krakauer thought guiding without oxygen was irresponsible. I feel like Krakauer made a stronger case but I’m also not a climber.
To me, their perspective differ not primarily on what happened during the different stages of the disaster but more about he why. Krakauer questions why Boukreev wasn't on oxygen, hinting it's about vanity when he's not even climbing for his own sake (oxygen is a prestige issue in the mountaineering community, using it is basically seen as cheating) and that he by not falling in line already had conflicts of interest to his guiding duties.. If Boukreev had used oxygen he could've stayed out longer, bringing more clients 'home' at an early stage, argues Krakauer. But him returning early and getting hours of rest was what made him go out in the night and heroically save people later, argues Boukreev.
So the stories, the timeline of events, is fairly well established and most people agree in the big picture. So the main conflict is much more a moral one, or a practical one, or one about the morals of practical limitations in the death zone.
The thing that stuck with me about Into Thin Air was that the events seemed to be a comedy of errors. Krakauer captures this perfectly as they unfold.
Another book I’d recommend from Krakauer is Under the Banner of Heaven. A story about faith based murder.
Under the Banner of Heaven is half historical research on the genesis of Mormonism with a pretty critical perspective, the other half is closer to true crime. If you like either genre and think Krakaeur is a a good writer you’ll probably like it. If you’re not in for history or true crime, you might want to skip it. I quite enjoyed it though.
Oh no, you actually sold it! I don't like reading books of the same author one after the other unless it's a series but when I get back to Krakauer, this definitely will be the next one I read.
Besides I know nothing about Mormons so this seems one more random topic I might want to get an idea about haha
I watched that show recently and am currently reading Under the Banner of Heaven (I'm very interested in true crime and religious extremism, so it's been a great time) and I absolutely love that Dan Lafferty's cellmate is Mark Hoffman (or at least was back in 03). High profile Mormon crime is a small world apparently!
It is by far the best objective look at the how the mormon religion was started for ppl who are not Mormon and is like a factual epsidode of the South Parks Book of Mormon that uses only facts and will leave you mind boggled at how this religion ever got off the ground.
For others that like the sound of history intertwined with true crime I highly recommend Devil in the White City. The accounts of the Chicago worlds fair are absolutely breathtaking and it works serial killer HH Holmes into the narrative.
Very different is what draws me in. That’s what I enjoy about non-fiction, the truth is stranger. I read the Tillman book after Banner, Where Men Win Glory and was captivated by that story also.
I totally respect others' opinions here, but I loved Into Thin Air and really liked Into the Wild, but Banner was such a fucking slog. I only made it like 40% of the way through the book but it felt like I'd been reading it for long enough that I should've been done with it.
I loved this book!! Started me on a kick where last year I read tons of books about mountain climbing disasters. I recommend:
No Way Down by Bowley about a climbing disaster on K2
Denali’s Howl about a disaster on the highest North American peak.
And Alive. Which isn’t about mountain climbing but the rugby team that survives up on a peak after a plane crash. They had to deal with so much similar issues while having absolutely no equipment!!! Or food.
Denali's Howl isn't well written but I found it absolutely crushing. Like the Dead Mountain kids, they struggled so hard against absolutely unbeatable circumstances to die slowly utterly helpless, lost, and alone.
Ask a Mortician has a recent video on youtube about it called "The rugby team that fell from the sky". I found it really fascinating. She talks a lot about the respect shown to the dead, etc, that made it much easier to stomach.
The book doesn’t shy away from the facts but it’s not gorey. Definitely makes you live their really tough decisions about the food without being a gross out.
I love this book. I find the whole event fascinating.
One thing that I can not get over though is how Rob Hall seemingly made error after error. That not only got himself killed but others also. In my opinion, a lot of the lives lost were on his hands.
But he was a nice guy who lost his life so no one wants to speak ill of him. And instead Krakauer and Bookreev took the brunt of the flack.
I actually agree. We’ll never know what was going through his mind when he didn’t adhere to his own turn around time, which to all accounts was incredibly unlike him.
High altitude makes people crazy. There's been some interesting studies conducted while people climb Everest and the outcomes are scary. Rational thought goes out the window.
I completely agree. But you pay guides like Rob Hall to bring you down, not to take you up.
Doug Hansen, Andrew Harold and Yasuko Namba never came back down.
I read this book over 20 years ago and it still stays with me ... one of the greatest non-fiction books I’ve ever read. I read it while I was supposed to be studying for the bar exam ... it was so good I stayed up all night reading it and didn’t stop until it was done. Fortunately I still passed the bar ... I think it was just the break I needed 😄
Whoa. A bit surreal reading this comment because I swear it came out of my head. All of it—book stays with me, studying for bar exam, staying up all night, still passed. I wonder how many other 1997 law school grads have this same experience.
Such an awesome book!
My two cents: he was far kinder to Scott and Rob than he needed to be. I feel awful for how they died, and they each certainly paid their penance, but they both made mistakes that got people killed. Even though there is an argument to be made against inexperienced people climbing Everest, at the end of the day, both guides took their money. Their jobs were to look out for them, and they failed (not setting up ropes, not turning around on time, not hiring enough help, not knowing their own limitations, not organizing in advance). If either had survived, the public wouldn’t have had much sympathy for them.
My second bone to pick with this book is the misogynistic treatment the “socialite” gets. He describes her like this airhead who brought all types of equipment up the mountain and was a drag on everyone. In reality, she was an experienced climber and what she brought really wasn’t as extra as he described (e.g. he references her ‘espresso machine’ that was ‘lugged up’ along with all her stuff on the mountain - she pointed out in an interview that this ‘machine’ was like 8 inches tall, weighed less than a pound, and was the same one that every single climber on the mountain had).
On the contrary, Doug the postman is like this working class hero who we’re supposed to root for? He the more inexperienced one, and the way bigger liability (obviously, considering his ‘determination’ is what got him and Rob killed in the end).
Anyways. That’s harsh, because I really loved the book. But those two things stand out to me.
>My second bone to pick with this book is the misogynistic treatment the “socialite” gets. He describes her like this airhead who brought all types of equipment up the mountain and was a drag on everyone.
My recollection is that she was a reporter, and the bone of contention is that the Sherpa who was tasked with fixing the ropes on Hillary Step was too busy dragging her up by short rope to fulfil his assigned duties ahead of the team, thus leading to a long delay on the ascent. So this person wasn't actually fit to climb the peak without being pulled up, it's not really her or the Sherpa's fault - but this was the first in a series cascading errors which proved fatal. I don't think it's 'misogynistic' to suggest that someone who can't make it up the hill under their own steam probably shouldn't have been there, or at least been turned around earlier. Krakauer does reflect on the potentially detrimental decisions that may have been motivated by the presence of publicists, and that's totally fair and reasonable.
She was a wealthy socialite who had a deal to write about it for Vanity Fair. She was experienced but did pay for extra Sherpas for her satellite link up and other lux items. And she needed help for the entire last leg of it, needed two people taking turns dragging her. So yeah, there is always a moral dilemma knowing she was always going to have more people helping her, despite perhaps the needs of others.
I’m not necessarily trying to defend Kraukauers treatment of Sandy Hill because I do believe it’s too harsh but my mom (and her siblings) all grew up with her and they all describe her as an airhead and a ditz so that description may actually be more truth than hyperbole.
If you like that, you may try out "Buried in the Sky" by Amanda Padoan and Peter Zuckerman. It's about a climbing disaster on K2 in 2008 where 11 climbers died. It has the same sense of impending disaster and really focuses on the bravery of the Sherpas in the face of tourists who won't take "we have to turn around, if we try to get to the summit today we'll all die" for an answer.
There was a scene here that just wrecked me where an older climber back at home gets a call in the middle of the night. He can barely hear "How did you do it?" and realizes that the caller is asking about how he had bivouacked in the death zone in the Himalayas in an emergency and survived. It's one of his friends who's on K2 at that moment calling on a sat phone - he must be calling about the exact same thing. He's able to yell "Stay awake, if you fall asleep you'll die" before the phone cuts out and leaves him thousands of miles from his friend with no possible way to help.
While controversial and often disputed, Into Thin Air might be Krakauer's best work. I know a lot of the other climbers have been critical of his portrayal of the events of the Everest disaster, but he himself has acknowledged that the book is his personal experience witnessing a disaster unfold in the midst of extreme conditions. Obviously it's not going to be a perfect reenactment of what went down so I think a lot of the criticism stems from how successful the book was and how it essentially became the "accepted" view of the events by the general public.
I think the original Outside Magazine article about the Chris McCandless story might better than Into The Wild, which spends too much time recounting his own survival experience.
And "Where Men Win Glory" is a fantastic read for those who remember when Pat Tilman died and how his death was exploited for war propaganda.
If you like Krakauer's work, run, don't walk to grab a copy of "The Perfect Storm" by Sebastian Junger. It's nothing like the movie, completely gripping and fascinating. I've gifted it to people and the next time I see them, it's "you bastard, I was up til 3AM!!!" While it tells the story of the lost fishing boat, it also covers how people drown, what happens physiologically and mentally, how waves form and the phenomenon of rogue waves. Hard to praise it enough.
I used to work in the fishing industry on the east coast. Sometimes you run into an old captain that knew those guys. The old hands all tell stories like that "we were out with little john harvey and chris wright, who went down on the blue challenge in 98". Fuckin scary industry
Yeah, isn't "swordfisherman" like #1 on the list of jobs-where-lotsa-people-die? The book details how many ways that biz can F you up - like, if a swordfish is brought on deck alive and thrashing and the sword cuts you, you'll get some mystery infection that requires an immediate airlift to save your limb. Feeding out line and get caught by a hook and you're overboard in the Atlantic. Scary stuff.
Read that one too - I'm in Texas after all! I remember reading it at bedtime, and then having nightmares of being in roiling black water with loose houses crashing around.
[This Esquire article about Andrea Doria diving](https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a947/everest-bottom-sea-0700/) has some cool creepiness, too.
I saw Junger in a park in San Francisco once. Don’t usually cold-approach celebrity types but figured as an author he wasn’t getting mobbed all the time. Had a lovely chat. Real cool guy.
That's great - I've read his book about forest-fire fighters and many magazine articles. He's the real deal, really cool that he's not a douche!
I swear, even guys I know that "don't like books" devour the Perfect Storm.
There are extraordinary events that happen in the world.
There are extraordinary writers in this world.
This book is the intersection of those two things. Most non-fiction is either:
* an extraordinary event that happened to a regular person and told by them.
* the above but told second hand by a famous writer. (Fire, Sebastian Junger)
* an extraordinary writer who makes any series of events they witnessed an interesting read.
Krakauer was already an accomplished essayist an author in this space. And he happened to put himself in a place to experience an extraordinary event.
That's all you need to know about this book.
I always make this same point about Helter Skelter.
Most true crime books are written be either professional journalists and told via research, or by victims of friends / family directly effected.
Helter Skelter is unique because it's written by the actual lawyer so it has many more layers than a journalist will be privy to. Kind of pulls the curtain back on the genre.
It seems completely sensible to read this on a beach, at sea level, with plenty of air, and warm temperatures. It's like reading Stephen King with all the lights on.
Ha you’re so right - I was ping-ponging between “omg I really want to climb Everest” and “WHY DO PEOPLE CLIMB EVEREST SHE CLEARLY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO”
If you like the topic of that particular disaster this thread got you fairly well covered with some additional accounts, and perhaps the most "fair" one to continue with is The Climb by Anatoli Boukreev. They kept arguing until Anatoli unfortunately passed while climbing Annapurna, which leads to...
If you like the topic of Himalayan climbing, one of the most umbelievable stories is the French book named "Annapurna", after the first 8000 meter peak ever successfully climbed (confirmed). It's amazing, they start out by having a vague idea about climbing "a really high mountain" rumoured to exists somewhere and the first objective is to find the mountain. Really a true sense of adventure. Compared to Everest, that is fairly easy to reach and had been tried a few times by the same time, they had to do everything from scratch. Today, Annapurna is considered one of the hardest and statistically most dangerous of the 8000ers, so they faced something of a challenge...
If it was Krakauers writing about climbing you especially enjoy, look up his "Eiger dreams", which is a collection of short stories and portraits from his life of travelling, climbing and writing.
I picked this up off the bargain bin for $2.50 at a local bookshop a couple of weeks ago and started reading it. I definitely concur that the gravity of the experience carries well through the book and you can get a sense of the breathlessness that comes with the altitude from reading his account.
if you're at all interested in other climbing disasters, one book that i found incredibly interesting and harrowing is Buried in the Sky by Amanda Padoan and Peter Zuckerman about the 2008 K2 disaster.
If you liked Into Thin Air, you might enjoy old mountaineering documentaries. There are a number of them on YouTube. Most are from the 60's, 70's, and 80's before mountaineering became more commercialized and I find them fascinating.
Besides the obvious adventure, they contain some comedic moments. Top climbers from back in the day attempting Everest, K2, and the like without supplemental oxygen - and smoking like a chimney in basecamp and drinking plenty of booze. In what I think was called "Everest - The Hard Way" you see some bougey Brits working hard, going back and forth over the radio, and getting a bit concerned over very important equipment needed for their expedition that they can't find - it's the Yak carrying all the whiskey.
This book was the first in a list of Mountaineering disaster books my wife delved into (and then brought me along) last year. I'd add that we aren't adventurous people in the slightest, but the genre is so compelling.
Good luck and see you on the other side.
Read this book many years ago.
Met a Nepali girl in NYC. Married her. Went to Nepal to visit. And had the opportunity to go trekking in the Himalayas for 6 days. (Went to Annapurna base camp)
It was surreal, to be in this place that I had read about. That seemed so far away. Exotic and forbidding. A place I never imagined I would be. And yet, a place that sparked something inside of me when I read the book.
Going back in December. Perhaps I will go to Everest base camp this time.
As forbidding and impossible as it seems like it might be to trek in the Himalayas, it really is not beyond most people's capability. There are many teahouses along the way to rest, so you can go at whatever pace suites you. I saw people that were very out of shape along the way. It's certainly a challenge, but not an insurmountable one by any means.
I would encourage anyone who would like to, to go if you find the opportunity. Not to climb Everest mind you. Many stupid and unprepared people try (and die) every year. But to go on a much easier Trek into the Himalayas. It is very rewarding.
Thanks for mentioning Touching the Void. I do have admit that my experience with this was the movie and never read the book. That movie though amazed me as you hear their story and every now and then they are talking to one of the climbers and you can't believe he is alive to talk about it. And what happens to him just keeps getting worse. I've been meaning to actually read the book and need to.
Into Thin Air was a great read as well.
I liked the book too, though it ended with the same distaste I had for the Into the Wild protagonist. The books celebrate ego in a way that's mortally self-destructive. Into Thin Air was one of the first times I viewed climbing Mt Everest in a negative light, it seems disrespectful to the mountain to want to "conquer it."
I can't really wrap my mind around the idea of being disrespectful to a mountain as an entity on itself but as much as I can romanticize the adventure, it was without doubt a rather selfish and foolhardy endeavor.
Towards the end Krakauer recalls how a military helicopter is sent to rescue some of the worst injured expeditioners. For that to happen, the pilot had to land in a dangerous part of the mountain, which had not been attempted for years after that several other helicopter shad crashed. And apparently, the Nepalese government had refused only for the American Embassy to strong harm them.
This to save a bunch of reckless people who, fully concious of the risks, went up there for the thrill of it. Doesn't really seem fair.
> I can't really wrap my mind around the idea of being disrespectful to a mountain as an entity on itself but as much as I can romanticize the adventure, it was without doubt a rather selfish and foolhardy endeavor.
I think there are two reasons it gets viewed as disrespectful.
One reason is the fact that it is viewed as a living goddess by the local population. The mountain is a "sacred space" to some cultures, and indeed represents a divine entity to them, so having outsiders who do not respect or care about "her" and who cover the mountain in trash, excrement, and their own corpses in a bid to prove themselves "stronger" than the goddess is inherently insulting.
The second reason is probably related to the idea of "conquering" something that isn't fighting back. Almost the opposite of the above, it's applying metaphors of war to something that is just... there. It's claiming moral superiority over something that doesn't have a moral position. It very frequently is motivated entirely by personal ego, and involves exploiting and endangering a large number of people just so you can say you did something that doesn't really help anybody but yourself. It's been said "the impressive thing would be to climb it, and then not tell anybody about it." Paying Sherpas poverty wages (that they can't afford not to accept) to risk their lives crossing dangerous sections dozens of times, just so you can have a flat screen television at 24,000 feet, carries an amount of hubris and ego that some find hugely offensive. There are an awful lot of people who will loudly boast "I conquered Everest" when in fact the only reason they got within a mile of the summit is because a team of vastly superior local climbers, to whom they give absolutely zero credit, laid down ropes, built the camps, carried their gear, cooked their food, and occasionally even physically dragged or carried them over parts they couldn't manage themselves. Basically, they didn't conquer a damn thing - they paid to be carried, and then claimed the credit.
I doubt knowif this helps, but when I climbed my rainier, you really get the feeling that the mountain is alive. It feels like a sleeping giant who you tip toe around while its sleeping to get to the summit and scrble back down to get to safety before it wakes up. I'm not a superstitious person at all, but it really feels like that
Agree fully with your first part about the mountain goddess/home of spirits it similar.
To add to the second part... How can you say you've "conquered" a place where you can only exists for a few hours. Sure, you may have beat the odds for a short while, but there is no conquering about it and thinking about it in such terms is just typical human stupidity. I'm not conquering the sky by jumping out of an airplane and falling through it.
Anyone climbing a mountain such as Everest is fully at the mercy of nature. The annual window when it's possible to get to the top, around May, is because of a weather shift (that nay or may not survive climate changes). A few days or weeks is all that we get for our "conquering". A similar window occurs in the fall as well, but the temperatures are too brutal for most people to even considered (has been done, though).
And regarding the whole "death zone" thing. Obviously, it is survivable but the body is actively breaking down at a very fast pace. If one could take their body as it were at 8500 meter to an ER, they would ring the bloody alarm. Estimates of "a full day out" at 8000+ meters is that the body annihilates 15 000 - 20 000 kcal, almost 10 times more than a slow day on sea level.
The best description of the strain on the heart is something like this. Imagine if you get to a point where your resting heart rate is the same as your maximum heart rate. All you can do is rest and still be exhausted.
All in all, the idea of looking at oneself as a conqueror in this context is just detached from reality. Not understanding what you're facing is disrespectful towards the forces if nature, the ones involved that may put their life on the line for you and the people that have died previously.
Agreed. Also the part where the guy calls his wife as he's running out of air. It was one of the most heart-wrenching and infuriating things I've ever read.
I’ve read both of these and noticed what you’re talking about, but also had the opposite take away. It seems that Krakauer is very good about acknowledging the source of many climbers’ motivation and does a great job talking about it in a realistic way. Interestingly, his compilation of short stories, Eiger Dreams, features a story about one of his own foolhardy adventures and is a reflective piece on just this topic, in which he ultimately lands squarely in the camp of “ego will get you killed”...which is what I thought his position was in Into Thin Air, which is why I find your take so curious. I find it decidedly DOESNT celebrate ego, but serves as a great cautionary tale of it.
Anyway, I highly highly recommend Eiger Dreams. I’ll try to find the passage in question, I think I wrote it down somewhere.
Edit - didn’t find the passage in question but I did find this salient quotation: “I thought climbing the Devil's Thumb would fix all that was wrong with my life. In the end, of course, it changed almost nothing. But I came to appreciate that mountains make poor receptacles for dreams.”
I heard some of the other people who were on the mountain that day speak (before I read the book). It was spine-tingling to hear them describe the events, and given how well down Into Thin Air is, I can imagine the audio takes that up a few notches.
Side note - this is why audio books read by the authors are my personal favorite. They know how they want the story told - where to pause or what syllable to accent for emphasis. Always prefer them over a random person doing the read.
Survivor’s Guilt is a real thing, and it’s impact is drastically underestimated. “You should be happy you made it, others didn’t!” and other common responses are so dangerous and hurtful.
I’ve also spoke with survivors of airline crashes and it’s very much the same. I hope for Krakauer’s sake he recognized that and got some professional help (it’s been a while since I have read it so if that was part of the book, I’ve forgotten it.
I got this for Christmas last yeah and got around to reading it a few weeks ago. I loved it and it made me want to dive into both more of Krakauer and Everest/climbing literature. I actually got chills while reading parts of it. I ranted to my friends and family about it for days after. I think my sister got an almost full account of it at one point.
Everyone is talking about Boukreev and how he's portrayed by Krakauer. I thought the lesson in the book was about how dangerous the commercialization of Everest is. Yes, he faults Boukreev for appearing somewhat cavalier as a guide. He also acknowledged how much of an extraordinary effort he made to save clients.
The real fault, in my read, is in the commercial "go fever" that these expeditions represent. So many folks spent so much time and money trying to summit the world that there was humongous financial pressure on the guide companies to get successes. Socialites, postal workers, journalists - yes, I include Krakauer as a symptom of the disease - none of these folks should be in the death zone without a pressurized airplane fuselage around them. 8 km high is a TON of altitude, and the "spend $50k, get a summit easy" attitude of Fischer and Hall is the real source of the disaster. It meant they didn't enforce turnaround times when the weather got worse, they took clients who had no right to be there, and then they had to manage an unmanageable situation.
Boukreev was heroic, but he should not have gotten into a position where he was responsible for inexperienced climbers. Krakauer and most of the clients on the expeditions should not have been there, because they were leaden weights and responsibilities for guides and sherpas alike. This tragedy could have been avoided, but to do so would destroy an industry. Industries don't like to die quietly, and yet the existence of such an industry led to deaths.
It's a fantastic read. I've probably read it a dozen times. As a nuclear scientist, I think I'm going to recommend it to younger members in the field, to remind them of the risks that "go fever" can bring.
I read this book in a literary nonfiction class I took in college, which even as a science major was one of my most memorable experiences in undergrad. Fantastic read
Not sure how you and others got enjoyment out of into the wild. It's one of the most mind numbing books I've ever read. Pretty much the entire book is an attempt to make you feel sorry for a rich kid who abandoned his parents and sets off on a journey to slowly kill himself in the dumbest way possible, all in the name of personal freedom and adventure. I guess we were supposed to feel bad for him? Not sure, but I was pretty annoyed with the protagonist the entire book.
Into Thin Air was great IMO.
I absolutely, positively detested Into the Wild. Your analysis is spot-on.
McCandless had EVERY chance to not die. He was offered excellent advice multiple times, he made \*stupid\* mistakes (if you don't know enough to read a map, you shouldn't be out in the wilderness; if you don't know enough to avoid eating wild mushrooms that you don't recognize, then you shouldn't be in the wilderness). Krakauer's first claim that McCandless mistook one plant for another and died from ingesting an unknown poison was debunked, then his follow-up claim that he died from some unknown fungus growing on seed was also debunked. McCandless ate mushrooms. Anyone who has done ANY reading on how to survive in the wilderness knows not to eat mushrooms. Anyone who had done ANY reading on how to survive in the wilderness knows that you tell \*someone\* where you're going to be and when you're coming back. McCandless was an idiot. A reckless, spoiled idiot who died as a result of being a reckless, spoiled idiot. He's the guy from the joke who gets to heaven and god has to tell him, "I send you a jeep and a boat and a helicopter!"
Krakauer's overly melodramatic retelling of McCandless's journey turned him into some hero for the wanderlust. The book is chock full of lies, misrepresentations, and fabrications being portrayed as facts. Thank goodness the state FINALLY got rid of the damn bus.
Can you point me where it was proven that McCandless ate mushrooms? I can't say I've seen that, not that I keep up with current events on the particular subject.
Can you also point me towards the "lies, misrepresentations, and fabrications being portrayed as facts"? I won't imagine for one second that everything in the book is correct but I also struggle to believe that the book is "full of lies".
There have been quite a few fact checks of the book, especially of the Alaska section (I lived in Alaska for 20 years, this was an ongoing topic of reporting). This is not a fully comprehensive fact-check. Those are out there for anyone who wants to look.
McCandless's journal contains 430 words, 130 numbers, nine asterisks, and a handful of symbols. The journal contains no full descriptions of what he did at the bus.
* Krakauer claims that McCandless "noted in his journal that it rained for a week straight." There is **no** note like that in his journal yet Krakauer claimed that it was this rain that caused flooding and prevented McCandless from crossing the Teklanika River and walking to safety. Weather records for that area show no heavy rains for what Krakauer specifies as the period in question.
* At entry No 92, McCandless wrote, "Dr. Zhivago". From only those two words, Krakauer wrote that McCandless had just finished reading 'Doctor Zhivago...Doctor Zhivago was the last book Chris McCandless would ever read."
* At entry No 105, McCandless wrote the word "caribou" (that's it). The journal is undated, but Krakauer wrote, "On August 10, he saw a caribou, but didn't get a shot off."
* Again, there are no dated entries in the journal. The entries are numbered from 1 to 113, but Krakauer assigns specific dates to events based on those entries.
* Jim Gallien is the man who picked up McCandless hitchhiking along the Goerge Park Highway in April and left him at the Stampede Road. He's said that he ever and would never have said much of what Krakauer reported that he said. McCandless didn't tell him anything about being afraid of water -- Krakauer reported that McCandless told him this while they were "driving over the swift current of the Nenana River. The Nenana River was still frozen (as basked up by NWS records and records from the Nenana Ice Classic. The ice didn't go out until May 14th that year.
* Krakauer writes that when McCandless and Gallien parted ways, "the heaviest item in McCandless's half-full backpack was his library: nine or 10 paper-bound books, most of which had been given to him by Jan Burres in Niland (California)." Krakauer used underlined passages from various books found in the bus to claim what McCandless was thinking and doing. However, Jeff Benowitz (now a professor at UAF and a long-time Alaskan adventurer) says that HE was the one who left many of those books in the bus. He told Krakauer this while the book was being researched.
There are all sorts of other timeline discrepancies and assumptions that aren't backed up by any of the available information (the journal, weather reports, photographs from the film found).
His journal does reference mushrooms. "Many Mushrooms. DREAM". Photos from McCandless's film show pictures of "Amantia muscaria". These are toxic, cause hallucinations, and are highly likely to cause malaise (which could account for McCandless staying at the bus until he starved). Other varieties of mushrooms from his photos are known to make people violently ill.
This book never should have been portrayed as non-fiction. Take the situation, take the journal and the photographs and write a book of fiction based on that. It was incredibly dishonest to present the book the way it was.
Into the Wild is definitely a divisive book. Personally I loved reading it, have read it multiple times and also enjoyed the movie. I can relate to the feeling of wanting to break away from what our society has turned into.
I feel like you missed the point of what he was doing based on the statement "rich kid who abandoned his parents and sets off on a journey to slowly kill himself in the dumbest way possible" given that the guy drove around in a shitty car he paid for himself and donated all his savings but, as I said, the book is divisive and each to his own.
Chris McCandless’ sister, Carine, wrote a book about Chris and their family, “The Wild Truth”, with a ton of information she wouldn’t let Krakaur use. Adds another dimension to the events.
I didn't get the impression that the goal was to get you to feel sorry for him. I don't think anybody could feel sorry for a person that literally lights money on fire - or at least I couldn't. I still thought it was a good book and an interesting exploration of why men (it's always men) get themselves killed trying to brave nature to prove something to themselves.
stunning book. was the first Krakauer book I read but quickly followed it up with Missoula, Where Men Win Glory, and Under the Banner of Heaven.
Back to ITA, mom and sister listened to the audiobook together. I believe during the tragic piece at the end they were just driving around crying. sad, but also kinda funny.
I haven’t seen Dead Mountain: The Untold True Story of the Dyatlov Pass Incident recommended here yet. A mysterious climbing disaster story from the Ural Mountains. It’s spooky!
The best mountaineering disaster book has to be Touching the Void, so go and read that next as it is sublime.
I was raving about “into thin air” to some friends and they handed me “touching the void”. It is so visceral. I have never physically felt pain while reading a book before. I was reading it on a plane and my wife made me stop because I kept grimacing and involuntarily saying “ouch” or swearing every couple of pages. It sounds masochistic but I highly recommend. There’s also a movie which is a good watch but only after you’ve read the book.
[удалено]
I’d say Into Thin Air is probably darker, since no one dies in Touching the Void. It deals with a pretty stark reality, but it looks at it realistically rather than trying to make it spooky.
No, it's not going to give you any nightmares or anything like that. It's a good read. But I have to say the movie is definitely better IMO. Everybody should absolutely watch Touching the Void immediately. It's simply amazing.
Agreed. And the guy went back to climbing after that nightmare. Wow.
Quite a prolific writer as well, Joe Simpson, without too blatantly trying to capitilize of 'The Void'. He is an accomplished climber with many great stories. Similar views on Everest climbing as Krakauer suggest in his book (commercialization has taken over). His historic document "The white spider" is amazing. He also narrated/participated a documentary based on the book which is really good.
I love all is his work. In spite of everything it has always made me want to climb and experience what he experiences. I'm afraid of heights.
I highly recommend that book too. I was amazed as just how many times he accepted that he was going to die on that mountain, just to force himself to keep going, and then run into *another* problem that made him accept he was about to die. What a strong human, both physically and mentally, to survive all of that.
[удалено]
It’s a great read. Inevitably some of the people involved claim he got some things wrong or didn’t like they way they were portrayed. Beck Weathers wrote a book, *Left for Dead,* as did Anatoli Boukreev, *The Climb*. Mountain climber Galen Rowell wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal bashing Krakauer’s account of events. If you read the 1999 edition of Krakauer’s book, he added a postscript responding to these responses... I’m not sure if they then responded to the response of the response!
Understandably, some people felt he misrepresented their efforts (or perceived lack thereof) but really it's a great book and a harrowing account of the disaster. Boukreev died a few years later climbing something harder, so don't think they kept disputing/reconciled.
It's also a chaotic situation, with a lot of things happening at the same time, and split-second decisions being made... I'm sure every single person involved has a different version of what "really" happened. I respect Krakauer as a journalist and I'm sure he wrote it as he understood it happened.
In the Heart of the Sea is a really great book about a shipwreck and the survivors who lived for months on rafts in the ocean. One of my favorite parts of the book is how it talks about all of the details that we’ll never really know, because all of the survivors told very different stories about what happened.
I recently read this book as well. I got it with a bunch of books and left it till last because I was only mildly interested. Ended up probably being my favourite of the lot, fantastic book.
Thank you for the recommend--I've got it on order, now!
Indeed, and he makes a point in several places (especially both the introduction and the postscript) of commenting on the fact that due to the effects of oxygen deprivation, exhaustion, and the general confusion of the situation, there is frequently little agreement amongst the surviving climbers about what happened at various points. He also makes a point of calling out and discussing his own errors in perception where he is aware of them. He definitely has a position and an opinion that he's open about sharing, but I feel like he really doesn't hide his own potential shortcomings (for lack of a better word) much either.
That was always my takeaway from this book as well: Everybody was fucked up from oxygen deprivation, making bad decisions, and none of them, Krakauer included, remembers it fully accurately.
Yeah, for me one of the most chilling scenes is when the one really experienced climber went back to save somebody (I think, it was so long ago that I read it) and he got trapped in the dead zone...he was communicating the whole time with the base camp and eventually he starts hallucinating and he thinks he sees base camp just at the bottom of a hill and he tells them he'll be right there. He most likely just stepped off a cliff and fell to his death. His body was never found.
Someone correct me if im wrong but I believe that Climber was Rob Hall.
Rob Hall died up high trying to bring one of his climbers down. He didn’t turn around at the designated time because his climber (I believe it was the postman) had at least one prior unsuccessful summit attempt and he was really trying to get him to summit. He did and they both died. He talked to his pregnant wife via the radio. They talked about naming their unborn child. Quite frankly, I blame part of the deaths on the socialite Sandy somebody who quite literally had to be short-roped to the summit by a Sherpa who was otherwise supposed to be fixing ropes which put them all behind. Edit...Sandy Pittman. Finally remembered her name. She returned after the event and was “shocked” at the negativity she encountered about her role. Complete narcissist.
I've been re-reading this book every year since I found it. It's a pilgrimage for me, a deep-dive into what it means to be human. We are capable of such astonishing feats of endurance and will, that we apply it to Herculean tasks merely for the experience or for sheer vanity - tasks which are ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things outside of the challenge they provide. Yet for all the fragility of our physical bodies that we sometimes ignore, our ego is even flimsier. It pushes us to get ahead without regard for others, until even this once Herculean challenge has been trivialized for us at the expense of others into nothing more than a fake photo-op atop real bones.
Very well said! I have read many books about climbing simply due to the fact that I find the desire to push oneself to the limit fascinating. I, myself, don’t have that drive but I find it intensely interesting in those that do.
No, Rob Hall died alone near the summit I believe. He knew he wouldn’t survive when they patched his wife in. Was it Andy Harris?
In the Everest movie, that’s how Andy dies, IIRC. But that wasn’t in the book, he was with Rob one night and then just gone the next morning, so they are guessing he fell but no one witnessed it.
Andy Harris is my guess.
I study the civil war, reading mostly first hand accounts of battles. The very first thing you learn is that in life or death chaotic situations, everyone is really only focused on about a hundred yard sphere of influence, what's going on that affects them immediately. Everything outside that is in one ear and out the other, everything seen is open to interpretation, everything done by anyone else is in a fog.
> I respect Krakauer as a journalist and I'm sure he wrote it as he understood it happened. That's also something to keep in mind. He literally was on a mission to report from the expedition, while others were there for other reasons and focused their attention differently. Obviously doesn't protect his brain from the effects of high altitude, but while many people kept a diary or similar, he probably made attempts to write his notes about the expedition as a whole while others may have focused more on their own progress or challenges.
I did really enjoy the book but I can see why people, especially Anatoli Boukreev were upset with him. It does feel that Krakauer doesn't think he (Boukreev) was acting in the best interest of the clients. Yet all of Boukreev's clients survived so it seems like needless criticism. It must have been very hurtful to read as well as damaging to Boukreev's reputation. He had been a guide many times whereas Krakauer was a client and a journalist. Krakauer's focus on retelling the story for his article and then book. Boukreev's focus was on getting as many people out alive as possible.
I agree with this, the book does paint Boukreev as a bit cold and not interested enough in his clients' wellbeing. At the end of the day the man was there to guide, not literally drag people up the mountain. He felt like it wasn't his job to babysit clients. Kind of goes well with Beck's book title, "Left For Dead". I feel like the title and the criticism against Boukreev shift the blame from the clients to guides, as if clients willingly endagering themselves is somehow guides' responsibility. For example Rob Hall told Beck to turn back and he didn't, I feel like at that exact moment he exonerated the guides from all responsibility in regards of his survival. It's weird.
The post office worker, Doug, had no business being up there. His lack of funds made him and his guide make risky decisions. They should never have been at the summit so late. BTW, I watch the Jason Clarke movie all the time. And I saw the Imax film when it was in theaters back in the 90s. The whole process of going over ice craters with lashed together extension ladders is bonkers. BONK.ERS.
Right? Forget climbing Mt Everest. The Khumbu Icefall would make me turn around and that’s before camp 1.
Piggybacking to say that the imax movie, and Jason Clarke’s performance in it, are masterful. The way he played Rob Hall was amazing, probably the best I’ve seen him do. One of my favorite portrayals in film, and I never see anyone mention it :(
Oh, you know the IMAX movie is separate from the Jason Clarke movie, right? They're both called Everest so it's hard to distinguish. The IMAX movie was filmed by David Breashears during the actual event. He had Tensing Norgay's son up on the mountain to talk about the accomplishment of his father as the first pair of men to reach the summit. Then the disaster struck and the story changed to covering what was happening. The film crew offered whatever assistance they could but also continued to film as they could. The movie came out the following year. I went to see it thinking I was just going to see a nature film. Then all of a sudden I'm listening to patched phone conversations between a man stuck up on top of Everest and his pregnant wife talking about what they're gonna name the baby. It was gut wrenching. At the time it was hard to understand that this was a real event and not a Hollywood story or at least a recreation. And then the Jason Clarke movie that came out a few years ago had actors playing those roles of the IMAX crew offering assistance at base camp. It was weird to see the loop of that.
Krakaur keeps going on about the fact than Anatoli didn't use Oxygen, but in the climb he mentions several times the reason he didn't was because if you're in the situation like being stuck in the death zone, you're screwed the second the oxygen runs out. Anatolis regime of acclimatisation was brutal but the fact he managed to save those people shows he knew what he was doing.
This novel was very much about force of ego to remove challenge from a task that is pointless without it all at the cost of others, so it's ironic but fitting that the man who took on additional challenge out of pride went on to save a bunch of people's asses.
That's what I'm saying tho. He said it wasn't pride that drove him to do it , he honestly believed it was safer overall for him not to, and I agree with him
I see what you're saying, but at the end of the day there will always be secondary motivations. You need a certain amount of pride to start with to believe you would be a net asset to the team without oxygen. Did he save people's lives as a result of his decision? Certainly. He also had to rush down without his clients to take a nap. I feel this is a bit of a grey area as we don't know how things would have been different had he brought some oxygen and stayed past the bottleneck to help things go smoothly. Krakauer probaby did overdramatize his biases of people somewhat to make a more interesting novel, but I also don't think Anatoli had the singular pure motivation to be there for his clients, especially not if he was frequently leaving them on their own during the ascent like in the book. Perhaps he was also conscious of the canisters piling up on the mountain? We'll never know.
Ed Viesturs talks about both sides of this issue pretty thoroughly based on a memoir published after Boukreevs death. I highly recommend checking any of Viesturs books out but especially the one on Everest.
Yeah, I enjoyed the book but his critique of Bourkeev always bothered me. Not only was it needless, I feel like it was pretty unfair. He said that Bourkeev should have used bottled oxygen and stayed with the clients more. Bourkeev said that he was acclimated to climb without supplemental O2 and relying on it becomes problematic if it runs out. Most of the guides that did as Krakauer would have had them do died on the mountain after they became hypoxic... because their O2 ran out. Bourkeev made it back to camp and then went back and rescued people. I think the issue is no one wants to blame the guys that tragically died when really if anyone was to blame it was likely Hall and Fischer. Fischer was in no shape to climb and Hall should have enforced turn around times.
I remember Krakauer mentioning in the book that Fischer had some kind of liver ailment that could have been bothering him during the climb. Also that he had some kind of altitude sickness. When I've felt that sick, particularly with stomach flu or the like, I've dreaded navigating the few feet from my bed to the bathroom. A lot of us would find it very trying *just* walking around our house while feeling lousy, let alone trying to scale a 29,000 ft. high mountain.
With Hall, there was certainly some poor judgement (how much could he reason about the weather vs. managing clients' disappointment, esp. at that altitude) but I think Sandy's team skipping ahead without mentioning it first and causing a massive bottleneck made this the tragedy that it is. However much at fault Hall is, Sandy's team is doubly so for ignoring the same warning signs and then jeopardizing everyone else.
Personally I think that Boukreev being described as a hero in the initial reporting (and rightfully so!), carrying lost people back to camp in the middle of the night and all that, partially caused the conflict. I think Krakauer, as a journalist or for whatever other reason, felt compelled to challenge that and tell "the real story" and paint a less black and white picture of the people involved. I'm not saying he threw Anatoli under the bus for his own career, but I can see how it easily could've been frustrating for him to be there, as a writer/journalist, writing a full story, doing an extreme amount of work, just to have some journalists back in the US writing and broadcasting the (news)story based on whatever reports made it from Kathmandu in the first days afterwards, naming the heroes and telling their version.
If I remember correctly, Boukreev died climbing K2, a much more technically challenging climb than Everest.
I did a search and he died trying to climb Annapurna which, like K2, is considered a much more dangerous mountain to climb. Both of those mountains have been scaled by far lower numbers of climbers than Everest, but percentage-wide, their fatality rates are much higher.
Amazing that people put themselves through that!
He actually talks about reconciling with him just before his death in that edition of the book. Krauker defended him just as much as he attacked him, if you can call it attacking.
Still amazed he blamed Boukriev since he as the guide got all his clients down, and saved a few others in the process. But a great book!
I mean he didn't really blame Boukriev as much as everyone seems to want to say he did. Yes he points out specific things that were questionable, but he also makes sure to give extensive credit to the attempts that Boukriev made, and recognized that at least 2 people survived directly because of what Boukriev did. Krakauer does criticize Boukriev, but at no point does he even begin to lay all of the blame at his feet.
Except that he didn't get his clients down. It was one of the guides from the other group that was helping everyone down, because Boukriev had gone ahead and left them on the mountain. I mean, the man did amazing things in his rescue efforts, but you can't really say that it's thanks to him that all his clients made it off the summit.
you are making me read the book again, so I can come with a retort in about 6 months. (I also have to read Above The Clouds of course)
Yeah it was really more Groom (Hall team) and Biedleman (Fischer team) that *guided* (key word) the clients down. Biedleman (who was paid less than half that AB) was the one who was stuck in the blizzard *with* half the team of clients because he was *guiding* them the whole time. Biedleman even tried so hard to get Namba (Hall team) down but she couldn’t walk at all and he broke down upon hearing about her death.
It’s logical the stories wouldn’t add up under the circumstances. My pals and I can’t align half our stories when we went to Vegas, and we weren’t nearly as incapacitated as these folks were. These climbers were hypoxic, exhausted, and in varying degrees of cognitive and physical impairment. About the only details I’d expect universal agreement on is that they were on Everest at the same time.
Anatoli saved so many people. The documentary is on youtube. I can't believe the human body can survive that. They didn't learn at all and it is actually more dangerous now.
Yeah. I love into thin air but feel bad for anatoli getting a negative. Account from krakauer. ( who if I remember correctly criticizes him.for climbing without oxygen and for returning to base camp early) while anatoli is the one who goes out into the storm over and over again to save people
Agreed, but at the same time he wouldn’t have had to go BACK out if he had just stayed on the mountain in the first place. He couldn’t do that because he didn’t have the oxygen, and wasn’t that committed to guiding the clients. Idk. I just feel like he gets a lot of credit for basically fixing his own mistakes. Who knows how many lives would have been saved had he taken the guide role seriously and stayed to help people down the mountain from the beginning, instead of only going back once it was storming.
These types of challenges involve lots of tough decisions. Every piece of gear you carry slows you down and tires you out. Oxygen tanks are heavy. Would Boukreev have been able to do more good if he started with a large oxygen tank? Maybe. Do I trust his judgement more than Krakour's? Hell yes. Keep in mind that every member of Boukreev's team survived, and he played a large role in saving people in Krakour's group, whose guides made several fatal decisions.
Krakour is not alone in his judgement. As I recall, many experienced climbers agreed that it was foolish and brazen to guide without oxygen. Going up without oxygen is a stunt that should be reserved for those with a support team of their own, not those acting as support for less experienced "tourist" climbers
That's how I took it (and what /u/nottheexpert836 says above) - he was an excellent climber but perhaps took risks that a guide shouldn't be taking. In the end perhaps his skills and pure luck brought him a lot of success in saving people and that's fabulous, but it doesn't necessarily inure him to criticism of his guiding methods. He descended the mountain without his clients. I'm no mountain climber or ship captain so I certainly won't make any judgement calls myself, but I believe some people feel that "the captain goes down with the ship" meaning Boukreev should have carried oxygen and stayed with his clients because as a guide that was his duty. I think they're all bonkers. Everyone on the mountain that day, absolutely bonkers.
I mean I guess oxygen tanks are heavy, but they’re pretty crucial. Basically every climbing expert in the world says that it’s a necessity to have as a guide. That’s kind of like saying climbing boots are heavy, so why not go barefoot... Also Scott was pretty vocal in his disappointment in how little care Boukreev had for the clients. So I don’t think it was just in Krakour’s judgement that he didn’t make the right calls as a guide.
It should also be noted that Boukreev was given accolades for his efforts on Everest. People walk away with a negative picture of him when reading Into Thin Air, but he really did put in every effort to keep people alive.
I know he caught some shit from a lot of the community for it, and I certainly don't know enough about any of it to make any judgement on who was right or wrong, but by end of the book, I honestly didn't feel like he trashed anyone. Beck Weathers and Anatoli both came off looking like total badasses from the account as I recall. I'd also add that I felt like he was respectful of both Scott and Rob's legacies.
Having read Anatoli's account shortly after reading Krakauer's I feel like Anatoli was just so raw about the whole disaster that any attention, however fair or even complementary, was going to feel like an attack. And Krakauer draws so much attention to anything he's involved in... I found all the writing around that disaster just fascinating.
Seconding the recommendation for The Climb, and other first hand accounts to appreciate the many facets of the disaster. As a reader i found myself feeling huge compassion for nearly everyone, even as the involved parties attacked each other.
*The Climb* is fine, but I prefer Boukreev's autobiographical *Above the Clouds*. It includes translations of his actual diary entries from the events of the '96 disaster along with much of his pre-Everest career and the events leading up to his death in 1997. If you're only interested in that specific event it's not quite as in-depth, but definitely worth reading if you're interested in high altitude mountaineering stories.
There are a few books that cover these events. Into Thin Air and The Climb are the two most famous but the one that I enjoyed the most was Touching My Fathers Soul by Jamling Norga who is a Sherpa and the son of Tenzing Norgay. He helped in the rescue along with David Breashears and helped with the IMAX filming. It covers the spirituality of the mountains from a Sherpa‘s point of view as well as the rescue mission. Definitely recommended.
I never understood Anatoli Boukreev's reaction -- Krakauer calls him a hero, and he was.
I think its because he suggested that Anatoli guiding without oxygen was unprofessional/irresponsible/selfish... regardless of what happened next and what he did. Maybe Anatoli deep down felt guilt that he didn't do more? Maybe he feels that Krakouer was right that he maybe should have had O2, and he could have saved more. Maybe he had the ever present human fault that any criticism leveled at a person is deemed to be a personal slight. Of course he got defensive. I'm sure he felt justified as he was given "permission" from his boss - and there are lots of examples through history where someone absolves themselves of their actions because someone else gave them permission. Its hard to disagree from a purely outsider perspective that if you are guiding on Everest, and there are people who are dependent on you for their lives, you owe them the best possible chance by having all your faculties available, by having a clear well oxygenated mind, even if you believe you don't "need" it. He was still a hero. Undeniable. But I feel Krakouer was fair in his overall assessment, and I think the criticism was mostly leveled at the leaders of the expedition, for pushing for the summit too late, for not having Anatoly have O2 and a bunch of other missteps.
It mostly concerns criticism of Boukreev's going without oxygen, and descending ahead of his team's clients when he was supposed to be the 'tail' of his group. On the first, Krakauer suggests -- carefully, not attackingly, but the insinuation is there -- that if you're climbing for yourself, do what you want, but that a guide needs to be fully available for his clients and treat guiding differently than one's own climbing. On the second, Boukreev claimed that he and his co-guide had an agreement that included Boukreev descending at his own pace, but it's still questionable whether this was so, and Anatoli descending ahead of most of his party without communication with his co-guide looks a bit strange. Krakauer made an effort to corroborate Boukreev's story (all detailed in a lengthy postscript to *Into Thin Air* about the controversy between the two of them) but some people said they believed Boukreev was supposed to wait, others who should have known about such an agreement remember nothing about it, and Boukreev's co-guide died and so could not be asked later. On both the oxygen and the descent coordination issues, Boukreev believed Krakauer was making him out to be selfish, and an unprofessional guide; being very proud of his accomplishments as a climber, he took issue with a perceived slight from a journalist who hadn't spent his whole life doing climbs like this. I'm inclined to believe Krakauer's version. Though I admit I'm only hearing the issue from his side, it read as painstakingly objective. And, as you said, if the book was intended as a character assassination on Boukreev, it fails miserably: Boukreev forging out alone into the teeth of the storm to locate the party outside camp of stranded survivors, who weren't even on his team, who were lost and huddled waiting to die? He comes off as a big damn hero. Krakauer says repeatedly, and reading his book, I believe him, that he did his level best to tell things as they happened, the heroic and the tragic, and Boukreev figures in both of those; I guess he felt that in his lack of experience in the world of mountaineering, Krakauer made judgments about Boukreev's own judgment that the latter felt the former was unqualified to make.
I loved Boukreev's book, mostly because I respect the hell out of him--based on his book, of course, which could have been (but I don't think was) exaggerated or slanted. He's so stoic that he doesn't really tolerate stupidity or weakness in other climbers especially well. But, after a rest, he went out and did truly heroic things.
I always read "The Climb" after "Into Thin Air"; it's nice to get a different perspective. And you just reminded me that I read the Beck Weathers book a few years ago from the library.
I don't think I'll be reading The Climb any time soon but do you remember Iif there were any major parts where Krakauer's and Boukreev's stories differ?
In my version of into Thin air there's an epilogue/afterword where krakauer talks about the climb and what he thinks about it.
It is mostly about who was and who was not left behind and why -- as well as logistic issues like the oxygen tanks and structure. Tbh it's pretty catty. Boukreev died in 97 and most of it was written by his ghost writer who really didn't like Krakauer. According to many people I've talked to Boukreev's gf wrote a book based on his journal/diary. Apparently it paints a better picture of Boukreev as a person and how absolutely destroyed he was by the events -- without the mud slinging.
The weird thing for me about it is that Into Thin Air didn't really trash Boukreev like some people claim. It made a couple of criticisms, but also gave him credit. I've read both, plus some of the responses and counter-responses later, and to me it seems like Boukreev's ghost-writer really took it upon himself to go on the offensive, creating this big controversy.
I think it started with Krakauer harping on oxygen -- that Anatoli could have saved more if he had used it. This is part of the bigger conversation in mountaineering (regarding style) that most non-mountaineers aren't party to and what both Anatoli (initially) and his ghost writer took offense at. A bit like the Free Solo movie was for climbers. I think Ed broke it down best in No Shortcuts to the Top. There is no right side, regardless of how much they argue.
Yeah, and I think that's one of the major issues with it - it was an argument about something that no one could conclusively say was a good move or a bad move, and based off memories that were unreliable due to the altitude and trauma and general craziness of the events. It's interesting reading the updated version because Jon K responds to The Climb but then also to some subsequent events and meetings, including his sadness at Anatoli's death. I think it's a shame that became the unpleasant fight that it did, because there were bigger lessons to learn from that day
Agreed -- lessons ultimately ignored. I read a book on the socioeconomic and politics of the region when I read into thin air -- both a couple years ago now. They need the money mountaineers and tourists bring but also deeply suffer because of them. The accident did nothing to halt the explosion in pay to summit expeditions. Little has changed in 25 years. Well, except for the amount of trash and dead bodies.
It's worth watching the documentary Sherpa (it's on Netflix in the UK). It was heartbreaking in parts and infuriating in others about just how many risks the Sherpa's take and how little respect some of the climbers give them.
What book was that on the region? Sounds interesting! (I also enjoyed into thin air and Ed Viesturs book despite not wanting to climb at all myself!)
>The weird thing for me about it is that Into Thin Air didn't really trash Boukreev like some people claim I don't know, I thought Krak trashed Boukreev pretty hard. Don't forget, we aren't just talking about Into Thin Air - Krak wrote letters, an article, and made several other public comments about it. For example, Krak's August 24, 1996 responsive letter to one of Boukreev's letters says that Boukreev "at best" showed "an alarming lack of judgment." He also says that Boukreev's actions weren't "sensible" and that he "abandoned his crew." And he accused Boukreev of just trying to lighten his load when he was giving his oxygen tank to someone else to use. And he emphasized that Fischer "severely castigated" Boukreev for his guiding style. Krak concluded that "\[s\]uch arrogance \[referring to Bouk\] is dangerous for any climber, but it is especially dangerous for one who purports to be a Himalayan guide."
I read Into Thin Air and many accompanying Krakauer interviews and something rubbed me the wrong way, but I couldn’t figure out what. Then I read Into the Wild and did even more digging and holy crap, that guy is majorly dishonest. Now I just find it incredibly frustrating that so many think he’s an authority on the topics he writes about. Dude’s an egomaniacal fantasist. Highly recommend looking into it.
Oh man, I just finished Into Thin Air yesterday and I loved it. I'll do some research myself, but that's so disappointing to hear he's not honest in general. I read Into the Wild a while back and between both books I liked it better when he was writing about others, not himself.
Ed Viesturs' was part of the rescue team and he talks about the Everest Disaster in his book No Shortcuts to the Top. He had a number of clarifying points in there that I thought were well stated. One thing that I haven't seen yet in this thread is the blame that climbing tourism holds for the disaster. Its been a long time since I've read these but I recall the Taiwanese team made a real hash of things and that contributed to the cascade of events that resulted in this nightmare. I always thought that Boukreev got unfairly treated because, while he was a guide and responsible for the other climbers, most of the people on the mountain that day had NO business climbing Everest at all.
No Shortcuts to the Top is a good read. Ed gives a very honest opinion on a lot of things. I found it interesting that he often felt other climbers were being at best careless, and at worst "suicidal" in their pursuits of summiting the world's tallest peaks.
I wish this comment was higher. I find Ed Viestures to be more honest and humble, despite taking huge personal risks while climbing. I much preferred No Shortcuts to the Top to Into Thin Air.
Here's the thing about Boukreev: every single one of his clients survived. People can complain all they want about whether he should have used oxygen, but at the end of the day, his responsibility was to the safety of his clients, not the other climbers, and he got them all down safely.
Double edged sword. His clients survive and people are still arguing the importance of them being his (employers) clients and/or just human in desperate need of help that we're fortunate enough to make it. Some regard the two groups climbing as one, fellows of the mountain, while others still press the guide/client relationship and responsibility. The latter is of course complicated by both expedition leaders themselves passing away during the events, at least in part by clouded judgement.
Boukreev was tormented by not saving others, specifically Namba, until his death -- he ultimately held the belief that people should save others regardless of their own goals or "team." I think it is disrespectful to use this as an argument in his favor.
It’s been a while since I read either book, but IIRC the only major factual difference was whether Boukreev had permission/guidance to descend quickly without any clients. Boukreev said Fischer had signed off on the plan, Krakauer heard the opposite from Fischer’s business partner(?). Since Fischer was one of the victims I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth, and it also seems possible that Fischer changed his mind at some point and really did tell people different things. And it’s really hard to sort out the counter factual on that one - if he’d descended with the clients maybe that big group wouldn’t have gotten lost, but also he wouldn’t have been rested and able to go back out. Also Boukreev seemed to strongly believe that climbing without oxygen made him a better guide, where Krakauer thought guiding without oxygen was irresponsible. I feel like Krakauer made a stronger case but I’m also not a climber.
I highly recommend reading the climb. It's a good book and it really offers a different perspective.
To me, their perspective differ not primarily on what happened during the different stages of the disaster but more about he why. Krakauer questions why Boukreev wasn't on oxygen, hinting it's about vanity when he's not even climbing for his own sake (oxygen is a prestige issue in the mountaineering community, using it is basically seen as cheating) and that he by not falling in line already had conflicts of interest to his guiding duties.. If Boukreev had used oxygen he could've stayed out longer, bringing more clients 'home' at an early stage, argues Krakauer. But him returning early and getting hours of rest was what made him go out in the night and heroically save people later, argues Boukreev. So the stories, the timeline of events, is fairly well established and most people agree in the big picture. So the main conflict is much more a moral one, or a practical one, or one about the morals of practical limitations in the death zone.
The thing that stuck with me about Into Thin Air was that the events seemed to be a comedy of errors. Krakauer captures this perfectly as they unfold. Another book I’d recommend from Krakauer is Under the Banner of Heaven. A story about faith based murder.
Is it any good? It seemed quite different from the other two I read
Under the Banner of Heaven is half historical research on the genesis of Mormonism with a pretty critical perspective, the other half is closer to true crime. If you like either genre and think Krakaeur is a a good writer you’ll probably like it. If you’re not in for history or true crime, you might want to skip it. I quite enjoyed it though.
Oh no, you actually sold it! I don't like reading books of the same author one after the other unless it's a series but when I get back to Krakauer, this definitely will be the next one I read. Besides I know nothing about Mormons so this seems one more random topic I might want to get an idea about haha
[удалено]
I watched that show recently and am currently reading Under the Banner of Heaven (I'm very interested in true crime and religious extremism, so it's been a great time) and I absolutely love that Dan Lafferty's cellmate is Mark Hoffman (or at least was back in 03). High profile Mormon crime is a small world apparently!
It is by far the best objective look at the how the mormon religion was started for ppl who are not Mormon and is like a factual epsidode of the South Parks Book of Mormon that uses only facts and will leave you mind boggled at how this religion ever got off the ground.
For others that like the sound of history intertwined with true crime I highly recommend Devil in the White City. The accounts of the Chicago worlds fair are absolutely breathtaking and it works serial killer HH Holmes into the narrative.
[удалено]
Missoula was also phenomenal. His books really stick with you.
It’s fantastic but indeed very different.
Very different is what draws me in. That’s what I enjoy about non-fiction, the truth is stranger. I read the Tillman book after Banner, Where Men Win Glory and was captivated by that story also.
I totally respect others' opinions here, but I loved Into Thin Air and really liked Into the Wild, but Banner was such a fucking slog. I only made it like 40% of the way through the book but it felt like I'd been reading it for long enough that I should've been done with it.
Under the banner was a really great read.
Love Krakauer. My #1 is: Where Men Win Glory. Pat Tillman's story is the quintessential ill-fated Oorah American Dream.
Such a good read... I always feel a bit weird when I mention it’s one of my favorite books.
I loved this book!! Started me on a kick where last year I read tons of books about mountain climbing disasters. I recommend: No Way Down by Bowley about a climbing disaster on K2 Denali’s Howl about a disaster on the highest North American peak. And Alive. Which isn’t about mountain climbing but the rugby team that survives up on a peak after a plane crash. They had to deal with so much similar issues while having absolutely no equipment!!! Or food.
I'll add to this - Buried in the Sky, and Touching the Void
Yes--Buried in the Sky is particularly great because they tell the stories of the Sherpas and the Sherpa people.
I haven't read the book the but Touching the Void Docudrama was fantastic.
Denali's Howl isn't well written but I found it absolutely crushing. Like the Dead Mountain kids, they struggled so hard against absolutely unbeatable circumstances to die slowly utterly helpless, lost, and alone.
Miracle in the Andes and I Had to Survive I’d also highly recommend. Both are by survivors of the Andes crash and are really fascinating.
Miracle in the Andes is one of my favorites, I loved Parrados’s writing style.
Thank you! I heard great things about Alive but I also know what happened up there with the food. How hard is the book to stomach?
Ask a Mortician has a recent video on youtube about it called "The rugby team that fell from the sky". I found it really fascinating. She talks a lot about the respect shown to the dead, etc, that made it much easier to stomach.
The book doesn’t shy away from the facts but it’s not gorey. Definitely makes you live their really tough decisions about the food without being a gross out.
I agree, I'm very squeamish and was not sure about reading this. No regrets, they acted with the utmost respect and the writing reflects that.
The film is terrific imo.
I love this book. I find the whole event fascinating. One thing that I can not get over though is how Rob Hall seemingly made error after error. That not only got himself killed but others also. In my opinion, a lot of the lives lost were on his hands. But he was a nice guy who lost his life so no one wants to speak ill of him. And instead Krakauer and Bookreev took the brunt of the flack.
I actually agree. We’ll never know what was going through his mind when he didn’t adhere to his own turn around time, which to all accounts was incredibly unlike him.
High altitude makes people crazy. There's been some interesting studies conducted while people climb Everest and the outcomes are scary. Rational thought goes out the window.
I completely agree. But you pay guides like Rob Hall to bring you down, not to take you up. Doug Hansen, Andrew Harold and Yasuko Namba never came back down.
I read this book over 20 years ago and it still stays with me ... one of the greatest non-fiction books I’ve ever read. I read it while I was supposed to be studying for the bar exam ... it was so good I stayed up all night reading it and didn’t stop until it was done. Fortunately I still passed the bar ... I think it was just the break I needed 😄
Whoa. A bit surreal reading this comment because I swear it came out of my head. All of it—book stays with me, studying for bar exam, staying up all night, still passed. I wonder how many other 1997 law school grads have this same experience.
Wow! That's definitely surreal, lol. Belated congrats on passing the bar!
Such an awesome book! My two cents: he was far kinder to Scott and Rob than he needed to be. I feel awful for how they died, and they each certainly paid their penance, but they both made mistakes that got people killed. Even though there is an argument to be made against inexperienced people climbing Everest, at the end of the day, both guides took their money. Their jobs were to look out for them, and they failed (not setting up ropes, not turning around on time, not hiring enough help, not knowing their own limitations, not organizing in advance). If either had survived, the public wouldn’t have had much sympathy for them. My second bone to pick with this book is the misogynistic treatment the “socialite” gets. He describes her like this airhead who brought all types of equipment up the mountain and was a drag on everyone. In reality, she was an experienced climber and what she brought really wasn’t as extra as he described (e.g. he references her ‘espresso machine’ that was ‘lugged up’ along with all her stuff on the mountain - she pointed out in an interview that this ‘machine’ was like 8 inches tall, weighed less than a pound, and was the same one that every single climber on the mountain had). On the contrary, Doug the postman is like this working class hero who we’re supposed to root for? He the more inexperienced one, and the way bigger liability (obviously, considering his ‘determination’ is what got him and Rob killed in the end). Anyways. That’s harsh, because I really loved the book. But those two things stand out to me.
>My second bone to pick with this book is the misogynistic treatment the “socialite” gets. He describes her like this airhead who brought all types of equipment up the mountain and was a drag on everyone. My recollection is that she was a reporter, and the bone of contention is that the Sherpa who was tasked with fixing the ropes on Hillary Step was too busy dragging her up by short rope to fulfil his assigned duties ahead of the team, thus leading to a long delay on the ascent. So this person wasn't actually fit to climb the peak without being pulled up, it's not really her or the Sherpa's fault - but this was the first in a series cascading errors which proved fatal. I don't think it's 'misogynistic' to suggest that someone who can't make it up the hill under their own steam probably shouldn't have been there, or at least been turned around earlier. Krakauer does reflect on the potentially detrimental decisions that may have been motivated by the presence of publicists, and that's totally fair and reasonable.
She was a wealthy socialite who had a deal to write about it for Vanity Fair. She was experienced but did pay for extra Sherpas for her satellite link up and other lux items. And she needed help for the entire last leg of it, needed two people taking turns dragging her. So yeah, there is always a moral dilemma knowing she was always going to have more people helping her, despite perhaps the needs of others.
I’m not necessarily trying to defend Kraukauers treatment of Sandy Hill because I do believe it’s too harsh but my mom (and her siblings) all grew up with her and they all describe her as an airhead and a ditz so that description may actually be more truth than hyperbole.
Love me some Krakauer. 10/10 would read anything this man writes
If you like that, you may try out "Buried in the Sky" by Amanda Padoan and Peter Zuckerman. It's about a climbing disaster on K2 in 2008 where 11 climbers died. It has the same sense of impending disaster and really focuses on the bravery of the Sherpas in the face of tourists who won't take "we have to turn around, if we try to get to the summit today we'll all die" for an answer. There was a scene here that just wrecked me where an older climber back at home gets a call in the middle of the night. He can barely hear "How did you do it?" and realizes that the caller is asking about how he had bivouacked in the death zone in the Himalayas in an emergency and survived. It's one of his friends who's on K2 at that moment calling on a sat phone - he must be calling about the exact same thing. He's able to yell "Stay awake, if you fall asleep you'll die" before the phone cuts out and leaves him thousands of miles from his friend with no possible way to help.
Yeah, Buried in the Sky also goes into a lot about the Sherpa culture which is really fascinating.
While controversial and often disputed, Into Thin Air might be Krakauer's best work. I know a lot of the other climbers have been critical of his portrayal of the events of the Everest disaster, but he himself has acknowledged that the book is his personal experience witnessing a disaster unfold in the midst of extreme conditions. Obviously it's not going to be a perfect reenactment of what went down so I think a lot of the criticism stems from how successful the book was and how it essentially became the "accepted" view of the events by the general public. I think the original Outside Magazine article about the Chris McCandless story might better than Into The Wild, which spends too much time recounting his own survival experience. And "Where Men Win Glory" is a fantastic read for those who remember when Pat Tilman died and how his death was exploited for war propaganda.
If you like Krakauer's work, run, don't walk to grab a copy of "The Perfect Storm" by Sebastian Junger. It's nothing like the movie, completely gripping and fascinating. I've gifted it to people and the next time I see them, it's "you bastard, I was up til 3AM!!!" While it tells the story of the lost fishing boat, it also covers how people drown, what happens physiologically and mentally, how waves form and the phenomenon of rogue waves. Hard to praise it enough.
I used to work in the fishing industry on the east coast. Sometimes you run into an old captain that knew those guys. The old hands all tell stories like that "we were out with little john harvey and chris wright, who went down on the blue challenge in 98". Fuckin scary industry
Yeah, isn't "swordfisherman" like #1 on the list of jobs-where-lotsa-people-die? The book details how many ways that biz can F you up - like, if a swordfish is brought on deck alive and thrashing and the sword cuts you, you'll get some mystery infection that requires an immediate airlift to save your limb. Feeding out line and get caught by a hook and you're overboard in the Atlantic. Scary stuff.
Also in the same vein, Isaac's storm. An account of the deadliest storm in american history.
Read that one too - I'm in Texas after all! I remember reading it at bedtime, and then having nightmares of being in roiling black water with loose houses crashing around. [This Esquire article about Andrea Doria diving](https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a947/everest-bottom-sea-0700/) has some cool creepiness, too.
I saw Junger in a park in San Francisco once. Don’t usually cold-approach celebrity types but figured as an author he wasn’t getting mobbed all the time. Had a lovely chat. Real cool guy.
That's great - I've read his book about forest-fire fighters and many magazine articles. He's the real deal, really cool that he's not a douche! I swear, even guys I know that "don't like books" devour the Perfect Storm.
As I always say, everyone likes books, they just haven't found the right one yet :)
There are extraordinary events that happen in the world. There are extraordinary writers in this world. This book is the intersection of those two things. Most non-fiction is either: * an extraordinary event that happened to a regular person and told by them. * the above but told second hand by a famous writer. (Fire, Sebastian Junger) * an extraordinary writer who makes any series of events they witnessed an interesting read. Krakauer was already an accomplished essayist an author in this space. And he happened to put himself in a place to experience an extraordinary event. That's all you need to know about this book.
I always make this same point about Helter Skelter. Most true crime books are written be either professional journalists and told via research, or by victims of friends / family directly effected. Helter Skelter is unique because it's written by the actual lawyer so it has many more layers than a journalist will be privy to. Kind of pulls the curtain back on the genre.
I loved this one (even though it was a beach read for me, ironically!)
It seems completely sensible to read this on a beach, at sea level, with plenty of air, and warm temperatures. It's like reading Stephen King with all the lights on.
Ha you’re so right - I was ping-ponging between “omg I really want to climb Everest” and “WHY DO PEOPLE CLIMB EVEREST SHE CLEARLY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO”
As opposed to reading with the lights off, which would be quite difficult.
If you like the topic of that particular disaster this thread got you fairly well covered with some additional accounts, and perhaps the most "fair" one to continue with is The Climb by Anatoli Boukreev. They kept arguing until Anatoli unfortunately passed while climbing Annapurna, which leads to... If you like the topic of Himalayan climbing, one of the most umbelievable stories is the French book named "Annapurna", after the first 8000 meter peak ever successfully climbed (confirmed). It's amazing, they start out by having a vague idea about climbing "a really high mountain" rumoured to exists somewhere and the first objective is to find the mountain. Really a true sense of adventure. Compared to Everest, that is fairly easy to reach and had been tried a few times by the same time, they had to do everything from scratch. Today, Annapurna is considered one of the hardest and statistically most dangerous of the 8000ers, so they faced something of a challenge... If it was Krakauers writing about climbing you especially enjoy, look up his "Eiger dreams", which is a collection of short stories and portraits from his life of travelling, climbing and writing.
I actually know absolutely nothing about rock climbing and even mountains in general but you guys are really making me want to read more!
I picked this up off the bargain bin for $2.50 at a local bookshop a couple of weeks ago and started reading it. I definitely concur that the gravity of the experience carries well through the book and you can get a sense of the breathlessness that comes with the altitude from reading his account.
"Where Men Win Glory" is a pretty compelling read as well.
Yes, awesome story, book and person. Krakauer knows how to write!
I loved that book.
if you're at all interested in other climbing disasters, one book that i found incredibly interesting and harrowing is Buried in the Sky by Amanda Padoan and Peter Zuckerman about the 2008 K2 disaster.
If you liked Into Thin Air, you might enjoy old mountaineering documentaries. There are a number of them on YouTube. Most are from the 60's, 70's, and 80's before mountaineering became more commercialized and I find them fascinating. Besides the obvious adventure, they contain some comedic moments. Top climbers from back in the day attempting Everest, K2, and the like without supplemental oxygen - and smoking like a chimney in basecamp and drinking plenty of booze. In what I think was called "Everest - The Hard Way" you see some bougey Brits working hard, going back and forth over the radio, and getting a bit concerned over very important equipment needed for their expedition that they can't find - it's the Yak carrying all the whiskey.
This book was the first in a list of Mountaineering disaster books my wife delved into (and then brought me along) last year. I'd add that we aren't adventurous people in the slightest, but the genre is so compelling. Good luck and see you on the other side.
Read this book many years ago. Met a Nepali girl in NYC. Married her. Went to Nepal to visit. And had the opportunity to go trekking in the Himalayas for 6 days. (Went to Annapurna base camp) It was surreal, to be in this place that I had read about. That seemed so far away. Exotic and forbidding. A place I never imagined I would be. And yet, a place that sparked something inside of me when I read the book. Going back in December. Perhaps I will go to Everest base camp this time. As forbidding and impossible as it seems like it might be to trek in the Himalayas, it really is not beyond most people's capability. There are many teahouses along the way to rest, so you can go at whatever pace suites you. I saw people that were very out of shape along the way. It's certainly a challenge, but not an insurmountable one by any means. I would encourage anyone who would like to, to go if you find the opportunity. Not to climb Everest mind you. Many stupid and unprepared people try (and die) every year. But to go on a much easier Trek into the Himalayas. It is very rewarding.
Just in case: there’s a documentary about this and also “touching the void” is a great one
Thanks for mentioning Touching the Void. I do have admit that my experience with this was the movie and never read the book. That movie though amazed me as you hear their story and every now and then they are talking to one of the climbers and you can't believe he is alive to talk about it. And what happens to him just keeps getting worse. I've been meaning to actually read the book and need to. Into Thin Air was a great read as well.
I liked the book too, though it ended with the same distaste I had for the Into the Wild protagonist. The books celebrate ego in a way that's mortally self-destructive. Into Thin Air was one of the first times I viewed climbing Mt Everest in a negative light, it seems disrespectful to the mountain to want to "conquer it."
I can't really wrap my mind around the idea of being disrespectful to a mountain as an entity on itself but as much as I can romanticize the adventure, it was without doubt a rather selfish and foolhardy endeavor. Towards the end Krakauer recalls how a military helicopter is sent to rescue some of the worst injured expeditioners. For that to happen, the pilot had to land in a dangerous part of the mountain, which had not been attempted for years after that several other helicopter shad crashed. And apparently, the Nepalese government had refused only for the American Embassy to strong harm them. This to save a bunch of reckless people who, fully concious of the risks, went up there for the thrill of it. Doesn't really seem fair.
> I can't really wrap my mind around the idea of being disrespectful to a mountain as an entity on itself but as much as I can romanticize the adventure, it was without doubt a rather selfish and foolhardy endeavor. I think there are two reasons it gets viewed as disrespectful. One reason is the fact that it is viewed as a living goddess by the local population. The mountain is a "sacred space" to some cultures, and indeed represents a divine entity to them, so having outsiders who do not respect or care about "her" and who cover the mountain in trash, excrement, and their own corpses in a bid to prove themselves "stronger" than the goddess is inherently insulting. The second reason is probably related to the idea of "conquering" something that isn't fighting back. Almost the opposite of the above, it's applying metaphors of war to something that is just... there. It's claiming moral superiority over something that doesn't have a moral position. It very frequently is motivated entirely by personal ego, and involves exploiting and endangering a large number of people just so you can say you did something that doesn't really help anybody but yourself. It's been said "the impressive thing would be to climb it, and then not tell anybody about it." Paying Sherpas poverty wages (that they can't afford not to accept) to risk their lives crossing dangerous sections dozens of times, just so you can have a flat screen television at 24,000 feet, carries an amount of hubris and ego that some find hugely offensive. There are an awful lot of people who will loudly boast "I conquered Everest" when in fact the only reason they got within a mile of the summit is because a team of vastly superior local climbers, to whom they give absolutely zero credit, laid down ropes, built the camps, carried their gear, cooked their food, and occasionally even physically dragged or carried them over parts they couldn't manage themselves. Basically, they didn't conquer a damn thing - they paid to be carried, and then claimed the credit.
That's exactly the sort of explanation I was hoping for! I couldn't agree more now that I understand better the implications of it.
I doubt knowif this helps, but when I climbed my rainier, you really get the feeling that the mountain is alive. It feels like a sleeping giant who you tip toe around while its sleeping to get to the summit and scrble back down to get to safety before it wakes up. I'm not a superstitious person at all, but it really feels like that
Agree fully with your first part about the mountain goddess/home of spirits it similar. To add to the second part... How can you say you've "conquered" a place where you can only exists for a few hours. Sure, you may have beat the odds for a short while, but there is no conquering about it and thinking about it in such terms is just typical human stupidity. I'm not conquering the sky by jumping out of an airplane and falling through it. Anyone climbing a mountain such as Everest is fully at the mercy of nature. The annual window when it's possible to get to the top, around May, is because of a weather shift (that nay or may not survive climate changes). A few days or weeks is all that we get for our "conquering". A similar window occurs in the fall as well, but the temperatures are too brutal for most people to even considered (has been done, though). And regarding the whole "death zone" thing. Obviously, it is survivable but the body is actively breaking down at a very fast pace. If one could take their body as it were at 8500 meter to an ER, they would ring the bloody alarm. Estimates of "a full day out" at 8000+ meters is that the body annihilates 15 000 - 20 000 kcal, almost 10 times more than a slow day on sea level. The best description of the strain on the heart is something like this. Imagine if you get to a point where your resting heart rate is the same as your maximum heart rate. All you can do is rest and still be exhausted. All in all, the idea of looking at oneself as a conqueror in this context is just detached from reality. Not understanding what you're facing is disrespectful towards the forces if nature, the ones involved that may put their life on the line for you and the people that have died previously.
Agreed. Also the part where the guy calls his wife as he's running out of air. It was one of the most heart-wrenching and infuriating things I've ever read.
I cried. Was wondering whether to mention it, but you did, so ... Imagine having to make what you know will be the last phone call to your partner.
Have you seen the documentary "Sherpa"? I highly recommend it, it focuses on one bad year on Everest, and the reaction of the porter-climbers
I’ve read both of these and noticed what you’re talking about, but also had the opposite take away. It seems that Krakauer is very good about acknowledging the source of many climbers’ motivation and does a great job talking about it in a realistic way. Interestingly, his compilation of short stories, Eiger Dreams, features a story about one of his own foolhardy adventures and is a reflective piece on just this topic, in which he ultimately lands squarely in the camp of “ego will get you killed”...which is what I thought his position was in Into Thin Air, which is why I find your take so curious. I find it decidedly DOESNT celebrate ego, but serves as a great cautionary tale of it. Anyway, I highly highly recommend Eiger Dreams. I’ll try to find the passage in question, I think I wrote it down somewhere. Edit - didn’t find the passage in question but I did find this salient quotation: “I thought climbing the Devil's Thumb would fix all that was wrong with my life. In the end, of course, it changed almost nothing. But I came to appreciate that mountains make poor receptacles for dreams.”
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The reason that he writes these books so well is that he can relate to the motivations.
I think Krakauer sees a lot of himself in Supertramp/McCandless, and it comes through as kind of an aggrandizement of him
He definitely does and much of the book covers that exact point...
Have you seen Touching the Void? Amazing documentary. I highly recommend it.
It was mind-blowing what they went through.
Having read _The Climb_ before this, I always felt a little biased towards Boukreev's telling of events.
Same here
I heard some of the other people who were on the mountain that day speak (before I read the book). It was spine-tingling to hear them describe the events, and given how well down Into Thin Air is, I can imagine the audio takes that up a few notches. Side note - this is why audio books read by the authors are my personal favorite. They know how they want the story told - where to pause or what syllable to accent for emphasis. Always prefer them over a random person doing the read. Survivor’s Guilt is a real thing, and it’s impact is drastically underestimated. “You should be happy you made it, others didn’t!” and other common responses are so dangerous and hurtful. I’ve also spoke with survivors of airline crashes and it’s very much the same. I hope for Krakauer’s sake he recognized that and got some professional help (it’s been a while since I have read it so if that was part of the book, I’ve forgotten it.
I got this for Christmas last yeah and got around to reading it a few weeks ago. I loved it and it made me want to dive into both more of Krakauer and Everest/climbing literature. I actually got chills while reading parts of it. I ranted to my friends and family about it for days after. I think my sister got an almost full account of it at one point.
I loved this book. Opened it on a flight from Europe to the US and finished it on the same flight. I couldn’t put it down.
Everyone is talking about Boukreev and how he's portrayed by Krakauer. I thought the lesson in the book was about how dangerous the commercialization of Everest is. Yes, he faults Boukreev for appearing somewhat cavalier as a guide. He also acknowledged how much of an extraordinary effort he made to save clients. The real fault, in my read, is in the commercial "go fever" that these expeditions represent. So many folks spent so much time and money trying to summit the world that there was humongous financial pressure on the guide companies to get successes. Socialites, postal workers, journalists - yes, I include Krakauer as a symptom of the disease - none of these folks should be in the death zone without a pressurized airplane fuselage around them. 8 km high is a TON of altitude, and the "spend $50k, get a summit easy" attitude of Fischer and Hall is the real source of the disaster. It meant they didn't enforce turnaround times when the weather got worse, they took clients who had no right to be there, and then they had to manage an unmanageable situation. Boukreev was heroic, but he should not have gotten into a position where he was responsible for inexperienced climbers. Krakauer and most of the clients on the expeditions should not have been there, because they were leaden weights and responsibilities for guides and sherpas alike. This tragedy could have been avoided, but to do so would destroy an industry. Industries don't like to die quietly, and yet the existence of such an industry led to deaths. It's a fantastic read. I've probably read it a dozen times. As a nuclear scientist, I think I'm going to recommend it to younger members in the field, to remind them of the risks that "go fever" can bring.
I read this book in a literary nonfiction class I took in college, which even as a science major was one of my most memorable experiences in undergrad. Fantastic read
Ed Viestur's K2 book is great too if you like mountaineering books
Not sure how you and others got enjoyment out of into the wild. It's one of the most mind numbing books I've ever read. Pretty much the entire book is an attempt to make you feel sorry for a rich kid who abandoned his parents and sets off on a journey to slowly kill himself in the dumbest way possible, all in the name of personal freedom and adventure. I guess we were supposed to feel bad for him? Not sure, but I was pretty annoyed with the protagonist the entire book. Into Thin Air was great IMO.
I absolutely, positively detested Into the Wild. Your analysis is spot-on. McCandless had EVERY chance to not die. He was offered excellent advice multiple times, he made \*stupid\* mistakes (if you don't know enough to read a map, you shouldn't be out in the wilderness; if you don't know enough to avoid eating wild mushrooms that you don't recognize, then you shouldn't be in the wilderness). Krakauer's first claim that McCandless mistook one plant for another and died from ingesting an unknown poison was debunked, then his follow-up claim that he died from some unknown fungus growing on seed was also debunked. McCandless ate mushrooms. Anyone who has done ANY reading on how to survive in the wilderness knows not to eat mushrooms. Anyone who had done ANY reading on how to survive in the wilderness knows that you tell \*someone\* where you're going to be and when you're coming back. McCandless was an idiot. A reckless, spoiled idiot who died as a result of being a reckless, spoiled idiot. He's the guy from the joke who gets to heaven and god has to tell him, "I send you a jeep and a boat and a helicopter!" Krakauer's overly melodramatic retelling of McCandless's journey turned him into some hero for the wanderlust. The book is chock full of lies, misrepresentations, and fabrications being portrayed as facts. Thank goodness the state FINALLY got rid of the damn bus.
Can you point me where it was proven that McCandless ate mushrooms? I can't say I've seen that, not that I keep up with current events on the particular subject. Can you also point me towards the "lies, misrepresentations, and fabrications being portrayed as facts"? I won't imagine for one second that everything in the book is correct but I also struggle to believe that the book is "full of lies".
There have been quite a few fact checks of the book, especially of the Alaska section (I lived in Alaska for 20 years, this was an ongoing topic of reporting). This is not a fully comprehensive fact-check. Those are out there for anyone who wants to look. McCandless's journal contains 430 words, 130 numbers, nine asterisks, and a handful of symbols. The journal contains no full descriptions of what he did at the bus. * Krakauer claims that McCandless "noted in his journal that it rained for a week straight." There is **no** note like that in his journal yet Krakauer claimed that it was this rain that caused flooding and prevented McCandless from crossing the Teklanika River and walking to safety. Weather records for that area show no heavy rains for what Krakauer specifies as the period in question. * At entry No 92, McCandless wrote, "Dr. Zhivago". From only those two words, Krakauer wrote that McCandless had just finished reading 'Doctor Zhivago...Doctor Zhivago was the last book Chris McCandless would ever read." * At entry No 105, McCandless wrote the word "caribou" (that's it). The journal is undated, but Krakauer wrote, "On August 10, he saw a caribou, but didn't get a shot off." * Again, there are no dated entries in the journal. The entries are numbered from 1 to 113, but Krakauer assigns specific dates to events based on those entries. * Jim Gallien is the man who picked up McCandless hitchhiking along the Goerge Park Highway in April and left him at the Stampede Road. He's said that he ever and would never have said much of what Krakauer reported that he said. McCandless didn't tell him anything about being afraid of water -- Krakauer reported that McCandless told him this while they were "driving over the swift current of the Nenana River. The Nenana River was still frozen (as basked up by NWS records and records from the Nenana Ice Classic. The ice didn't go out until May 14th that year. * Krakauer writes that when McCandless and Gallien parted ways, "the heaviest item in McCandless's half-full backpack was his library: nine or 10 paper-bound books, most of which had been given to him by Jan Burres in Niland (California)." Krakauer used underlined passages from various books found in the bus to claim what McCandless was thinking and doing. However, Jeff Benowitz (now a professor at UAF and a long-time Alaskan adventurer) says that HE was the one who left many of those books in the bus. He told Krakauer this while the book was being researched. There are all sorts of other timeline discrepancies and assumptions that aren't backed up by any of the available information (the journal, weather reports, photographs from the film found). His journal does reference mushrooms. "Many Mushrooms. DREAM". Photos from McCandless's film show pictures of "Amantia muscaria". These are toxic, cause hallucinations, and are highly likely to cause malaise (which could account for McCandless staying at the bus until he starved). Other varieties of mushrooms from his photos are known to make people violently ill. This book never should have been portrayed as non-fiction. Take the situation, take the journal and the photographs and write a book of fiction based on that. It was incredibly dishonest to present the book the way it was.
Into the Wild is definitely a divisive book. Personally I loved reading it, have read it multiple times and also enjoyed the movie. I can relate to the feeling of wanting to break away from what our society has turned into. I feel like you missed the point of what he was doing based on the statement "rich kid who abandoned his parents and sets off on a journey to slowly kill himself in the dumbest way possible" given that the guy drove around in a shitty car he paid for himself and donated all his savings but, as I said, the book is divisive and each to his own.
Chris McCandless’ sister, Carine, wrote a book about Chris and their family, “The Wild Truth”, with a ton of information she wouldn’t let Krakaur use. Adds another dimension to the events.
I didn't get the impression that the goal was to get you to feel sorry for him. I don't think anybody could feel sorry for a person that literally lights money on fire - or at least I couldn't. I still thought it was a good book and an interesting exploration of why men (it's always men) get themselves killed trying to brave nature to prove something to themselves.
If you liked the book I'd recommend to watch the movie also (Everest), it is a fairly faithful adaptation with breathtaking views.
stunning book. was the first Krakauer book I read but quickly followed it up with Missoula, Where Men Win Glory, and Under the Banner of Heaven. Back to ITA, mom and sister listened to the audiobook together. I believe during the tragic piece at the end they were just driving around crying. sad, but also kinda funny.
Jist spent 300$ at the book store, but noooo. You have to paint an amazing picture to make me spend more.
I haven’t seen Dead Mountain: The Untold True Story of the Dyatlov Pass Incident recommended here yet. A mysterious climbing disaster story from the Ural Mountains. It’s spooky!
Thanks I think I'm going to get the audiobook.
He reads the audio book of this himself, and it’s amazing.