|
His version goes behind the main scene and shows the business end and the intense logistics of a commercial expedition on a big mountain. This is another story about the infamous climb of Everest that Jon Krackauer made so famous with his book "Into Thin Air". Anatoli was the one who was up half of the night rescuing climbers while the rest of the survivors were passed out in their tents. Anatoli Boukreev was one of the strongest climbers of all time, and he wrote this book because he was not happy about what Jon wrote about him. Although he is obviously not as good of a writer as Jon, I enjoyed his book more. It seems like almost everyone who was on this expedition wrote a book, but this is my favorite version. Dancing on the Edge of an Endangered Planet
Too bad Mr. On a mountain of any size, but Mt.
Everest. Many lives were lost.
In May 1996 there was a devastating climbing accident on Mt. He gave the facts to straighten the record where Jon Krakaur was to say Anatoli had acted selfishly - Anatoli set the record straight as to where he was and what he was doing.
The more popular version by Jon Krakaur is the one most people have heard about or read. But this one by Anatoli Boukreev, I found to be written very well, precise.
Everest to be sure, no one can really know what others are doing, thinking and what their actions are based on.It is time for me to reday this fine book again. Boukreev died in the prime of his life.
Please see my review of "Into Thin Air" where I discuss the comparison to this account.
I don't suggest for one second that there are any 'easy answers' nor any 'one' source that can be termed definitive. [and read] [.]. In effect, and bottom line, the 'reader' makes the ultimate call from what hopefully varied and multiple sources the reader has pursued and how much in-depth reading they have given to it. and by default, at least in their mind-set, 'all' others holding a contrary view are supposedly wrong. Or their belief that bottled oxygen brings the user to 'sea level' [. Nor do I believe that one must be able to demonstrate that they've been on the Everest or K2 summit to render a point of view. and who wouldn't know a belay from a ballet or perhaps hear the word "crampons" and quite possibly believe this is the first symptoms []. They may be right in their call but, and this is cogent, they also may be wrong.
Ultimately, and I render public kudos here to Amazon reviewer Tan Kheng Eng who perhaps put it best when he suggested, "read both books [.]. I'll attempt to be succinct in this one: It's not just the proverbial "who do you believe" with regard to Jon Krakauer ["Into Thin Air"] and Anatoli Boukreev ["The Climb"] but it also encompasses the whole 1996 Everest tragedy because depending on who you ask or listen to, everyone has their own opinion or, indeed, pro-Krakauer/anti-Boukreev versus anti-Krakauer/pro Boukreev mind-set. And serac falls too, yes. That happens too. Right.
and I consider that to be pure bosh. -- most of the authorities on this one suggest a 'climbing' difference of no more than 3,000 feet] as they comment using their commercial jet experiences []. remarks coming from folks totally non acquainted with the existing data [** fast forward to 2006 Everest and the David Sharp matter]. Let's also consider this: there are folks out there who will take the view that if they can't find 'your' name among the list of so-termed "8,000ers" [** Those who have climbed and summited the world's 14 highest mountains over 8,000 meters], then you "haven't the climbing credentials to say anything about it" []. Jon's book is by no means the official account of what happened [.].
And, of particular cogence, back down again. Right. and how wonderful they felt within the pressurized cabin at 35,000 feet. On the other hand, I also find far too many "this is what they should have done" []. I'm not talking about so-termed "armchair mountaineers" as much as those who can allegedly pinpoint what went wrong and muse on what 'should' have been done had 'they' been asked or listened to, ahhh, all would have been well. Let's face it, there 'are' folks who show up at places like Everest or K2 or Annapurna [et al] BC who simply shouldn't be there.
And, true enough, all in-between. It's not a matter of getting the 'guide' to yet another summit in his/her particular style or method, but getting the 'client' there. Having said that, I do have one general view but I preface this by saying it's simply my own opinion and therefore no more right or indeed wrong than anyone else's opinion: I believe when the "role" of the climber 'switches' from that of a solo climber to that of a compensated "guide", then the "client" or "clients" plural de facto enter the equation and therefore what one may do 'individually' [climbing without bottled oxygen [where it is normally prudent to do so] as but one example] should, IMO and so stated, factor in the clients and their needs or indeed their mountaineering shortcomings or lack of high altitude climbing experience and not to mention the ability of the guide, and in 'that' particular compensated role, to remain clear-headed. Some have very deep pockets and wish to experience "the ultimate thrill" but their climbing experience may be woefully negligible.
I suppose my essential grouse comes into play when it gets down to folks who proclaim that they are 'right'. Or the classic, "Well, with our technology today, weather can be fully predicted." []. Toli's account to get a balanced view." Well said. Again, read everything you can get your hands on with regard to the Everest 1996 climbing season but note well the highly differing views or indeed the use of the oft cited colloquialism, to wit, "who do you believe.", well, in the end, the reader has to make the call.
of HAPE/HACE. Right. Further, and this isn't news either, there has been a proliferation of commercial entities offering to take folks to you-name-it but when that happens, the so-termed "guide" takes on the direct responsibility for the welfare of the client and thus 'personal' habits or 'styles' of the 'guide' doesn't necessarilly translate that this should then be the habit or style of the client. Doc Tony
Her death was a tragedy, and neither team could've done anymore than had been done that evening. It is the main reason that I give this book only three stars. After reading this book years ago, along with Krakauer's, I picked up the revised and updated copy this week, and I have to say that DeWalt leaves me with a terrible taste in my mouth.Within his postscript, DeWalt does the exact thing that he is accusing Krakauer of, which would be leaving out facts and printing misleading quotes. EXAMPLE B: In both the Climb's postscript and in the much publicized debate that took place on Salon's website in 1998, DeWalt seems to find some sort of glee in reminding people that "No clients died on Scott Fischer's expedition (whom Boukreev was employed by)." Of course, he uses this as though Boukreev and Fischer's brilliant "plan" worked out much better than that of Rob Hall's expedition (of which Krakauer was a client). Rob Hall's expedition had four casualties. He also relies way to heavily on sections that are basically "this is what person A said in their statement, but she told me something differently behind everyone's back." He accuses Krakauer of leaving out important facts that he claims mislead the reader, but then does the exact same thing himself, on numerous occasions.Example A: In his postscript, DeWalt repeatedly refers to an article in written by Steve Weinberg in the August 1998 edition of the Columbia Journalism Review, which argued that the facts Krakauer used were in dispute, when it had been advertised as non-fiction.What Mr.
I will leave you with a quote from Beck Weathers, from an interview he gave to CNN online on May 9, 2000:"I think Jon Krakauer got it right. Ultimately, nature may have won, but Boukreev's spirit will live on forever. He also may be judgemental, and yes, he probably could've been more forgiving in Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mount Everest Disaster towards Anatoli Boukreev, the brilliant and heroic mountaineer who rescued the lives of at least 3 individuals in May of 1996.With that being said, there is absolutely no excuse for G. As everyone knows, Weathers survived, but Namba perished. Jon Krakauer sees the events through his point of view, and Boukreev sees them through his. Yes, it is written in broken english, and he has trouble in some of his descriptions, but it is one that needed to be heard.His story, alone, earns 5 stars. Parts of book by Anatoli Boukreev or related by Boukreev: 5 stars*Any point of the story where DeWalt offers his opinion: 1 1/2 stars*Post Script by DeWalt: 0 starsThe story of Anatoli Boukreev is truly an amazing one, and he rightly deserved any bit of honor placed on him after behaving heroically during the Everest disaster of 1996. Ironically, Krakauer openly admits that he feels guilty and has never shied away from questions over whether his own presence helped contribute to the disaster of that day.
In fact, there were two. Boukreev, Beidleman, and Mike Groom (the only surviving guide on Hall's team) left Namba and Weathers behind because they didn't think they would survive. He later admitted, ON THE RECORD, that since he relied only on the evidence presented by DeWalt/Boukreev and had not confronted Krakauer with them, he had no way of knowing who was telling the truth. With no other guides left on their expedition, there was no one left who had the experience or the energy required to make an attempt. Let's look at the facts of this statement- Fischer's expedition was NOT without casualties.
DeWalt conveniently leaves out is that Weinberg is on the record as saying that he had not factchecked his own article with Krakauer, and was basing his entire thesis on what DeWalt had written because Krakauer HAD NOT written a postscript in the paperback edition of Into Thin Air. Jon Krakauer may be an impulsive and self-rightious human being. Scott Hall may have survived, had he left Hanson behind to save himself, and Andy Harris died attempting to rescue Hall and Hanson.This leaves the death of Yasuko Namba. that were still showing some signs of life. The reason no one perished on Boukreev's team was because those were the clients, Sandy Hill, Charlotte Fox, etc. In fact, the only reason that Krakauer wrote his postscript was because DeWalt was running his mouth in the press, advertising this article.While accusing Krakauer of using misleading information, DeWalt has the nerve to repeatedly quote an article as though it were fact, and yet the author has disowned the article, years before DeWalt's revisions.
However, only one of them does the fault rest solely on the mistakes made by Adventure Consultants. What Mr. His tale is inspirational and a true example of a man who lived to take on the elements of nature, and conquer them. DeWalt likes to bring up the fact that maybe some of the fault lies on the fact that a member of the press, ie Jon Krakauer, was present on Hall's expedition. Finally, Mr. DeWalt leaves out is that his team also had media reports being broadcast across the world from their team as well.
Neither is the definitive answer, and it may be that we will never have those answers. Two of the deaths happened during rescue attempts. Weston DeWalt's misleading, and downright dishonest post script. Boukreev's contributions, before his tragic death, is a welcome addition to the records. A sherpa and Fischer, himself. If one were to cast blame for the death of Doug Hansen, then yes, it was Rob Hall's responsibility to turn his struggling client around, instead of letting him finish his trek to the summit.However, it is misleading and quite disgusting for DeWalt to act as though the other deaths would've been prevented in Fischer's group.
Not to mention that this particular person had sherpas hauling over one hundred pounds of equipment around in the Death Zone.There are a lot more points that I could spend time rebutting, but I feel that I have used far more space here in this review than I am supposed to.In the end, everyone who was witness to the 1996 disaster has a their own perspective on what took place. Ultimately, Anatole redeemed himself, and that's the way I prefer to remember him."
|
