Scan barcode
A review by cdrescher
The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest by Anatoli Boukreev
3.0
3.5 rounded down to 3. She broke out the computer to write this review folks, so you know it's going to be a long one!
I have been fascinated by Mount Everest for as long as I can remember. Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer is probably my favorite non-fiction book ever written; I remember the chills I felt when I finished. The Climb does not exist without Into Thin Air as it's essentially a direct rebuttal, so for that reason it's only fair I compare the two.
My take on the May 10, 1996 Everest disaster is that almost everyone is at fault in some way or another. That includes the trip leaders, the guides, the Sherpas, and even the clients. The lack of oxygen and panic of the day has probably led to many misrememberings of the events, and I don't think the truth lies with either Krakauer or Boukreev, but somewhere in the middle. I think it's a mischaracterization to say Krakauer thinks Boukreev is the true villain of the disaster, but I think he probably gives Boukreev a little harder time than he should. Boukreev made decisions that directly led to the rescue of three climbers, while indirectly leading to the struggles of others. I don't think it's fair to say his actions led to the deaths of Scott Fisher and Yasuko Namba but I unquestionably believe he should have been using supplemental oxygen on this expedition for the safety of himself and his fellow climbers. Things may not (probably wouldn't have) turned out different if he had oxygen, but it could've made a difference at least in getting down the mountain faster.
The reason I gave The Climb 3.5 stars is I FELT the rebuttal to Into Thin Air the entire time. I didn't feel this was Boukreev telling his story, but more this was his side to the story. It read more like an encyclopedia of facts as opposed to a narrative story of what happened in the spring of 1996. I can't say Into Thin Air is perfect, especially with the events of the disaster being constantly litigated by those who were there. However, Into Thin Air set a scene and pace that made me feel like I understood the players, the treachery of Mount Everest, the events at each angle, and the true emotions of what it's like to be trapped in a natural disaster with death all around. Part of why people like The Climb over Into Thin Air is because it feels more like "here's what happened without the fluff", but I think the "fluff" makes for a more resonate reading experience.
Ultimately no one will truly know what happened in May of 1996, but I don't know if I fully buy what this version is selling. I do recommend to anyone who has read Into Thin Air and enjoyed it; it brings your understanding of the disaster full circle.
I have been fascinated by Mount Everest for as long as I can remember. Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer is probably my favorite non-fiction book ever written; I remember the chills I felt when I finished. The Climb does not exist without Into Thin Air as it's essentially a direct rebuttal, so for that reason it's only fair I compare the two.
My take on the May 10, 1996 Everest disaster is that almost everyone is at fault in some way or another. That includes the trip leaders, the guides, the Sherpas, and even the clients. The lack of oxygen and panic of the day has probably led to many misrememberings of the events, and I don't think the truth lies with either Krakauer or Boukreev, but somewhere in the middle. I think it's a mischaracterization to say Krakauer thinks Boukreev is the true villain of the disaster, but I think he probably gives Boukreev a little harder time than he should. Boukreev made decisions that directly led to the rescue of three climbers, while indirectly leading to the struggles of others. I don't think it's fair to say his actions led to the deaths of Scott Fisher and Yasuko Namba but I unquestionably believe he should have been using supplemental oxygen on this expedition for the safety of himself and his fellow climbers. Things may not (probably wouldn't have) turned out different if he had oxygen, but it could've made a difference at least in getting down the mountain faster.
The reason I gave The Climb 3.5 stars is I FELT the rebuttal to Into Thin Air the entire time. I didn't feel this was Boukreev telling his story, but more this was his side to the story. It read more like an encyclopedia of facts as opposed to a narrative story of what happened in the spring of 1996. I can't say Into Thin Air is perfect, especially with the events of the disaster being constantly litigated by those who were there. However, Into Thin Air set a scene and pace that made me feel like I understood the players, the treachery of Mount Everest, the events at each angle, and the true emotions of what it's like to be trapped in a natural disaster with death all around. Part of why people like The Climb over Into Thin Air is because it feels more like "here's what happened without the fluff", but I think the "fluff" makes for a more resonate reading experience.
Ultimately no one will truly know what happened in May of 1996, but I don't know if I fully buy what this version is selling. I do recommend to anyone who has read Into Thin Air and enjoyed it; it brings your understanding of the disaster full circle.