Rating: 
Summary: A WARNING CALL
Review: Read it. It has its flaws, but it gets you behind the glitz and hype, and it takes you to the core of the needless tragedy of Everest. There is a warning offered in this tale: If you are going on a high-risk expedition, ask if any journalists are on the roster. If there are, stay home! Better yet, sign on with an expedition that has its priorities straight. This book is spoken in a true voice. I regret that its author is no longer with us. Mountains NOT media!
Rating: 
Summary: A BOOK THAT MAKES YOU THINK
Review: As readers of non-fiction we are at the mercy of writers whose words we depend upon, and that vulnerability, I think, is important to keep in mind when considering THE CLIMB and the countervailing INTO THIN AIR. After reading the newest edition (1999) of THE CLIMB--with the response to Jon Krakauer--I came to the conclusion that Boukreev and DeWalt have told a more objective and truthful tale. There are, for my tastes, too many holes in Krakauer's INTO THIN AIR. (1) Several of his accounts of his own performance on Everest are at odds not only with Boukreev's telling of the story, but also with the accounts of other members of his own expedition like Mike Groom and Beck Weathers. By my way of seeing it, the differences between Krakauer's account of what happened when he met the snowblind Beck Weathers and Weathers' own account would, if there was such a thing as an Everest independent counsel, lead to Krakauer's impeachment as a writer. (2) Krakauer's criticisms of Boukreev seem unfounded, and his characterizations of Boukreev appear to have been constructed more for the purpose of supporting his opinions than for the purpose of telling a fair and balanced story. The mountaineer Galen Rowell, writing in the American Alpine Journal, said THE CLIMB was less an armchair adventure story and more a book that makes you think. For some, perhaps, this is an indictment. For me it is praise. I recommend a reading of the new edition of THE CLIMB and a close and critical comparison with what Krakauer has had to to say. The proof is in the reading.
Rating:
Summary: Honest, as it can be I suppose
Review: Having read "Into Thin Air" after reading "The Climb", Boukreev is portrayed not as a hero but more like a human being with some very good intentions. However, I chose not to rely on either of these books exclusively to find out as Boukreev would probably would say, "kto vinovat?"- who is to blame. There are other accounts I'm sure, for example Lena Gammelgard (sp?) recently gave her account so I am sure there is further insight, so at this time unlike other readers I reserve my judgement. The oxygen situation seemed to have tried Boukreev's patience more than anything. His account of acquiring these Poisk bottles, probably greatly influenced his decision to go without oxygen for probably the clients' and the entire group. Although, Boukreev never admits it, Fischer's concern on costs more than likely hinted to him to start finding ways to give the clients as much oxygen as they need on the summit and descent. He also partly chastises the clients for not being entire prepared for high-altitude mountaineering, which I think most any client would pale in comparison to a guides' experience no matter the mountain. Assertions that Boukreev was ill-clothed for summit day were disproved with a photograph. I don't find this trivial, summit day requires clothing for all measures and even more so for a guide. Boukreev has every right to make sure DeWalt (even if a bit heavy-handedly) made it known that he was prepared physically and mentally, so he would be prepared to help the clients. As a former client of a mountaineering school, I'm sure the clients on Everest that day signed some type of waiver on the responsibilities of other clients and guides. Despite these waivers, guides still hold themselves to certain obligations of their clients, safety being paramount. Yet, they walk that fine line of safety and baby sitting. Boukreev obviously didn't have the communication skills to ascertain that. Of course, I have my own skepticism. As a Russian speaker and budding mountaineer and as someone who acts as a translator/liaison between English speakers and Russians, I found Boukreev's transcripts compelling (but for my English reading, extremely tiresome!), but the value I found was how poor his English seemed (I say this hesitantly since transcripts can be edited). "Into Thin Air" portrayed Boukreev as a guide doing his own thing, but the transcript reveals to me that Boukreev perhaps felt constrained by his English. On paper guides are respected for what they have done and can do, but the most important way to the convey this to clients is by building a strong base of communication (as repoire I guess). If a guide cannot communicate at a "small talk" level how can he/she do it when struggling up and down a mountain? No wonder I get that wooden impression of Boukreev when reading "Into Thin Air." This is further reinforced by Boukreev description of his clients- he might as well just read verbatim their climbing resumes. Such small talk cannot by underestimated in building client/guide bonds. My other criticism is the "because Scott told me" feeling I have. The situation with oxygen and money all came from Scott, the other guide Neal seemed wooden. Why? Boukreev's communication. Can we also say how easy it is to blame the dead guy. I have my doubts about his decisions on summit day as coming from Scott. On the other hand Fischer seemed quite headstrong and probably didn't appreciate what Boukreev had to offer and seemed to misuse Boukreev's value to the team. I can how this might strengthen Boukreev's isolation. Overall, Boukreev wanted to portray himself as honestly as he could. Of course such participant accounts are always tinged either intentionally or unintentionally by self-justification. He felt more business pressure than he let on and coupled with poor repoire with clients likely compounded the tragedy that occurred. He still had the guts to go back out to retrieve clients in need of help, which during a whiteout and storm is an incredibly frightening experience from my experience. "The Climb" is worth its read especially from someone as experienced as Boukreev and the respect and admiration that he commands in the Russian mountaineering community is something that the mountaineering world as a whole cannot fully appreciate. Mir prakhu ego
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating albeit poorly written story
Review: Having read Jon Krakauer's account of the Everest disaster in 1996 and having read much of the storm (no pun intended) surrounding his work, I was curious to see what Boukreev had to say. Much to my relief, there was very little argument or accusation. Having read Krakauer's perspective as a client on Rob Hall's team, it was interesting to read Boukreev's views as a guide and a member of Scott Fischer's team. Boukreev sheds light on his own controversial role in the tragedy. He does not come across as the egotist who put his clients at risk by climbing without oxygen and rushing back to the tents alone after reaching the summit. Nor does he appear to be the hero who intentionally climbed without oxygen because it made him stronger or who rushed back to the tents in order to get ready to help the clients out (I've never been very clear on that one.) Instead Boukreev portrays himself as a person who was simply doing the best he could in a chaotic situation with little effective communication. I didn't believe that Krakauer was as humble and well intentioned as he made himself out to be. Nor do I believe that Boukreev was as selfless and concerned for the clients as he makes himself out to be. It appears that each man has portrayed himself in the best light possible. Krakauer does this more subtly by admitting some mistakes and saying that he feels terrible about what happened. But when you add up the tone and content of his book, it is clear that his character has some window dressing. Boukreev also portrays himself in the best possible manner. Unlike Krakauer, he does this in a direct and obvious way which does not seem completely believable either. Fortunately, I am not interested in who was right or wrong, who was better, and so forth. There were probably good intentions and bad mistakes on everyone's part. The one serious deficit of Boukreev's account is the absolutely horrible writing of G. Weston Dewalt. Clearly Krakauer is the superior writer and researcher of the two. Both writers employ certain literary devices to tell their tale. In Krakauer's case, these stylistic nuances are quite palatable. In Dewalt's case, they get stuck in the gullet and require hasty swallowing or regurgitation. Fortunately, Dewalt is merciful enough to isolate Boukreev's narrative from his own. I have nothing against Dewalt as a person, and I am impartial when it comes to siding with Boukreev's or Krakaur's camp. Unfortunately, Dewalt's clumsy and affected prose detracts from an otherwise fascinating story.
Rating:
Summary: Much more than a rebuttal
Review: The Climb is required reading if you have read Into Thin Air. Boukreev's story is an excellent coutnerpoint to Krakauer's, but not just for the reasons that it is popularly portrayed, namely as Boukreev's rebuttal. Into Thin Air is written from the perspective of the client and Rob Hall's expedition. Boukreev provides the perspective of the guide and Scott Fischer's expedition. He presents a much more poignant and insightful view of the mountaineer in general and himself and Scott Fischer in particular. In short, you can read The Climb, get a different and possibly more interesting perspective. Afterwards the reader can judge for themselves what the real story might be. In this regard, The Climb is disturbing in its post mortem. When read in conjunction with Into Thin Air, it provides a sobering example of how additional "facts" sometimes cloud the excitement of a story. The Climb's depiction of Sandy Pittman, Boukreev and Fischer's expedition as a whole tell a different story that dilutes the basic theme of Into Thin Air. These two books may well serve not only as a good study for journalists, but as a reminder of how carefull we must be in taking one view simply at face value.
Rating:
Summary: Mountaineering Superman!
Review: How many people reading this have ever been above 8000 meters? Then quit babbling about the mudslinging between Boukreev & Krakauer! Boukreev's accomplishments as illustrated in the book are incredible! It's great to hear not from a great or acclaimed journalist, but from a real climber! I think it greatly added to the book's honesty & to it's feeling. May you rest in peace Anatoli!
Rating:
Summary: Krakouer Fails in PostScript
Review: After reading both, 'Into Thin Air' and, 'The Climb', I began to read Krakouer's Postscript in his newest, 'Into Thin Air the Illustrated Edition'. DeWalt explains how senseless it was that Krakouer failed to change any information in his postscript that DeWalt effectively crushed.. Five items ring true which DeWalt and Bourkreev go over time and time again. 1) Boukreev did speak with Fischer atop the Hillary Step about going down to be prepared to later make a possible ascent to help clients. This decision was endorsed later by Beidleman in the Mountain Madness Everest Debriefing tape made three days after their return to base camp. Krakouer also stumbles in a later interview with DeWalt when he first says he heard the conversation between Boukreev and Fischer but then says, his information only comes from Martin Adams so he couldn't be sure what was said. 2) Krakouer again fails to mention the fact that Boukreev was wearing proper clothing thus did not rush down the mountain because of lack of insulation from the cold. Pictures to prove this in Boukreev's book. 3) Krakouer has never been about 8000 meters, Boukreev has. Sure Jon needed oxygen, in fact he continually struggled with lack of it after his summit success and had to be helped by Mike Groom. However, far from hypoxia, Boukreev in my opinion was far better off not using any O's. This way, he needn't have to worry about running out and crasching. I think he proves his strength by the fact that he attempted a possible ascent and also rescued three clients. 4) Krakouer says that DeWalt never 'attempted' to interviewed the surviving guides (Beidleman and Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa) DeWalt clearly states that he did 'attempt' to interview Beidleman however Beidleman did not want to do an 'on the record interview' DeWalt still quotes him where applicable from the Mountain Madness Everest Debriefing tapes. Once such vital statment he makes is that while he did not know the Fischer-Boukreev plan and that it would be been helpful had Boukreev remained on the South East Ridge, he completely endorsed Fischer's plan and thought it was a good one. Indeed, he says had Boukreev simply waited for the clients to return, Boukreev probably would not have been able to make the rescue attempts that he did. DeWalt then was to interview Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa, Fischer's sidar. DeWalt could have interviewed him when he was attending Fischer's memorial service in Seattle but chose not to out of respect for his mourning and family privacy. The plan was to interview him in Kathmandu in the spring of 97. Sadly, Lopsang died in an avalanche earlier that year and so was unavailable for the interivew. Krakouer knew all of this through letters with DeWalt but again in his postscript he writes as if, 'for reasons still unknown, DeWalt never attempted to interivew Beidleman or Lopsang Jangbu.' 5) For me this is the most damming evidence against Krakouer, evidence that Krakouer for reasons he still has not justified chooses to ignore. The evidence is Jane Bromet's interview with DeWalt, the, '...You know there is something I want to tell you....I don't know if I should...' Here she is referring to the fact that Fisher told her, prior to her leaving base camp, that he had a plan, a plan to send Boukreev down to camp 4 should the clients run into trouble. Although he did not have a detailed plan, he had a plan. Krakouer was privy to this information because Bromet told him exactly what she told DeWalt. Yet again Krakouer fails to mention any of this in his postscript. Why Krakouer failed to honestly write a proper postscript baffles me. The evidence was right in front of him. I think Bromet says it best when she tells DeWalt, '...Jon is a friend of mine and I didn't want to embarass him...' Perhaps this review should be placed under Krakouer's 'Into Thin Air, the Illustrated Edition' but I believe my arguements better reflect the honest fact finding efforts that Boukreev and DeWalt undertook.
Rating:
Summary: Bourkreev Redeemed
Review: A fascinating rebuttal to the Krakauer accusations. The writing might have been better and the tone a little lest strident but no matter, at the end you will have had a brief glimpse into the life and motivations of an heroic mountain of a man whose actions on Everest speak for themselves.
Rating:
Summary: Most exciting adventure i have read about Everest
Review: this book is gripping, it cannot be put down once started ...it leads you on to want to know more of what happened that night. it is well written and is easily understood by a non climber.
Rating:
Summary: Anatoli presented as a hero, finally!
Review: Having read "Into Thin Air", "Climbing High", "The Other Side of Everest", (alright, I'm trying to cool down in the sizziling sweltering East Coast summertime), I got to understand the people that went up. Having started with Jon Krakhauer's book, I was painted a different picture of some of the climbers. Anatoli Boukrev, in particular seemed to attain a chameleon-like quality. I liked this book, as well as Lene's the best, since it presented the "characters" in greater dimension. The only criticism is the repetition of some facts in what seems "one too many" ways. Had the heroics of Boukreev not saturated too many footnotes, appendices, Q&A's, it would have been more forceful. In reviewing Lene's book, I had wished for more prose. Unfortunately, I now appreciate the phrase "Be careful what you wish for.."
|
