The Climb

Rating:
Summary: How does he do it?
Review: This guy hurried down the mountain, after climbing it w/o oxygen (a stupid thing for a guide to do) and then writes a book. Read INTO THIN AIR and you will understand what he truely did.

Rating:
Summary: Read Both, Then Decide for Yourself
Review: The debate that still rages over the relative credibility of the various books written about the 1996 Everest disaster is remarkable both for its intensity and its longevity. The fact that people are still arguing passionately about what happened nearly four years ago is kind of mind boggling. I've been following the debate from the sidelines ever since the summer of 1996, and I read both "The Climb" (TC) and "Into Thin Air" (ITA) as soon as they came out. Since then I've read almost all the other books about the tragedy as well. And recently I read the new expanded 1999 paperback editions of TC and ITA, each of which has been revised throughout, and each of which has a lengthy new postscript that answers charges made by the other book. If you have more than a passing interest in Everst 96, you will want to read both these new editions, even if, like me, you already read the first editions. The new dueling postscripts are mandatory reading if you want to have a better understanding of what happened. In my opinion, the truth lies somewhere betweeen the Krakauer account and the Boukreev/DeWalt account, although I think ITA is by far the better (and more believable) book. You, however, might feel differently. Read both new editions and decide for yourself.

All of the different Everest books offer slightly different versions of the same events. This probably shouldn't surprise anybody, considering the effects of altitude and extreme stress on memory. I generally give Krakauer the benefit of the doubt over the other books, though, because he was the only author who took detailed notes while he was on the mountain (a widely respected reporter and mountaineer, he was sent to Everest specifically to document the 1996 climbing season). Krakauer was also the only one of the Everest authors who took the time to interview virtually all the major and minor players in the tragedy, so his book has a thoroughness that is lacking in the other Everest books. The other books, including TC, will be much easier to follow if you've read ITA first. ITA provides crucial background that's missing from the other books, and seems carefully researched and relatively balanced in a way the other books do not.

Which is not to say that ITA isn't flawed. Krakauer wrote it when he was still greatly troubled by the tragedy, and the book clearly shows his raw emotional state. This gave ITA much of its stunning literary power (it is incredibly riveting to read!) but it also probably skewed Krakauer's objectivity. I think maybe he wrote more harshly about Sandy Hill Pittman and Boukreev than was necessary.

One thing that struck me is that ITA and TC are actually in agreement about most major points. ABout the only points where they diverge seriously is over the wisdom of guiding without oxygen, and whether or not Boukreev had permission from Fischer to descend ahead of his clients. On this latter point, Krakauer makes a pretty convincing argument that Boukreev didn't have permission, but I think he was wrong not to give Boukreev the benefit of the doubt. I am prepared to take Boukreev's word on this one, despite plausible evidence to the contrary. Ultimately it's not really that improtant whether Boukreev asked permission or not before he went down. It probably wasn't such a wise idea, with or without permission, but Boukreev later more than made up for it by saving the lvies of Pittman and Charlotte Fox. So I think Krakauer was wrong to make a bid deal about this.

But DeWalt makes an even bigger deal about this same issue, and thereby reveals himself to be an overly zealous advocate. TC barely even pretends to be balanced or even-handed. DeWalt writes in the style of a foaming-at-the-mouth defense attorney, less concerned with the truth than winning an acquittal for his client. He makes use of bombast and self-righteous indignation to appeal to his readers on an emotional level--the journalistic equivalent of "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!" DeWalt presents the facts very selectively, and occasionally twists them outright, in order to build the strongest case he possibly can, hoping to make Boukreev look infallible and Krakauer look like a liar. The problem is, it's not a particularly believable strategy if you stop and consider everything logically, without emotion.

Boukreev is portrayed as a hero in both books (albeit an imperfect hero in ITA). Like other reviewers here, however, I thought DeWalt's overstated advocacy in TC actually did more to hurt Boukreev than help him. Krakauer correctly points out that DeWalt was surprisingly careless with his research and fact checking. Plus, DeWalt doesn't have much natural talent as a writer (to put it charitably), which also hurts Boukreev's cause. I wholeheartedly agree with those other reviewers who wish Boukreev had chosen a more skilful and scrupulous author to tell his story for him. As I said, however, these are simply my opinions. I urge you to read both books for yourself and make up your own mind.

Rating:
Summary: EXTREMELY INFORMATIVE
Review: I gave Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air five stars because it was a thrilling and very readable account of the 1996 Mt. Everest disaster. However, as the previous reviewer, Robert Duran, has stated, credibility counts, especially when reviewing a book of this type. The Climb is not as well-written as Into Thin Air, but it still gets five stars in my book for its accuracy and detached, observant tone. Unlike Krakauer, who puts himself in the center of every scene, Boukreev remains impartial and conveys little emotion. Personally, I accpet Boukreev's account as the truer of the two. Krakauer should be ashamed of himself. He painted Sandy Hill Pittman has the "bad girl" of the expedition when Pittman actually has more high altitude climbing experience than does Krakauer! Krakauer also strongly hinted that Pittman and Mountain Madness expedition leader, Scott Fischer, were having an affair, but the woman having an affair was Lene Gammelgaard, a longtime "friend" of Fischer's whom he invited along on the expedition without making her pay a fee. (Pitttman, in contrast, paid everything owed before the climb, and I know if I need help on Everest I would rather depend on Pittman than on Krakauer any day.) I won't go into the other factual errors of Krakauer's book because previous reviewers have already done a better job than I. If you've read Into Thin Air, (and it IS exciting) no matter what you think about it, do read The Climb as well to balance things out and help you come to your own conclusions.

Rating:
Summary: Credibility Counts
Review: I read some of the reviews posted here and don't recognize the book the reviewers are talking about. Did we read the same book? What I notice most frequently is that the negative reviewers zero in on the writing style and virtually ignore the content of The Climb, especially the "Response to Jon Krakauer" which was offered in the most recent edition. OK. I accept the fact that Into Thin Air is a better written book, no contest, but is that the sole measure of a book's value and importance? What about author credibility? The Climb, by simply and clearly laying out the facts, raises some disturbing questions about the story Krakauer has told and about his professionalism. A few things to consider: (1) Krakauer has said that he "implored" Beck Weathers to come down the mountain with him. Weathers, in tape recorded comments, has said that he asked Krakauer for help, but that Krakauer declined, saying that he wasn't a guide. (2) Boukreev, well before Into Thin Air was published, told Krakauer that Scott Fischer, the expedition leader, had OK'ed his descent ahead of clients. Did Krakauer reveal this? No. Instead, he suggested that Boukreev made a personal, selfish decision to save himself. (3) Krakauer says that his tentmate, Stuart Hutchison, left the tent when Mike Groom stumbled into Camp IV, that he was nowhere around when Groom begged for help with a rescue of Beck Weathers and Yasuko Namba. Mike Groom, in his published account, says that his request for help was made in Krakauer's presence. (4) Krakauer in an interview three years ago said that he might have been wrong in assuming that Fischer, in conversation with Boukreev, did not authorize Boukreev's decsent ahead of clients, but now, after having been criticized for not revealing Boukreev's explanation for his descent, says he suspects the conversation never took place because he saw Fischer boogeying for the summit immediately after he topped the Hillary Step. Oh, yeah? Consider this: In The Climb, Boukreev says that he spent ten or more minutes conferring with Fischer above the Hillary Step after Krakauer went over the edge. Possible? Makalu Gau, from the Taiwanese expediton and Fischer topped the Hillary Step about 2:35 PM. In a published interview Gau says he arrived at the summit at 3:00PM; Fischer didn't arrive at the summit until about 3:45PM. Fischer, who by eyewitness accounts was moving faster than Gau, was forty five minutes behind him on the summit despite the fact that they topped the Hillary Step within minutes of each other. That fact raises serious questions about Krakauer's "observation" that Fischer left the Hillary Step immediately after Krakauer went over its edge and offers ample proof that there was pleeeeenty of time for Boukreev and Fischer to confer. And, the list goes on.If writing style is all that matters in considering a book's meaningfullness, then my time is wasted in making these points. But it means something to me that no substantial fact in The Climb has been proven to be untrue and that members of Krakauer's own expedition have published differing accounts of events in which Krakauer has favorably presented himself. Given that, I'll endure the style of The Climb, which does suffer with the jerky translations of Boukreev's prose, and argue that others should as well.

Rating:
Summary: Buyer Beware
Review: I bought this book with high expectations. Many Amazon reviewers have praised it, insisting that it's even better than "Into Thin Air." But now that I've read it, I don't understand those readers who gave it 5 stars. The writing is absolutely wretched. Boukreev and DeWalt have done the seemingly impossible: Taken a gripping tale of life and death on the world's highest mountain and made it a boring exercise in self-promotion.

The relentless bashing of Krakauer was fairly entertaining for a while (I enjoy schadenfreude as much as the next girl), but DeWalt badly overplays this hand, and by the end of the book his incessant criticisms of Krakauer, and his excessive praise of Boukreev, had the opposite of their intended effect. "The Climb" struck me as a transparently dishonest book. I was enlightened to read the comments from the reviewer below who revealed that Boukreev's publisher, St. Martin's Press, has a reputation for publishing books of dubious credibility.

Before you swallow DeWalt's cynical claims, read the updated chapter at the end of the new 1999 papaperback edition of "Into Thin Air." It confirmed all my worst suspicions about the trustworthiness of "The Climb."

Rating:
Summary: Thoughts From London
Review: Alex Garland (author of THE BEACH & THE TESSERACT) recently wrote that THE CLIMB was the best book he'd read in 1999, that it was a story that would "both grip and haunt you." I couldn't agree more. This challenge to the self-serving, univision of Jon Krakauer is a welcome and valuable contribution to mountaineering literature. After reading THE CLIMB I felt that I had a clearer sense of the actions and decisions that contributed to the 1996 Everest disaster, and I am left in wonder that the impact of Krakauer's presence on the decision making of Rob Hall has not been more closely examined. Read it for insight and a critical look at Krakauer's constructions of "reality."

Rating:
Summary: A botched opportunity
Review: This could have been, and should have been, an amazing book. Boukreev was one of the world's best high-altitude climbers. As "The Climb" repeats over and over again, he was also the main hero of the 1996 Everest tragedy. But Boukreev made a really bad choice when he teamed up with G. DeWalt to tell his story. Part of the problem is that DeWalt is simply an awful writer, prone to rely on clichés and overstatement. The book is too often a chore to plod through, due to DeWalt's amateurish prose and smug tone of voice. But a greater problem is that DeWalt baldly manipulates facts in an attempt to make Boukreev appear to totally beyond fault, and to make it look like Krakauer wrote "Into Thin Air" to intentinally slander Boukreev.

Boukreev acted courageously, but he also made some poor decisions, and it was a mistake for DeWalt to try to claim otherwise. DeWalt's insistence that Boukreev was a perfect saint, and a victim of a smear campaign by Krakauer, made me question his credibility in a major way. The thing that convinced me that DeWalt is not trustworthy was reading the latest paperback edition of "Into Thin Air" (I'd read the hardback when it first came out in 1997). The new edition of Krakauer's book has a fresh postscript that provides an extremely convincing rebuttal to "The Climb." There is no question that DeWalt twisted key facts to make his points, and to drum up controversy. I got the distinct feeling that by invoking Krakauer's name at every opportunity (Krakauer's name even appears on the cover of "The Climb"!), DeWalt and his publsiher were shamelessly trying to cash-in on the success of "Into Thin Air." DeWalt's shady tactics no doubt garnered attention for "The Climb," but it revealed him to be a writer of questionable ethics, and tainted Boukreev by association.

It's worth nothing that the publisher of "The Climb" is St. Martin's Press, a company with a well-deserved reputation for publishing books of dubious credibility. For example, St. Martin's recently published a sensational biography of George W. Bush to much fan-fare, and then had to recall and destroy 70,000 copies after it was revealed that the author was a convicted murderer who fabricated what he wrote. "The Climb," in my view, should be read with this in mind.

There is some very interesting material in this book, nevertheless. For people like me who are fascinated by the moral dimensions of the Everest disaster, it is a must-read. But don't take it as the literal truth. And be sure to read the new edition of "Into Thin Air" as a companion volume. Bear in mind that aach book is simply one man's version of a very complex event. Both books no doubt get things wrong, and both books work to present their respective authors in the best possible light. But it is obvious that Krakauer is a much more careful, much more even-handed, much more believable journalist than DeWalt. The sad thing is, Boukreev didn't need someone like DeWalt to twist the truth for him. He didn't need this book to be so defensive. Boukreev, may he rest in peace, did nothing to be ashamed of. He saved lives. He had an astonishing story to tell. It is most unfortunate that he didn't choose a more capable writer to tell his story for him.

Rating:
Summary: The Climb
Review: Wonderful answer to "Into Thin Air."Gave much more insight into the workings of high altitude climbing. The book clearly shows that Boukreev had more experience and courage than Mr. Krakauer. Read Into Thin Air first before the Climb. You'll understand that Krakauer wrote his book first to try and beat Anatoli to the "punch."

Rating:
Summary: Fills in vital facts that Krakauer (Into Thin Air) leave out
Review: Excellent book! This book fills in vital facts that for some reason, Krakauer chose to ignore. Boukreev says he freely gave this factual information to Krakauer after the expedition, but Krakauer ignored it and went on to paint a poor picture of Boukreev. This book shows how the best laid plans can go awry. It seems, in my opinion, that Boukreev made the correct life and death decisions that saved many lives. His choice to climb without O2 is reasonably explained: he doesn't want to feel the dramatic slowdown and exhaustion that immediately comes when the O2 is gone. In this fashion, he was able to function effectively and make decisions and save lives. The closing chapters, using Boukreev's own words, are riveting.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting facts but dissapointing overall
Review: After reading Krakauer's version of the 1996 disaster on Mt. Everest I decided to read any other available account including Boukreev's. Having read some of the other reviews of both books I want to state that I am not interested in which climber was right or wrong. I am only interested in the quality of the books and the story as a whole.

Boukreev's account was interesting and thankfully it wasn't the point by point rebuttal of Krakauer that I dreaded. Bourkreev provided many interesting contrasts to Krakauer's account. These included:

1. The perspective from Scott Fischer's expedition instead of Rob Hall's where Krakauer was.

2. The point of view of a world-class climber instead of an average one who describes himself as being woefully out of shape.

3. The day to day thoughts of a as rather than a client or observer.

Perhaps the strongest impression provided by Boukreev's account is of frequent misunderstandings and communication problems between the Fischer and himself as well as Fischer and his clients. Whether he intended to or not, Krakauer portrayed Boukreev as something of a villain who was out for himself. After reading climb, I don't think that Boukreev was selfish and negligent but that he did not receive consistent and adequate instructions from his leader.

Another interesting difference between each book is the different perspective of Sandy Hill Pitman. Krakauer takes a rather disparaging view of her and describes her as the spoiled brat of the expedition. But Boukreev describes her purely in terms of her role as a mountaineer. He access her strengths and weaknesses objectively and whether he intends to or not, he accords her much more respect than Krakauer.

I would give "Climb" three, possibly four stars if it weren't for the quality of the writing. Unfortunately DeWalt, tries to be too writerly and too gimmicky with his story. He ends chapter after chapter with glib remarks resembling such phrases as "little did they know what disaster was in store for them", or "but it was not to be." His tone is artificial and his narrative is more of an imposition than anything else. Fortunately, DeWalt is merciful enough to isolate Boukreev's personal narrative by rendering it in italics.

If you are interested in Mountain Climbing or in the 1996 disaster, then by all means read this book. But be ready for some disappointment.