Rating: 
Summary: Interesting read however tainted
Review: I read both "Into Thin Air," and "The Climb," and have to say that I am perplexed on why Krakauer is given such bad press on the Boukreev issue. Krakauer didn't slam him at all merely thought aloud trying to understand what happened that night while truly suffering still over the losses. I truly believe after reading both books that one major factor besides mother nature contributed highly to the loss of life and that was the expedition heads. I believe Scott Fischer no matter how nice and charismatic the man was and what good intentions he had for the climbers he was NOT PREPARED!! Heck, there were no proper radios for the climbers to communicate to each other and for the guides, also there wasn't a properly calculated oxygen for the climb, some tents were missing. One huge missing figure was their third guide who cancelled at the last moment was not replaced. Scott Fischer kept going up and down the mountain as if he was going up and down stairs in one's home, I couldn't get over it. How did one ever believe that he was to survive torturing his body in this manner. There is a part of the blame assigned to Boukreev for this. He knew that Scott was slowly killing himself but he left him be to know better, heck Boukreev was hired to be the lead guide, why didn't he speak up. I truly believe that one is suicidal risking the forces of Mother Nature in climbing Everest however I do believe as Krakauer stated that one should only be allowed to climb without supplemental oxygen, look at Ed Viesturs! Good old Sandy Pittman laughed at him saying that they went back not making the summit, here she was getting shot up with drugs lying dead in the snow if it wasn't for the likes of a rescue attempt for her life. The likes of her made me pretty upset in the book, again a sign that the over commercialization of Everest is truly an issue that needs to be explored.
Rating: 
Summary: An excellent account, badly put together...
Review: If you can get past the annoying footnotes, the often clumsy transitions between DeWalt's descriptions and Boukreev's narration and, finally, if you can avoid choosing sides in the Krakauer vs. Boukreev debate on who did what, when & when did they know it blah blah, this is an excellent and compelling story.The "who/when" debate detracts from the serious questions both books raise about guiding people onto 8000 + Meter peaks who haven't spent their whole lives training for this level of climbing: what are the client's expectations & responsibilities; the guides and, especially, the trip organizer's?? The '96 disaster showed the fatal flaws inherent in guiding such trips. Boukreev is quoted early in the book outlining his philosophy: "Climbing at high altitude requires a different set of rules. You have to develop self-reliance in your climbers because you cannot hold their hands all the time. It is dangerous to say that Everest can be guided in the same sense the Mount McKinley can be guided." At the end of the book, Anatoli won't even call himself a guide, but prefers "consultant." This is more than just a semantic difference. It represents what you're getting you're hired to take a relatively inexperienced person climbing at those altitudes and conditions: he'll do his best but the ultimate responsibility is yours-there can't be any guarantees. This is critical to some of the criticism that's been made against Boukreev. I found The Climb less a defense of his own actions (as others here find it) than an account of the disaster from a professional guide's perspective and within his philosophy of climbing. Also, I was quite moved by some of his writing at the end-which I assume to have been written in his native Russian then translated. His lyricism and love for the mountains comes through far better than the fractured English quotes DeWalt uses elsewhere. Krakauer did an excellent job in Into Thin Air. On the whole, I found that book to be a factual reporting of the series of mistakes that might have led to the disastrous loss of life in one day and without seeming critical or judgemental of anyone-with the possible exception of Boukreev. I thought he was a little harsh when I first read it and still think so. Worse, Krakauer hasn't tempered his comments in the more recent Salon interviews and goes on a real rant against both Boukreev & the American Alpine Club which just doesn't seem warranted. ("Why was Anatoli the only person to go back out? He may have been fearless. But he also pretty goddamn motivated. He was having tea when a lot of people died. It wouldn't have looked too good.-jk") THAT'S uncalled for, petty and unfairly maligns Boukreev's motives and abilities without any substantiation whatsoever. You don't have to agree with Boukreev's approach, of course. All he had to do was present a reasonable case for why he did what he did (e.g. climb without Oxygen; descend ahead of many of his clients). As such, his actions weren't unreasonable given his philosophy and the conditions. It also seems likely that both Krakauer and Boukreev were/are suffering from survivor's guilt or Post Traumatic Stress. It was a terrible ordeal for all involved-in many respects like combat. It is really too bad that either has felt compelled to defend their actions to anyone other than themselves. The latter is difficult enough without the rest of the world second guessing them.
Rating:
Summary: read them both
Review: This is Anatoli Boukreev's story of the 1996 Everest deaths (co-written with an American journalist). Boukreev was the head guide for Scott Fischer's expedition, and he wrote the book mainly because he thought that Jon Krakauer had unfairly blamed him in his book, "Into Thin Air". The very interesting contrasts between the two books come mainly from the perspectives of the authors. Boukreev was one of the most well-respected high altitude climbers in the world (he has since died in an avalanche). He was guiding for Scott Fischer's expedition. He writes mainly about his own team, Mountain Madness. Krakauer was an accomplished low-altitude climber who was with Rob Hall's expedition as a client/journalist. He had no previous Himalayan experience. He writes mainly about his own team, Adventure Consultants. In "Into Thin Air" Krakauer makes many comments about how Boukreev did things that were "dubious" behaviors for a guide (such as climbing without oxygen). He quotes an anonymous member of Boukreev's team as saying that Boukreev "cut and ran when they needed him most." Boukreev admits that he was more comfortable thinking of himself as a senior team member and climbing resource than as a typical guide. However, he also states that he was performing exactly the role that Fischer hired him to do. Neither side disputes that on the day of the summit attempt, Boukreev fixed the ropes on the Hillary Step, was the first to summit, and started down for camp before many of his clients arrived at the top. Neither also disputes that Boukreev personally saved three of his clients by venturing out from his tent that night (three times) when no one else was willing to leave camp and rescue them. But the spins they put on the agreed-upon facts are incredibly different. For instance, Krakauer says that Boukreev carried one oxygen bottle in case of emergencies, but ditched his pack and gave the oxygen to another guide to carry. Boukreev says he carried one oxygen bottle in case he needed it, but when he decided he didn't need it he gave it to the other guide, who was running low. Krakauer never mentions that the other guide actually used the extra oxygen himself. Personally, I buy Boukreev's version. It just hangs together better. And when you look at it, Rob Hall's group lost two guides and two clients, plus they would have lost another client if he hadn't managed to miraculously save his own life (though not his frostbitten hands, which were amputated). On the other hand, Scott Fischer's group lost only Fischer himself, and none of their clients ended up permanently injured. The difference in the death tolls are entirely due to Boukreev's rescues. Now that I've read both books, I have to say that Krakauer comes off sounding like a know-nothing jerk, who only thinks he knew what was going on. But, and this shouldn't be too surprising, his book is easier to read and the narrative flows better. The answers to the biggest mysteries, though, died with Rob Hall and Scott Fischer.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting book with questionable motives...
Review: I found The Climb very interesting, but the book was a little too self serving for my taste. The late hero of the book seemed to want to build himself up at other's expense. For a more suspenseful tale about the events of 1996 on Everest, try Into Thin Air.
Rating: 
Summary: Laconic but effective.
Review: I have read both books and I prefer this (but strongly recommend both). Krakauer's book is well written but perhaps has an excess of self-praise.Boukreev's book has a better study of their partner's characters and the real causes involving the disaster.
Rating:
Summary: My take on "The Climb."
Review: I read "The Climb" first; didn't even know that "Into Thin Air" existed. "The Climb" is riveting entertainment. But then again, so is "Into Thin Air". Too bad for Boukreev that Krakaur had to cast doubt on his reputation as a guide. Too bad for Krakaur that Boukreev decided to speak out and tell his side of the story. It seems that the mountain (Everest) has taken its toll on both climber's reputation. It also made both climbers a household name. Who's right? You'll have to read both books to make an informed decision. "The Climb" is hard to put down until you've finished reading it.
Rating:
Summary: The Climb Reaches New Heights
Review: The Climb Reaches New Heights By Sam Woolf The Climb, told by Antoli Boukreev and written by G. Weston DeWalt, retells the 1996 Everest disaster in an unforgettable way. As it puts you in the place of the dying clients, makes you starved for oxygen, and needing heat, you realize that this is no backyard climb. It takes you step by step to the top of the world, and retells what really happ-ened on the tragic night of May 1996. Told from Boukreev's perspective as a guide for Scott Fischer's Adventure Consultants and as an experienced high-altitude climber, everything possible that can go wrong does. In this adventure/tragedy, Boukreev walks us step by step to the top of Everest. Continuing on through the night, and making us feel like we were in the 60-mile hour winds, Boukreev tells it like we were his shadow throughout the entire climb. Told from a third and first person style of narration, the whole scheme of things is well told. Written about him-self in the first person style of narration, this book then switches to the group, which is told in the third person style of narration. It switches over pretty often, not so much as the book goes on and his story is more interesting then that of the climbers sitting in the freezing temperat-ures. So, you not only get his thoughts on the situations at hand, you also get a group status. Mother Nature proves that she can be very unforgiving and unpredictable. Taking the lives of nearly ten climbers on that night, and leaving many more scarred for life, she proves just that. As Boukreev tries to battle Mother Nature and save as many clients as he can single handedly, he is faced with many life and death situations. He must decide whether or not to go out into the 60 mile an hour winds and try to save stranded clients, or whether to save his strength and wait until the next day. The main of objective of this book is well met. It describes how tough mentally and physically climbing the worlds highest mount-ain is, even for the worlds best mountain-eers. It shows how little things at base camp can be major, life threat-ening things above 8,000 meters (24,000ft). The Climb also presents a counter to Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air. Read as a comple-ment, you get two very different viewpoints on this tragic night. Into Thin Air, told from Krakauer's perspective as a client blaming Boukreev for just about everything he does, makes it seem like Krakauer is the only person that was thinking straight, and that he was the big hero. He achi-eves a very arrogant tone. On the contrary to that, The Climb tells how Boukreev was told (by Scott Fischer) to do many of the things that Krakauer apparently disagreed with. He achieves a very rational tone, and doesn't blame anyone for the disaster. He also doesn't call anyone (or himself) the "Big Hero". Unlike Krakauer, Boukreev tells of his rescue efforts, and actually backs them up with dialogue and even includes a transcript. The Climb shows that even the world's best climbers can't save everyone, and that even they have their time to die. All in all, I thought that this was an excel-lent book that clearly met it's main objective: to retell the tragic night as fully and as truthfully as possible. It has great imagery, and does an excellent job of making you fell like you're actu-ally him, or one of the stranded climbers. This is an excellent book for anyone interested in Everest, and people that just like to read about adventures.
Rating: 
Summary: A great story but a poor book
Review: I was underwhelmed by this book, which is surprising given that the story of the Everest debacle is a natural page-turner. Boukreev comes across as the least-blameworthy of several blameworthy mountain guides. Reading a story like this make you wonder why any sane person would try to climb Everest.
Rating:
Summary: Truth ultimately always wins out
Review: Read both books, "Into Thin Air" and "The Climb". It will become quite clear who had "right motivation" as the sherpas say. I can not believe that a climber as experienced as Mr. Krakauer was unable to see the benefits of both Rob Hall's and Scott Fisher's guiding styles. Or was it simply that it was too painful and unprofitable?
Rating:
Summary: Sour grapes
Review: This book reads like an attempt to slam Jon Krakauer's _Into Thin Air_ at every turn. My question is, why? I've read Krakauer's book and saw nothing in there to suggest that Krakauer portrayed Anatoli Boukreev in a bad light. This book lends the impression of a hypersensitive ego that was bruised because the comments in Krakauer's book, although not bad, were not glowing enough. Apart from that, this is a pretty good read, but not nearly as well written as Jon Krakauer's definative book on the 1996 Everest tragedy. Worth reading for a different perspective, if you can overlook the obvious sour grapes and pin-the-blame-on-Jon-Krakauer (a good man who did the best he could do under the circumstances) that the writing is riddled with.
| 
