Rating: 
Summary: Very well-written account of the Everest tragic climb
Review: Excellent counterpoint to "Into Thin Air." Very fast read, exciting and well written. Makes you think about ideas you form about people in one book that can quickly change when you get another first person account of the same tragic event. Gives me a totally different perspective than I first had of this drama. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: reacting to Boukreev's death
Review: I got Climb for Christmas and read it in two days... and now I read that on that same Christmas Day, Boukreev was killed in an Avalanche on Annapurna I. I don't know whether anyone can ever be called a hero or a villian; I think we are all too complex, our perceptions to diverse, to ever be fully one or the other. Suspicious behavior to one person could be heroic to another, especially when you have such varying influences as culture and hypoxia playing such a large part in how the participants saw and remembered things. All I know for certain now is that we have all lost someone important. I'd followed Krakauer's writing career - Eiger Dreams, Into the Wild, his articles in Outside - and when I heard about the crisis on Everest last year, although I'd never met the man, I felt sick with worry; I'd come to know him though his books, his words and ideas. I feel the same way now about Boukreev, and to think that as I was reading his book warm and snug by my fire while he was dying in a cold rush of snow makes me want to cry. We are at the end of something; I don't know what exactly, but I do know this: Boukreev's death in that avalanche was different than the deaths on Everest in one very important way: Boukreev was taking a calculated risk about which he knew the dangers very well; his life was not at the mercy of socialites being dragged up a mountain they had no business being on. He died one-on-one with the mountain, in a struggle with nature, and not because somebody ahead of him had no time to fix ropes, or wouldn't lend radios to a rescue effort, or for any other reason than his being out there and the snow coming down. It may be a lonely way to die, but it beats the hell out of dying because a bunch of other people didn't know what they were doing.
Rating: 
Summary: An antidote to "Into Thin Air"
Review: Those of you who've read "Into Thin Air" by Jon Krakauer will remember Anatoli Boukreev as one of the climbing guides on the Mountain Madness "expedition" led by Scott Fischer. That expedition included Sandy Hill Pittman, the New York socialite, Lene Gammelgaard, Martin Adams, Neal Beidleman, Tim Madsen, Charlotte Fox, Klev Schoening, Dale Kruse, Lopsang Sherpa, and Ngima Sherpa. Ok, so why read the same story twice? First of all, Krakauer's perspective was almost entirely from the point of view of "Adventure Consultants", Rob Hall's team. Kakauer also had no high altitude climbing experience, despite having been a serious technical climber before turning journalist. Lastly, Boukreev is one of the guides, rather than a client. The two books hence offer vastly different perspectives on what happened on the mountain, so much so that the same scenes might be described completely differently by the different authors. From my reading of both books, the two expeditions were very different. Hall's experience as an expedition leader led to his being able to provide logistical support that outstripped Fischer's limited supply. (Fischer's oxygen supply, for instance, was highly limited, as was the size of his Sherpa team) Logistics aside, however, Fischer's expedition was led by a very different philosophy. Fischer, for instance, believed that the clients should as much as possible be independent of the guides, and that it was his job to serve as sweep and coach. Hall told his clients not to make a move without him. Boukreev is Russian, so most of the text is actually ghost written by DeWalt, drawing from debriefing tapes and a reconstruction of events in Boukreev's words (those appear in a special typeface so you can tell when Boukreev's narrating). This is not as disconcerting as it might be, and the book is still a compelling read despite the fragmentary nature of such a narrative. Early on, Boukreev acknowledges his limitations: that he was not useful as a sociable guide. He viewed his role as a trainer and planner, and unfortunately did not seem able to communicate that to Fischer and the other guides. This meant, for instance, that his advice to drop to 3000 feet for the final recovery before pursuing the climb was ignored by all but Adams. (Why Fischer did not encourage the other clients to follow his example was a mystery, since a final recovery below 3000 feet after acclimatization is apparently considered common climbing practice by Boukreev, who took his own advice---perhaps this is only common for Russians, since Hall's team did not do so either) You see signs of things going wrong much earlier in Boukreev's book than in Krakauer's. You know, for instance, that the last section of the climb was left unroped because the Sherpas were behind schedule and Lopsang Sherpa was short roping Pittman instead of setting up lines. You realize that Fisher shadowed Hall's expedition because he was new to leading clients up Everest, which in turned caused the traffic jam on summit day. There are still many unanswered mysteries, however, such as Lopsang Sherpa's short-roping of Pittman. The strongest point of contention was naturally, of Boukreev's own behavior. Krakuer sharply criticized Boukreev's behavior, for first climbing without oxygen, and secondly not climbing and descending with his clients. Boukreev contended that there was not enough oxygen anyway, and climbing with oxygen leads to trouble when you finally run out (which was what happened to Fischer), and by setting rope up ahead and descending ahead of the clients he was thus rested enough to perform the rescues so critical later at night. The most compelling piece of evidence for Boukreev, however, came from his excerpt of Galen Rowell's review of "Into Thin Air": "Anatoli Boukreev comes off as an intransigent Russian guide who doesn't help clients and irresponsibly refuses to use supplementary oxygen. In this telling he emerges from the crisis more as an errant worker finally doing his job than as the mythical hero he would surely have become in a past era. While Mr. Krakauer slept and no other guide, client, or Sherpa could muster the strength and courage to leave camp, Mr. Boukreev made several solo forays into a blizzard in the dark at 26000 feet to rescue three climbers near death. Time magazine failed to mention him in a three-page news story after a New York socialite implausibly wouldn't acknowledge that he saved her. Mr. Boukreev is roundly criticized for descending far ahead of clients. Although Mr. Krakauer grants Mr. Boukreev certain strengths, he never paints the big picture of one of the most amazing rescues in mountaineering history performed single-handedly a few hours after climbing Everest without oxygen by a man some describe as the Tiger Woods of Himalayan climbing. Mr. Boukreev has topped many of the world's highest peaks solo, in less than one day, in winter, and always without oxygen (because of his personal ethic). Having already done Everest twice, he foresaw problems with clients nearing camp, noted five other guides on the peak, and positioned himself to be rested and hydrated enough to respond to an emergency. His heroism was not a fluke." (Wall Street Journal May 29, 1997) Rowell himself is an experienced climber who has led numerous Himalayan expeditions (including expeditions to K2 and Everest). In a case like this, I would tend to rely on his integrity over Krakauer's. Because of this, I cannot consider "Into Thin Air" to be a complete account of the events of that tragic day on Everest in 1996. Boukreev's book provides a much needed perspective to that narrative. Because of their differing perspectives, neither book can stand alone, and both books deserve to be read with the context of the other in mind. To some large extent, Krakauer seems to have projected his own guilt onto the behavior of others associated with the Everest expeditions, and Boukreev's book provides a much needed antidote.
Rating:
Summary: In Memorium: Anatoli Boukreev
Review: Just for the interest of your readers: Anatoli Boukreev was killed a few days ago on Christmas Day. He was one of the few climbers I respected if for no other reason than that he had the decency not to have a wife and family given his suicidal hobby. The text of the Reuters report follows: KATHMANDU, Dec 27 (Reuters) - A Russian who went missing while climbing
Annapurna I in the Himalayas on Christmas Day is believed to have died, a
Nepali Tourism Ministry spokesman said on Saturday. Anatoly Boukreev, 39, a noted mountaineer, was swept away by an avalanche on
Thursday while he was at 5,900 metres (19,356 ft), the spokesman quoted fellow
climber Simone Moro as saying. The Italian Moro, who was rescued on Friday from the mountain in west Nepal by
a helicopter told Reuters nothing was known about Boukreev's fate. ``I shouted for 20 minutes and looked for him but did not find his body,''
Moro, 30, said after being flown to Kathmandu. Moro and Boukreev were attempting to scale the extremely steep south face of
the 8,091-metre (26,545 ft) Annapurna I, the world's 10th highest mountain. Moro was at 6,400 metres (20,997 ft) while Boukreev was climbing at 5,900
metres (19,356 ft) when an avalanche struck. Boukreev, a mountain guide, who had both Kazakh and Russian citizenship, was
unmarried. He had already climbed 11 of the world's 14 peaks over 8,000 metres
(26,250 ft), including the world's tallest, Mount Everest, three times. Annapurna I, well known for its fatal avalanches, has the worst ratio of the
number of climbers who have died on it to the number who have successfully
reached its summit -- a ratio of one to two.
Rating:
Summary: Finally
Review: Anotoli Boukreev was findly recognized for what he is, a true hero. This peer recognition should finally settle the detractors. On second thought that is much too much to hope for, A tremendous book, read it! Mr. Boukreev congratulations! I hope to have the honor of one day meeting you. Francis McInerney
Rating:
Summary: Missing the issue by a "mile"?, a "foot"? ... a "meter"!
Review: The concern, which apparently exists, with the use of "meters" versus "feet" in "The Climb" (Boukreev and Dewalt) should not be regarded by the authors. First, measurement in meters is the international standard for sport (simply attend an international track and field meet and this will become clear -- American's are backwards, not the other way around). And, second, the reader who is unwilling to train themselves to make this unitary conversion (or just suspending their confusion until the end of the book ) to keep from ruining the flow of the narative, will probably miss the point of the book anyway. This type of concern, or difficulty, is irrelevant and close-minded. What is important is Boukreev's clear headed description of what he saw and understood to transpire on Everest in the Spring of 1996. Whether you believe he is trying to present himself as a hero or not, or whether the book is a retort to "Into Thin Air", the reader must recognize how much more plausible and objective his account is than Krakauer's (and I think that Krakauer would agree with that -- I don't think Krakauer thought his account could be anything more than his own hypoxic account of a tragic event). Krakauer had a tough time climbing Everest, and that is a fact.
Just look at the clarity and the intelligence in the photographs that Boukreev took and then compare them to Krakauer's. Or, compare their recollections of the events which transpired the day of the climb. Boukreev exhibits greater clarity. And he should. Boukreev is a professional climber/guide who was well acclimatized on that day. He had a vested interest in observing climbers (maybe not "helping" them, but always observing them), and as a result, tells what I feel must be the most objective account of the ascent. In fact, I would argue that Anatoli Bourkeev is the only one capable of presenting more than just a personal account of the final ascent on Everest in May of 1996.
Rating:
Summary: The Climb vs. Into Thin Air
Review: Unlike many other reviewers I read "The Climb" prior to reading "Into Thin Air". I feel that "The Climb" is what it should be a description of events that took place in 1996 that does not pass any judgments. My disappointment of "Into Thin Air" is that I feel Krakauer get too judgmental. The technicalities of what it takes to climb Everest are also better described in "The Climb". I guess any review of these 2 books ends with speculations of what Boukreev should have done on May 10, 1996. I found his actions heroic. He saved 3 lives, and made numerous attempts to save more, including failed attempt to rescue Scott Fischer. I feel that Krakauer should have noted the fact that not one of Boukreev clients died or was severely injured due to his actions, before criticizing him. I definitely recommend reading "The Climb". I have read "Into Thin Air" and purchased "Everest - Mountain without Mercy", been to many chat rooms and visited numerous Web Sites that deal with the subject of mountain climbing, all in 10 days since I read "The Climb", and I have never climbed a mountain or head any interest in the subject before then. I admire people that are willing to push themselves to the limit in order to achieve a dream, whatever that dream may be. I feel that I learned a lot by reading "The Climb" and "Into Thin Air".
Rating:
Summary: A change of heart about Anatoli Boukreev.
Review: I began reading Anatoli Boukreev's book with my mind made up. How could he have "cut and run", leaving his team to battle for their lives without their strongest guide? His only explanation being that he and Scott Fischer had a conversation above the Hillary Step and agreed he should go down to prepare a rescue if needed. A very convenient story I thought, since Mr. Fischer is not around to confirm. After reading the book however, I am convincedthat no matter whose idea this was it was the right thing to do and Mr. Boukreev has every right to be "defensive", as would any one else who was unjustly accused. The primary danger at the time his decision was made was not the storm, but rather the supply of oxygen. Both books on the tragedy clearly demonstrate that when the O's are gone these high altitude novices collapse. Look at Jon Krakauer's portrayal of his own predicament. Also look at what happened to Martin Adams, perhaps the strongest of the clients on summit day, when his oxygen ran out. It is clear that no human being has the strength to physically carry another under the conditions that were present. Without oxygen many clients would be unable to continue, as may have well been the fate of Doug Hansen. What would Mr. Boukreev had added to the huddle on the South Col? It seems likely more would have perished because nobody else was rested enough to perform a rescue. As well written and informative as " Into Thin Air"was it missed the concatenation of events that led to the disaster. After reading Mr. Boukreev's work it makes more sense to me where things broke down resulting in the logjam on the summit ridge, the wasting of climbing time and the depletion of the oxygen supplies. It was this chain that exposed the group to the final tragic cause of the disaster, the storm.
Monday morning quarterbacking when human lives are lost is reprehensible. It seems easy to point out the errors made on Everest that day, but these were human beings taxing their minds and bodies to the limits, mistakes were inevitable. There was not a participant on that mountain whose choices did not impact the fate of others. When you tie your fate to the judgments of others, like any climber does, you should not point fingers when things go wrong. I was wrong in pointing at Mr. Boukreev, I am glad I read his book.
Rating:
Summary: Krakauer vs Boukreev
Review: I guess, I am a rarity in that I read Boukrev book first and then immediately borrowed and read Krakuer's "Into thin Air". Boukreev's book is what it should be, a non-judgmental description of the events that took place on Mount Everest. Those that blame Anatoli Boukreev should remember that none of his clients died or were severely injured due to errors in his judgement, but 3 were saved by him. This is the fact that Krakauer should have paid a lot more attention too when he so freely passed judgement of someone else's action.
I couldn't put this book down (I can say the same about "into thin air" as well), and am obsesing with the events of May of 1996 ever since I read it. This is the book for those of us who admire people that are willing to push themselves to the limit and are curious to find out what makes them as strong as they are. I learned a lot by reading Krakauer's and Boukreev's books.
Rating:
Summary: self-promoting, defensive, but still interesting
Review: As a document helping to give another view of an event, this book serves a useful function. Similar to Kurusawa's (spelling) Rashoman, there are many interpretations, deciding reality may simply be futile. Nevertheless, Boukreev, although not necessarily the sole causative agent of the disaster, acted in ways that helped to exacerbate the situation. His heroic efforts after the fact, do not explain away his earlier efforts. His arguments in the book that he works better without oxygen are simply the ravings of someone who clearly has climbed too much without oxygen. No one, at that altitude works better with less rather than more oxygen, this is a physiological impossibility. He may prefer no oxygen in order to feel the true affects of altitude when climbing for his own pleasure, but this has very little to do with being an effective guide. A person is colder, weaker and less aware at extreme altitude, this is not unknown or mysterious. As Krakuer said in his own account, Boukreev is a great climber, but a lousy guide, he should have been on oxygen, he should have been carrying supplies and oxygen with him and acheiving the summit should have been very low on his list of priorities. Boukreev, has never countered these claims successfully and in the manner of his vaunted mountain toughness, should admit as much. Although his book is very good at telling about events on the mountain, the details of the climb, I was still left wondering why Boukreev wanted to guide in the first place. At a certain level, from what came out in the book , he wanted inexperienced commercial climbers to be as tough and competent as he. This was the reason Fischer was so disappointed with him, as relayed by the accounts of others. By the way, I do not think Krakuer has clean hands in this entire tragedy, he is making a great deal of money off the whole thing, notwithstanding his own trauma, there is something slightly oily about his own self-denunciations as he grimly and gamely taps out the articles and books for himself and Outside magazine. Nontheless, "Into Thin Air" , inspite of a slight touch of melodrama, reads better and feels better as an account of what transpired. Indeed, there were passages in the book, particularly when Fischer's body was found after the storm, that were sublime. The desired self-exoneration Boukreev attempts in his book, fails. The unrepetant tone in his book stacked on top of his actions on the mountain undercuts his claims, and speaks volumes in support of Krakuer's version of events.
|
