You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
radioactiv 's review for:
The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest
by G. Weston Dewalt, Anatoli Boukreev
Audiobook
Not as gripping or well-written as Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air, but certainly an interesting counterpoint to Krakauer's viewpoint and it better fleshes out some of the events on Everest. I remember getting the feeling that Krakauer was a bit envious of Boukreev when reading Into Thin Air and that he was projecting some of his survivor's guilt on to Boukreev.
It's clear that a lot of expectations for adventure companies were still in flux and that the balance between "customer service" and "responsible climbing" had not been fully established at this time. Boukreev had served as a guide for other adventure companies (and was initially committed to guide for one of those companies for the '96 Everest season, before he elected to sign on to Mountain Madness) and was hired with his guiding philosophy established and stated, according to his account. Fisher is unable to verify this.
The Climb clearly responds to Krakauer throughout, with varying success. Boukreev's advance plan to climb without supplemental oxygen is still confounding, though it gets slightly more understandable why he wouldn't decide to use it at the last minute (since MM had been using far more O than anticipated and he was feeling good). All in all, the faults tend to lie with the heads of the expeditions, since the majority of problems were due to poor planning and/or poor execution - not having ropes put up in advance, not sticking to the turn-around times, etc.
It's intriguing, honestly, how closely Boukreev's philosophy on mountaineering expeditions aligns to what Krakauer suggests would be best practices - only assisting capable climbers, not using supplementary oxygen unless in an emergency, etc. Boukreev was not a hand-holder but he took care of the necessary preparations (including several that were supposed to be completed by others, including people not associated with Mountain Madness) and provided expert advice to clients. He also (according to him, purposely) was poised to assist in an emergency.
If I remember correctly, Krakauer also criticized Boukreev for being aloof and/or arrogant. First off: everyone basically agrees that Boukreev was an incredible mountaineer and certainly one of the strongest on Everest that day. Everyone else was incapacitated after summitting and Boukreev successfully completed three rescue trips. If he was arrogant, he kind of deserved to be. However, I get the feeling the language barrier was a huge challenge for Boukreev. In the section discussing the rescue, Boukreev's exact wording is used. Even at the time of writing, when he had been working on his English, he has difficulty expressing concepts and has strange grammar and word choice.
Not as gripping or well-written as Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air, but certainly an interesting counterpoint to Krakauer's viewpoint and it better fleshes out some of the events on Everest. I remember getting the feeling that Krakauer was a bit envious of Boukreev when reading Into Thin Air and that he was projecting some of his survivor's guilt on to Boukreev.
It's clear that a lot of expectations for adventure companies were still in flux and that the balance between "customer service" and "responsible climbing" had not been fully established at this time. Boukreev had served as a guide for other adventure companies (and was initially committed to guide for one of those companies for the '96 Everest season, before he elected to sign on to Mountain Madness) and was hired with his guiding philosophy established and stated, according to his account. Fisher is unable to verify this.
The Climb clearly responds to Krakauer throughout, with varying success. Boukreev's advance plan to climb without supplemental oxygen is still confounding, though it gets slightly more understandable why he wouldn't decide to use it at the last minute (since MM had been using far more O than anticipated and he was feeling good). All in all, the faults tend to lie with the heads of the expeditions, since the majority of problems were due to poor planning and/or poor execution - not having ropes put up in advance, not sticking to the turn-around times, etc.
It's intriguing, honestly, how closely Boukreev's philosophy on mountaineering expeditions aligns to what Krakauer suggests would be best practices - only assisting capable climbers, not using supplementary oxygen unless in an emergency, etc. Boukreev was not a hand-holder but he took care of the necessary preparations (including several that were supposed to be completed by others, including people not associated with Mountain Madness) and provided expert advice to clients. He also (according to him, purposely) was poised to assist in an emergency.
If I remember correctly, Krakauer also criticized Boukreev for being aloof and/or arrogant. First off: everyone basically agrees that Boukreev was an incredible mountaineer and certainly one of the strongest on Everest that day. Everyone else was incapacitated after summitting and Boukreev successfully completed three rescue trips. If he was arrogant, he kind of deserved to be. However, I get the feeling the language barrier was a huge challenge for Boukreev. In the section discussing the rescue, Boukreev's exact wording is used. Even at the time of writing, when he had been working on his English, he has difficulty expressing concepts and has strange grammar and word choice.