What do you think?
Rate this book
Surviving Galeras
A volcanologist, Williams was atop the Columbian volcano Galeras when it erupted in 1993. Though six of his colleagues died, he was rescued. His story offers insight on the traumatic events of that day, as well as a meaningful look at the dangerous profession that led him into the crater.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
14 people are currently reading
151 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
May 5, 2019
I had planned to read No Apparent Danger: The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz but somehow ended up with this one instead. After reading about each of these books, I found that they are very different accounts of the January 1993 eruption on the Galeras volcano in Columbia that took 9 lives. The books include finger pointing and even a little name calling BUT I decided to read this one anyway and liked it.
The author describes the event itself and the impact it had on all involved and their families. He also faces the criticism and examines his earlier accounts of the events.
I realized there is a LOT more to volcanos than I have ever imagined or thought about and while I knew it somewhere in the back of my brain I was told "Volcanism is hardly confined to earth." (thanks for the reminder).
There was a bit of science included, which is interesting, and fascinating descriptions of the different ways in which the various volcanoes have erupted and buried cities and landscapes.
This book is a reminder that we should pay attention to our gut feelings more often. The author tells us that a week before the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens volcanologist David Johnston said, "I have a gut feeling that as the bulge continues to grow, something dramatic is going to happen soon." His remains were never found.
Having pictures included was a plus.
The author describes the event itself and the impact it had on all involved and their families. He also faces the criticism and examines his earlier accounts of the events.
I realized there is a LOT more to volcanos than I have ever imagined or thought about and while I knew it somewhere in the back of my brain I was told "Volcanism is hardly confined to earth." (thanks for the reminder).
There was a bit of science included, which is interesting, and fascinating descriptions of the different ways in which the various volcanoes have erupted and buried cities and landscapes.
This book is a reminder that we should pay attention to our gut feelings more often. The author tells us that a week before the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens volcanologist David Johnston said, "I have a gut feeling that as the bulge continues to grow, something dramatic is going to happen soon." His remains were never found.
Having pictures included was a plus.
December 15, 2019
As someone who reads a /lot/ of disaster books, the format is often the same: individual involved recounts a story that doesn't really last a whole book, bringing in various anecdotes and stories of other disasters to bulk it out. "Surviving Galeras" by Stanley Williams follows this formula, but executes it much more effectively than most.
Before discussing why, a brief recap of the book: As part of a meeting in the region, a group of volcanologists climbed Galeras to take a variety of measurements. They weren't even supposed to be on the mountain that day, and had meant to be off by earlier in the afternoon... but as they were leaving, an explosion pummelled them with rocks and ash. Six of Williams' colleagues died, while others clung to life on the mountainside, hoping rescue would find them.
The book is about volcanoes, yes, but it's even more about volcanologists. It's an attempt by Williams to grapple with the risks that he and his colleagues take; the love affair they have with mountains that could take their lives in an instant. It's like storm chasing or smoke jumping... but with much less ability to predict how the risk will evolve. Can the measurements they take from the crater help to inform better prediction of future eruptions, or will they be killed in the process?
One reason for the better execution is that the storytelling flows in and out of the anecdotes more smoothly than in many books. Rather than telling any story above volcanoes, the ones he chooses to intersperse throughout help to advance the same themes of risk taking among those who study and live near these volatile mountains. Frankly, you've misunderstood the book if you read it as merely an account of what happened in the disaster: it's an auto-ethnographic exploration of risk-taking in the hopes of discovery.
The other reason I thought this was better executed was because of the metacognition that Williams displayed throughout. While he clearly has a position (he thinks that it was impossible, without the benefit of hindsight and knowledge generated from the event, to know that the mountain was going to explode), he's open to acknowledging that (a) others involved have different views and blame him, (b) that others have different memories of the sequence of events, and (c) that his views of the events have been shaped by the traumatic brain injury he suffered.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book. It did a much better job of grappling with the 'culture' of the risk-takers than many memoirs, while holding humility and uncertainty about whether the costs are worth it. It was a deeply human book to read and very well written. I'd recommend it, even to those outside of disaster studies.
Now, that's where a review would normally end. But, there's critical context in terms of the disaster at Galeras that needs to be discussed, as Williams' account cannot be read on its own. Instead, it needs to be read as an artifact of a deep, personal battle between Williams and other colleagues over who is culpable for the tragic events of January 14th, 1993.
The other viewpoint is best represented by the book "No Apparent Danger" by Victoria Bruce (see my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). In No Apparent Danger, Bruce lays out a damning case against Williams. Bruce sees Williams - a character she sketches as being arrogant, ignorant, and out of step with science - as solely responsible for the tragedy and its misrepresentation in the media. She levels three big accusations: that he should have known the science said that Galeras was going to blow, that he misrepresents that he was the "sole survivor" in his media appearances after the fact, and that he effectively stole a colleague's work by publishing how to predict volcanic eruptions in Nature.
To the first accusation, the Williams volume offers a pretty credible rejection. Bruce implies (and at times argues) that pretty much all scientists knew that a specific kind of seismic signature (called a "tronillo") predicts volcanic eruptions, based on a prediction half a year earlier by a fellow named Chouet. However, this seems like a radically simplified telling of the science. Even today we don't have perfect prediction of earthquakes, and Williams lays out a compelling case that it was this very tragedy - and three subsequent eruptions - that ultimately, in hindsight, demonstrated a pattern of predictive tremors. In any event, Bruce fails to really demonstrate that this prediction was shared by any other scientists at the event, or really beyond Chouet himself, which is a bit of a death blow to the "should have known better" argument. Hindsight is 20:20, and what is obvious now was likely much less clear at the time.
The second two accusations, however, seem much more credible. Williams' account entirely ignores the subsequent battles over publication, instead presenting himself as someone suffering from a significant brain injury and no longer producing scientific findings at the same pace. And, while he offers an apology for being portrayed by others as the sole survivor, it loses much credibility when Bruce presents examples of he, himself, claiming to be the sole survivor. This decision during post-event interviews could have easily be ascribed to the brain injury, yet Williams never even acknowledges that it happened, saying that his only fault was in not correcting /other/ people's mistakes. (Note that there's some ambiguity: the examples Bruce presents could well be him claiming to be the only survivor in a particular place within the volcano, but again, this could have been clarified in his own account.)
The question of motivation, of course, also rises to the fore. Williams clearly has reason to tell this story in a particular way - to vindicate himself from direct blame. But, Bruce too seems over-the-top motivated, having decided early on that Williams and Williams alone is to blame. This makes it tricky for the reader: I really think anyone reading one of these books should read the other immediately after.
Yet, despite the potential bias in Williams' account, I'd still rank this book slightly higher than Bruce's account for the reason mention above. Williams is clear and transparent in where he is drawing each perspective from, rather than Bruce's style of telling an 'objective' narrative. And, where Bruce tells it as though it is the one true account (the subtitle of the book is even "the true story of volcanic disaster..."), Williams repeatedly points out that his memory is only one memory of the event, and gives airing and credibility to the perspectives of others. There's a chance this is simply a clever move to garner reader trust... but it's also possible that he's more open than Bruce to the possibility that his telling might not be infallible.
All told, this is a fascinating book. Well worth reading - but read it alongside No Apparent Danger for the optimal experience.
Before discussing why, a brief recap of the book: As part of a meeting in the region, a group of volcanologists climbed Galeras to take a variety of measurements. They weren't even supposed to be on the mountain that day, and had meant to be off by earlier in the afternoon... but as they were leaving, an explosion pummelled them with rocks and ash. Six of Williams' colleagues died, while others clung to life on the mountainside, hoping rescue would find them.
The book is about volcanoes, yes, but it's even more about volcanologists. It's an attempt by Williams to grapple with the risks that he and his colleagues take; the love affair they have with mountains that could take their lives in an instant. It's like storm chasing or smoke jumping... but with much less ability to predict how the risk will evolve. Can the measurements they take from the crater help to inform better prediction of future eruptions, or will they be killed in the process?
One reason for the better execution is that the storytelling flows in and out of the anecdotes more smoothly than in many books. Rather than telling any story above volcanoes, the ones he chooses to intersperse throughout help to advance the same themes of risk taking among those who study and live near these volatile mountains. Frankly, you've misunderstood the book if you read it as merely an account of what happened in the disaster: it's an auto-ethnographic exploration of risk-taking in the hopes of discovery.
The other reason I thought this was better executed was because of the metacognition that Williams displayed throughout. While he clearly has a position (he thinks that it was impossible, without the benefit of hindsight and knowledge generated from the event, to know that the mountain was going to explode), he's open to acknowledging that (a) others involved have different views and blame him, (b) that others have different memories of the sequence of events, and (c) that his views of the events have been shaped by the traumatic brain injury he suffered.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book. It did a much better job of grappling with the 'culture' of the risk-takers than many memoirs, while holding humility and uncertainty about whether the costs are worth it. It was a deeply human book to read and very well written. I'd recommend it, even to those outside of disaster studies.
Now, that's where a review would normally end. But, there's critical context in terms of the disaster at Galeras that needs to be discussed, as Williams' account cannot be read on its own. Instead, it needs to be read as an artifact of a deep, personal battle between Williams and other colleagues over who is culpable for the tragic events of January 14th, 1993.
The other viewpoint is best represented by the book "No Apparent Danger" by Victoria Bruce (see my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). In No Apparent Danger, Bruce lays out a damning case against Williams. Bruce sees Williams - a character she sketches as being arrogant, ignorant, and out of step with science - as solely responsible for the tragedy and its misrepresentation in the media. She levels three big accusations: that he should have known the science said that Galeras was going to blow, that he misrepresents that he was the "sole survivor" in his media appearances after the fact, and that he effectively stole a colleague's work by publishing how to predict volcanic eruptions in Nature.
To the first accusation, the Williams volume offers a pretty credible rejection. Bruce implies (and at times argues) that pretty much all scientists knew that a specific kind of seismic signature (called a "tronillo") predicts volcanic eruptions, based on a prediction half a year earlier by a fellow named Chouet. However, this seems like a radically simplified telling of the science. Even today we don't have perfect prediction of earthquakes, and Williams lays out a compelling case that it was this very tragedy - and three subsequent eruptions - that ultimately, in hindsight, demonstrated a pattern of predictive tremors. In any event, Bruce fails to really demonstrate that this prediction was shared by any other scientists at the event, or really beyond Chouet himself, which is a bit of a death blow to the "should have known better" argument. Hindsight is 20:20, and what is obvious now was likely much less clear at the time.
The second two accusations, however, seem much more credible. Williams' account entirely ignores the subsequent battles over publication, instead presenting himself as someone suffering from a significant brain injury and no longer producing scientific findings at the same pace. And, while he offers an apology for being portrayed by others as the sole survivor, it loses much credibility when Bruce presents examples of he, himself, claiming to be the sole survivor. This decision during post-event interviews could have easily be ascribed to the brain injury, yet Williams never even acknowledges that it happened, saying that his only fault was in not correcting /other/ people's mistakes. (Note that there's some ambiguity: the examples Bruce presents could well be him claiming to be the only survivor in a particular place within the volcano, but again, this could have been clarified in his own account.)
The question of motivation, of course, also rises to the fore. Williams clearly has reason to tell this story in a particular way - to vindicate himself from direct blame. But, Bruce too seems over-the-top motivated, having decided early on that Williams and Williams alone is to blame. This makes it tricky for the reader: I really think anyone reading one of these books should read the other immediately after.
Yet, despite the potential bias in Williams' account, I'd still rank this book slightly higher than Bruce's account for the reason mention above. Williams is clear and transparent in where he is drawing each perspective from, rather than Bruce's style of telling an 'objective' narrative. And, where Bruce tells it as though it is the one true account (the subtitle of the book is even "the true story of volcanic disaster..."), Williams repeatedly points out that his memory is only one memory of the event, and gives airing and credibility to the perspectives of others. There's a chance this is simply a clever move to garner reader trust... but it's also possible that he's more open than Bruce to the possibility that his telling might not be infallible.
All told, this is a fascinating book. Well worth reading - but read it alongside No Apparent Danger for the optimal experience.
March 10, 2009
This book is fascinating because it describes an eruption of Galeras,(in Columbia) talks about vulcanologist, the history of this volcano, profiles of the people who survived or died, some eruptions that were very large from Vesuvius in Pliny the elder's time to Mt St Helen in my time .
Stanley Williams talks about his experience with the volcano, his recuperation,( has taken at least ten years), how his life has changed. Ironically, Mr czuk and I know a vulcanologist who was also linked with this event.
Stanley Williams talks about his experience with the volcano, his recuperation,( has taken at least ten years), how his life has changed. Ironically, Mr czuk and I know a vulcanologist who was also linked with this event.
February 6, 2016
I enjoyed this book primarily because of the brief histories of major volcanic calderas and eruptions throughout the world, and a look at how volcanology used to be done. The controversy over the Galeras disaster and the culpability of Stanley Williams as leader of the ill-fated expedition was of secondary importance to me, but anyone interested should read the other side of the story, "No Apparent Danger" by Victoria Bruce.
September 16, 2011
This is a book filled with 95% filler. Taco Bell can't even get by on that. Coupled with this the fact that it reads like a plea of "not guilty" and smattered with overly indulgent, corny, half-baked poetics, its enough to make you gag.
June 12, 2019
Excellent book. Five stars.
This story is sad. I have always been interested in volcanoes and the forces that shape our planet. The people who study volcanoes have a dangerous job. They are pioneers. I enjoyed this book but it is sad.
This story is sad. I have always been interested in volcanoes and the forces that shape our planet. The people who study volcanoes have a dangerous job. They are pioneers. I enjoyed this book but it is sad.
July 21, 2019
In many ways this is a textbook on volcanic history. In addition to the survival, recovery, and adaptation to the new normal, I appreciated the inclusion of his visits to the families of the deceased. Dropped rating to three stars for the textbook tangents that almost made me stop reading it.
October 24, 2024
Great read, detailed about the disaster and volcanic activity around the globe
January 23, 2012
As a geolgy major in college in the late 90's, we spent some time discussing the various volcanic distasters that have occurred over the years. Galeras was one of those we spent quite a bit of time on, and I read Victoria Bruce's book somewhere during that time period as well. It didn't color my perception of this book and Stanley Williams description of events as much as I thought it would. Reading both books does perhaps help you see the group dynamics, and politcal and personal jockeying a bit more. I am glad I've read them both.
Reading this book reminded me a bit of a scene from "The Office" in which Michael has a good story, that everyone wants to hear, and Michael just drags it out so that he can stay the center of attention for just a bit longer before getting to the good part that everyone wants to hear. That's not to say that Stanley Williams wants to be the center of attention. And by the time the book ends, you can sense that he would be pretty happy never having to talk about Galeras again. Had the book just been about Galeras, it would have been quite short. The sidebars are not a problem in the sense that most books of this genre are about more than just one volcano. Dr. Williams gives the backstory of the other scientists who were on the mountain, and he also goes into some detail about other volcanic eruptions in the past that have shaped our knowledge of volcanology. The stylistic approach however has the volcanologists arriving at the volcano on page 16, and not erupting until page 127. That is not to say that that first 125 pages are the story of their asscent to the volcano. They would get a little closer to the eruption, than backstory, a little closer to the eruption, then backstory. I'm not sure if I even disagree with this approach to telling the story, but I was keenly aware of it.
In terms of the eruption itself, Dr. Williams was very candid. He gives his version of what he recalls, and he also points out where others have recalled the story differently, and how his memories can certainly have been compromised by the brain damage he suffered. In the chapters following the eruption, he tells of his attempts to get his life back together, and the effects of the eruption on him and the others who were in it. At this point he is no longer a charachter in the story, but he is being himself, directly speaking to the reader. He does go into detail about the mistakes he's made, and the problems he's had readjusting to life after surviving his encounter with Galeras. It's a very human and even emotionally look at the struggles he faces in his day to day life and within his profession.
As someone who already knew the story of Galeras, I still found it very interesting to get Williams side of the story. Had I not known much about volcanology, but still wanted to read this book, I think the authors do a good enough job explaining the terms and methods for a non-expert to be able to follow along. Even though it's a controvertial subject, I found their telling of it to be quite fair.
Reading this book reminded me a bit of a scene from "The Office" in which Michael has a good story, that everyone wants to hear, and Michael just drags it out so that he can stay the center of attention for just a bit longer before getting to the good part that everyone wants to hear. That's not to say that Stanley Williams wants to be the center of attention. And by the time the book ends, you can sense that he would be pretty happy never having to talk about Galeras again. Had the book just been about Galeras, it would have been quite short. The sidebars are not a problem in the sense that most books of this genre are about more than just one volcano. Dr. Williams gives the backstory of the other scientists who were on the mountain, and he also goes into some detail about other volcanic eruptions in the past that have shaped our knowledge of volcanology. The stylistic approach however has the volcanologists arriving at the volcano on page 16, and not erupting until page 127. That is not to say that that first 125 pages are the story of their asscent to the volcano. They would get a little closer to the eruption, than backstory, a little closer to the eruption, then backstory. I'm not sure if I even disagree with this approach to telling the story, but I was keenly aware of it.
In terms of the eruption itself, Dr. Williams was very candid. He gives his version of what he recalls, and he also points out where others have recalled the story differently, and how his memories can certainly have been compromised by the brain damage he suffered. In the chapters following the eruption, he tells of his attempts to get his life back together, and the effects of the eruption on him and the others who were in it. At this point he is no longer a charachter in the story, but he is being himself, directly speaking to the reader. He does go into detail about the mistakes he's made, and the problems he's had readjusting to life after surviving his encounter with Galeras. It's a very human and even emotionally look at the struggles he faces in his day to day life and within his profession.
As someone who already knew the story of Galeras, I still found it very interesting to get Williams side of the story. Had I not known much about volcanology, but still wanted to read this book, I think the authors do a good enough job explaining the terms and methods for a non-expert to be able to follow along. Even though it's a controvertial subject, I found their telling of it to be quite fair.
May 13, 2011
Surviving Galeras has weaved together three different subjects- the tale of the eruption, earth science and important volcanologists- in an interesting manner producing an enjoyable read. By including more than just the events of the fateful day Williams and co-author Fen Montaigne have given the readers a greater appreciation of not only the power of volcanoes, but also the risk at which the fifty or so scientists who currently study live volcanoes put themselves. Williams and Montaigne use a wide range of examples to educate the readers. They expound ancient flood basalts, the famous Mount Vesuvius eruption that buried Pompeii, and the more recent eruption of Mount St. Helens in addition to others. The eruptions and their effects on the environment as well as on human and animal life are explained in great detail. Williams and Montaigne help the reader understand the large and lasting effects volcanoes can have. Additionally the pair honors historic along with modern scientists, including Williams’ colleagues who did not make it of the volcano. The readers come to know each of Williams’ fallen colleagues’ personal stories as well as their passion for volcanoes. Throughout the book William is very candid. He admits to past mistakes and personal flaws creating an honest feel to the retelling of the eruption of Galeras. At the end of the novel it becomes apparent why after almost a decade Williams decided to write this book: “One thing is certain. I need to get clear of Galeras… I’m just tired of it. I want to move on” (Williams and Montaigne 241). Surviving Galeras serves as closure for him. By illustrating the wide impacts of volcanoes, honoring the scientists who study them, and expounding the events the day Galeras erupted, hopefully Stanley Williams has found his much desired peace.
December 1, 2011
Here as a ring.
This actually still isn't my edition because the ring I have is an ARC edition. I can't help wondering if there are photos in the "real" book - I would have loved to see some, as this was all quite new for me.
Towards the beginning I was sometimes a little irked as I felt like the author had a story to tell and maybe because he worried it wouldn't suffice to make a book had to intersperse the action with related volcano lore. As all that lore was relatively new to me (I think we studied volcanoes in a seventh grade science class? maybe?) I found it interesting, but would have liked it more if I didn't feel it was there as filler. Maybe it was just the transitions that were awkward?
I was fascinated by the explanation of how volcanic eruptions have affected climate in the past - as noticed by Benjamin Franklin!
I found the ending also slightly strange - it was good that Williams get his mea culpa out, but just as he describes an intellectual shift before and after the eruption (and his brain injury), so too does his personality as narrator seem to shift. From the careful planner, buddy to all, he gradually sounds more and more defensive. I felt like I was hearing less about the actual volcanic event and more about the politics and jockeying for position amongst the scientists.
Despite this I found it a very interesting read, and was glad of the opportunity to read it.
This actually still isn't my edition because the ring I have is an ARC edition. I can't help wondering if there are photos in the "real" book - I would have loved to see some, as this was all quite new for me.
Towards the beginning I was sometimes a little irked as I felt like the author had a story to tell and maybe because he worried it wouldn't suffice to make a book had to intersperse the action with related volcano lore. As all that lore was relatively new to me (I think we studied volcanoes in a seventh grade science class? maybe?) I found it interesting, but would have liked it more if I didn't feel it was there as filler. Maybe it was just the transitions that were awkward?
I was fascinated by the explanation of how volcanic eruptions have affected climate in the past - as noticed by Benjamin Franklin!
I found the ending also slightly strange - it was good that Williams get his mea culpa out, but just as he describes an intellectual shift before and after the eruption (and his brain injury), so too does his personality as narrator seem to shift. From the careful planner, buddy to all, he gradually sounds more and more defensive. I felt like I was hearing less about the actual volcanic event and more about the politics and jockeying for position amongst the scientists.
Despite this I found it a very interesting read, and was glad of the opportunity to read it.
October 31, 2021
This was written by one of the survivors of the January 1993 eruption of Galeras which happened while a group of scientists was in the caldera taking measurements. They had believed that there was no risk of the volcano erupting on that day, but sadly were wrong and nine people died.
I read No Apparent Danger: The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz five years ago and really enjoyed that book. Perhaps for that reason this one seemed a bit flat to me. Since this one is a memoir of sorts it is written from the author's point of view while No Apparent Danger was written with emphasis on a Columbian geologist, Dr. Marta Calvache, who was also the driving force behind the rescue of Dr. Williams which enabled him to survive to write this book.
I admit I skimmed some of the biographical information about some of the scientists who died because I just didn't find it all that interesting, but when I looked back at my review of Victoria Bruce book I commented that I liked her inclusion of the background of some of the participants in the trip to Galeras that day.
If you are going to read both of them, I'd read this one first and then read Victoria Bruce's version which in my opinion saves the better of the two for last.
I read No Apparent Danger: The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz five years ago and really enjoyed that book. Perhaps for that reason this one seemed a bit flat to me. Since this one is a memoir of sorts it is written from the author's point of view while No Apparent Danger was written with emphasis on a Columbian geologist, Dr. Marta Calvache, who was also the driving force behind the rescue of Dr. Williams which enabled him to survive to write this book.
I admit I skimmed some of the biographical information about some of the scientists who died because I just didn't find it all that interesting, but when I looked back at my review of Victoria Bruce book I commented that I liked her inclusion of the background of some of the participants in the trip to Galeras that day.
If you are going to read both of them, I'd read this one first and then read Victoria Bruce's version which in my opinion saves the better of the two for last.
April 16, 2012
I was sent this book as part of a bookring and was intrigued by the premise - the tale of Stanley Williams' survival of the Galeras volcanic eruption - but wary of being overwhelmed by scientific jargon.
Whilst there are some technical phrases included (to be expected in a book that covers not only this particular eruption but also some of the history of volcanology), these are introduced slowly and in a story-like context, allowing you to take them on board at your own pace and ensuring the reader doesn't get bogged down in jargon.
The story itself is a thrilling, moving tale of not only exploration of the natural world and scientific endeavour, but also of the human condition. Through his analysis of his experience, Stanley Williams has been forced to examine himself and his colleagues, bringing to the fore a volley of characters that help to shape his version of what happened on Galeras (for, of course, memory is a tricky thing...)
What I liked best about this book was that Williams leaves it to the reader to piece together the puzzle of what led to and what happened during the eruption. He sets out his recollections, but also brings in those of other survivors and eyewitnesses, so that a full picture can be garnered.
Whilst there are some technical phrases included (to be expected in a book that covers not only this particular eruption but also some of the history of volcanology), these are introduced slowly and in a story-like context, allowing you to take them on board at your own pace and ensuring the reader doesn't get bogged down in jargon.
The story itself is a thrilling, moving tale of not only exploration of the natural world and scientific endeavour, but also of the human condition. Through his analysis of his experience, Stanley Williams has been forced to examine himself and his colleagues, bringing to the fore a volley of characters that help to shape his version of what happened on Galeras (for, of course, memory is a tricky thing...)
What I liked best about this book was that Williams leaves it to the reader to piece together the puzzle of what led to and what happened during the eruption. He sets out his recollections, but also brings in those of other survivors and eyewitnesses, so that a full picture can be garnered.
June 22, 2012
I thoroughly enjoyed this account of the author's narrow escape from death on Galeras as the volcano erupted, killing quite a few other eminent scientists and also some tourists. The author included quite a few chapters on the science of volcanoes - what we know and what we don't know -- as well as accounts of other volcanic eruptions throughout history. There was a fair amount of science included, which I appreciated, and also fascinating descriptions of the different ways in which the various volcanoes have erupted and buried cities and landscapes. Having visited Mt. St. Helens several times in the last decade, I found this story very compelling. It was pretty well-written and surprisingly engrossing. Recommended for anyone interested in volcanoes.
June 28, 2008
Williams combines his own story of Galeras with the history of other eruptions - Pinatubo, Pompeii, Tambora etc - so that a lay reader comes away with a good deal of knowledge about volcanology, as well as of Williams' survival. He communicates his own fascination with volcanoes so infectiously that I am now looking for more books on the subject. Williams has therefore succeeded in the main goal of the pop-science writer.
Incidentally, Williams mentions that he does not get along with Bernard Chouet, and admits that at the time of the eruption he "couldn't appreciate the significance" of long-period earthquakes.
Incidentally, Williams mentions that he does not get along with Bernard Chouet, and admits that at the time of the eruption he "couldn't appreciate the significance" of long-period earthquakes.
August 29, 2014
Account of the Jan 1993 eruption on the Galeras volcano in Columbia that took 9 lives written by one of the survivors. The author describes the event itself and the impact it had on all involved and their families. He also faces the criticism and examines his earlier accounts of the events.
A very interesting read, fast paced and not written for all kinds of readers - not too "sciency".
I recommend this read and I am also waiting for delivery of a book titled "No Apparent Danger: The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz" by Victoria Bruce - the accusatory account blaming Stan Williams for letting the scientist go on Galeras on that particular day.
A very interesting read, fast paced and not written for all kinds of readers - not too "sciency".
I recommend this read and I am also waiting for delivery of a book titled "No Apparent Danger: The True Story of Volcanic Disaster at Galeras and Nevado Del Ruiz" by Victoria Bruce - the accusatory account blaming Stan Williams for letting the scientist go on Galeras on that particular day.
April 11, 2015
Ever wanted to know what it was like to be trapped on a volcano while it was erupting and manage to get out alive?
UPDATE: 04-11-15
So According to No Apparent Danger Stanley Williams is not a very trustworthy source (to say the least) and anyone reading this book should take his account of the tragic events with a grain of salt (lots of grains to be exact).
One star being removed.
UPDATE: 04-11-15
So According to No Apparent Danger Stanley Williams is not a very trustworthy source (to say the least) and anyone reading this book should take his account of the tragic events with a grain of salt (lots of grains to be exact).
One star being removed.
September 27, 2011
An enthralling read; the story of Stanley Williams’ survival on the volcano Galeras, trapped on it when it erupted. This book is also a memorial to the other people who died on the volcano that day. I did wonder about the use of imperial measurements throughout the book though. Stanley Williams is a scientist, working with scientists from many countries and the imperial measurements seemed out of place, and possibly will date the book.
May 23, 2016
This book was great. I'm always excited when a stumble across a book with so much packed into it. Not only the story of the eruption, but the individuals involved and the history of the men and women who pioneered the field. I think this would be a good book for older teens interested in the field of vulcanology. The reader feels the passion for the science mixed with the reality of working in some of the most dangerous places on earth.
March 3, 2009
I thoroughly enjoyed this book, Stanley is open and honest about the decisions that were made before going up the volcano and what happened during and after the eruption including how he felt about what happened. Informative and descriptive without being overly technical, this is a very good read
April 6, 2011
This book was really great learning about the science of volcanology. It is also an amazing account of his fight for life when it exploded, scary! There were alot of names and stories that were hard to keep straight, but overall a good read!
June 18, 2011
Um relato miserável de um dos sobreviventes do acidente no vulcão Galeras. Gostei muito do começo onde ele fala sobre o papel dos vulcões e de erupções importantes, e não gostei da parte do relato em si, que é bastante confuso e mais mórbido do que interessante.
April 25, 2013
Wow! What a moving book!
The volcanology part of this book was VERY interesting, the parts refering to the Galera's eruption and it's effects was extremely sad!
The volcanology part of this book was VERY interesting, the parts refering to the Galera's eruption and it's effects was extremely sad!
July 26, 2013
An interesting read about how lucky a person can be.
February 22, 2013
I enjoyed reading about this eruption and the lives it touched.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews