What do you think?
Rate this book
True Summit: What Really Happened on the Legendary Ascent on Annapurna
In a startling look at the classic Annapurna -- the most famous book about mountaineering -- David Roberts discloses what really happened on the legendary expedition to the Himalayan peak. In June 1950, a team of mountaineers was the first to conquer an 8,000-meter peak. Maurice Herzog, the leader of the expedition, became a national hero in France, and Annapurna, his account of the historic ascent, has long been regarded as the ultimate tale of courage and cooperation under the harshest of conditions. In True Summit, David Roberts presents a fascinating revision of this classic tale. Using newly available documents and information gleaned from a rare interview with Herzog (the only climber on the team still living), Roberts shows that the expedition was torn by dissent. As he re-creates the actual events, Roberts lays bare Herzog's self-serving determination and bestows long-delayed credit to the most accomplished and unsung heroes. These new revelations will inspire young adventurers and change forever the way we think about this victory in the mountains and the climbers who achieved it.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
48 people are currently reading
634 people want to read
About the author
David Roberts
61 books225 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
See this thread for more information.
David Roberts is the award-winning author of twenty-nine books about mountaineering, exploration, and anthropology. His most recent publication, Alone on the Wall, was written with world-class rock climber Alex Honnold, whose historic feats were featured in the film Free Solo.
See this thread for more information.
David Roberts is the award-winning author of twenty-nine books about mountaineering, exploration, and anthropology. His most recent publication, Alone on the Wall, was written with world-class rock climber Alex Honnold, whose historic feats were featured in the film Free Solo.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
May 6, 2013
The bashing of Maurice Herzog - but quite an interesting book nonetheless
I only read (and had heard of) True Summit after having read Annapurna by Maurice Herzog a couple of months ago. I quite enjoyed Annapurna but came across Roberts’ book as well and thought it’d make a nice accompaniment to the classic. The most striking words that hit a reader coming to the novel is it’s proclamation of being the definitive account of the 1950 Annapurna expedition, further claiming it will unravel the ‘truth’ about what really happened on the mountain so many years ago.
I have two prefixes to my review: first, unlike Roberts I’d never heard about Maurice Herzog prior to reading Annapurna in 2013 and therefore had no preconceived ideas one way or the other about the truth or myth of Herzog. Yes, I read the book a few months ago and enjoyed it enough but Herzog is certainly not a hero for me, so please don’t consider my review to be a defence of Herzog – I’d like to think I’m being fairly impartial in my review (well, to a certain extent! ;-).
Secondly, as to whether this is really a definitive account of the 1950 expedition, I’m far from convinced by Roberts’ arguments, as I will outline. If I’m being generous, Roberts makes some interesting arguments and it’s great to hear voices of the other climbers (this is what I enjoyed most from the novel). The first half the book is really quite interesting and I liked how much less flowery Roberts’ writing is compared to that of Herzog. However, it certainly doesn’t, in my mind, unravel any real ‘truths’ definitively.
Why? Well first, I don’t know why but Roberts just seems to have an unnecessary fierce and prejudiced against Herzog and his achievements. It goes beyond simply presenting the facts and letting evidence speak for itself. There’s almost malice to the way Roberts attacks Herzog. Here’s just one short example (from page 140/141) of what you’ll find throughout the book:
Writing about that public career in L’autre Annapurna, Herzog lapses into shameless name-dropping and ill-disguised pats on his own back. On meeting John F. Kennedy, then the junior senator from Massachusetts, Herzog shares his idea of creating an “army” of young people pledge to work in underdeveloped countries – evidently the germ of the Peace Corps. “An admirable suggestion, Maurice,” says Kennedy, according to Herzog. “We need an ideal for our youth.”
It is a real shame for David Roberts that he didn't just stick to presenting his side of the story in a much more impartial way, without the constant need to bash Herzog - passages like the following are also constant through the book and unnecessary to make his point:
Reading between the lines, one realises that the cordée of Rébuffat and Terray les virtually the whole climb with the brothers Herzog trailing behind on a second rope. In L'Autre Annapurna, Herzog calls the climb "the greatest ascent in the Alps" (to date). Though a highly credible new route, the Peuterey Ridge was not in the same class as the Walker Spur on the Grandes Jorasses or even Terray and Rébuffat's first on the Col du Caiman.
Despite all of this however, the crux of the issue with Roberts’ is that I felt he heavily relied on anecdotal evidence for many of his assertions - not enough of it is concrete. This really takes away the credibility of it being the account of 'what really happened on the legendary ascent of Annapurna' as is suggested on the book's cover.
Another area I found frustrating was Roberts’ (deliberate?) failure to acknowledge the part the hypoxia (lack of air at high altitude), fatigue and stress would have played on the climbers’ minds and subsequent memories. This seems to me totally ignored, so when Roberts attacks Herzog yet again, anyone who knows a little about high-altitude climbing has to come to the conclusion that people’s perceptions are going to be wildly different (if you want a good description of hypoxic effects on the brain, read Jon Krakauer’s excellent Into Thin Air).
In the end one also has to be realistic about such undertakings and their outcomes. Herzog is certainly not the first or last adventurer who reached the pinnacles of the public’s attention at the expense of their team mates. The author does not seem to want to acknowledge that this is the reality of the world - names like Tenzing Norgay and Buzz Aldrin are just a few that come to mind.
In concluding, I would have given this book four stars but towards the last 50 pages or so, Roberts' unrelenting attack on Herzog becomes tiring and all-consuming. What is particularly annoying for me is that most of Roberts' comments aren't based on conclusive evidence - a lot of it feels like subjective bias and dislike of Herzog, which doesn't add to Roberts' overall argument on the merits of Herzog's account and life.
I came close to giving the book only two stars as the unrelenting bashing of Herzog became fiercer and felt more personal. Ultimately, though, I think Herzog’s legacy will not be greatly damaged by True Summit - after all, his is still the best selling mountaineering novel of all time over a half century later - Roberts' account already seems largely lost only a little over a decade later.
Ultimately did Roberts convince me? The simple answer is no, not really - it certainly showed that there are always many sides to a story, especially on high mountains when you’re dealing with hypoxia, stress and fatigue. I'm sure there are large tracts of the novel which are accurate and it certainly is convincing in its argument that Herzog took great creative liberty in his descriptions, recollections and accounts of the expedition. But True Summit fails overall because Roberts seems to present his point of view as fact, while ignoring that fact that much of his 'evidence' is interpreted and not concrete – which, ironically, is one of the chief criticisms he makes of Herzog and his brother.
I only read (and had heard of) True Summit after having read Annapurna by Maurice Herzog a couple of months ago. I quite enjoyed Annapurna but came across Roberts’ book as well and thought it’d make a nice accompaniment to the classic. The most striking words that hit a reader coming to the novel is it’s proclamation of being the definitive account of the 1950 Annapurna expedition, further claiming it will unravel the ‘truth’ about what really happened on the mountain so many years ago.
I have two prefixes to my review: first, unlike Roberts I’d never heard about Maurice Herzog prior to reading Annapurna in 2013 and therefore had no preconceived ideas one way or the other about the truth or myth of Herzog. Yes, I read the book a few months ago and enjoyed it enough but Herzog is certainly not a hero for me, so please don’t consider my review to be a defence of Herzog – I’d like to think I’m being fairly impartial in my review (well, to a certain extent! ;-).
Secondly, as to whether this is really a definitive account of the 1950 expedition, I’m far from convinced by Roberts’ arguments, as I will outline. If I’m being generous, Roberts makes some interesting arguments and it’s great to hear voices of the other climbers (this is what I enjoyed most from the novel). The first half the book is really quite interesting and I liked how much less flowery Roberts’ writing is compared to that of Herzog. However, it certainly doesn’t, in my mind, unravel any real ‘truths’ definitively.
Why? Well first, I don’t know why but Roberts just seems to have an unnecessary fierce and prejudiced against Herzog and his achievements. It goes beyond simply presenting the facts and letting evidence speak for itself. There’s almost malice to the way Roberts attacks Herzog. Here’s just one short example (from page 140/141) of what you’ll find throughout the book:
Writing about that public career in L’autre Annapurna, Herzog lapses into shameless name-dropping and ill-disguised pats on his own back. On meeting John F. Kennedy, then the junior senator from Massachusetts, Herzog shares his idea of creating an “army” of young people pledge to work in underdeveloped countries – evidently the germ of the Peace Corps. “An admirable suggestion, Maurice,” says Kennedy, according to Herzog. “We need an ideal for our youth.”
It is a real shame for David Roberts that he didn't just stick to presenting his side of the story in a much more impartial way, without the constant need to bash Herzog - passages like the following are also constant through the book and unnecessary to make his point:
Reading between the lines, one realises that the cordée of Rébuffat and Terray les virtually the whole climb with the brothers Herzog trailing behind on a second rope. In L'Autre Annapurna, Herzog calls the climb "the greatest ascent in the Alps" (to date). Though a highly credible new route, the Peuterey Ridge was not in the same class as the Walker Spur on the Grandes Jorasses or even Terray and Rébuffat's first on the Col du Caiman.
Despite all of this however, the crux of the issue with Roberts’ is that I felt he heavily relied on anecdotal evidence for many of his assertions - not enough of it is concrete. This really takes away the credibility of it being the account of 'what really happened on the legendary ascent of Annapurna' as is suggested on the book's cover.
Another area I found frustrating was Roberts’ (deliberate?) failure to acknowledge the part the hypoxia (lack of air at high altitude), fatigue and stress would have played on the climbers’ minds and subsequent memories. This seems to me totally ignored, so when Roberts attacks Herzog yet again, anyone who knows a little about high-altitude climbing has to come to the conclusion that people’s perceptions are going to be wildly different (if you want a good description of hypoxic effects on the brain, read Jon Krakauer’s excellent Into Thin Air).
In the end one also has to be realistic about such undertakings and their outcomes. Herzog is certainly not the first or last adventurer who reached the pinnacles of the public’s attention at the expense of their team mates. The author does not seem to want to acknowledge that this is the reality of the world - names like Tenzing Norgay and Buzz Aldrin are just a few that come to mind.
In concluding, I would have given this book four stars but towards the last 50 pages or so, Roberts' unrelenting attack on Herzog becomes tiring and all-consuming. What is particularly annoying for me is that most of Roberts' comments aren't based on conclusive evidence - a lot of it feels like subjective bias and dislike of Herzog, which doesn't add to Roberts' overall argument on the merits of Herzog's account and life.
I came close to giving the book only two stars as the unrelenting bashing of Herzog became fiercer and felt more personal. Ultimately, though, I think Herzog’s legacy will not be greatly damaged by True Summit - after all, his is still the best selling mountaineering novel of all time over a half century later - Roberts' account already seems largely lost only a little over a decade later.
Ultimately did Roberts convince me? The simple answer is no, not really - it certainly showed that there are always many sides to a story, especially on high mountains when you’re dealing with hypoxia, stress and fatigue. I'm sure there are large tracts of the novel which are accurate and it certainly is convincing in its argument that Herzog took great creative liberty in his descriptions, recollections and accounts of the expedition. But True Summit fails overall because Roberts seems to present his point of view as fact, while ignoring that fact that much of his 'evidence' is interpreted and not concrete – which, ironically, is one of the chief criticisms he makes of Herzog and his brother.
March 22, 2015
Maurice Herzog was the first person to reach the summit of Annapurna, one of the 8,000 meter peaks. The expedition he guided in 1950 suffered tremendously on the way down, as did Herzog who lost all fingers and toes to frostbite. His account of the journey was a testimony to the team-building self-sacrifice and wonderful spirit of the four mountaineers (less was said of the Sherpas who carried Herzog and Lachenal for miles on the descent.) His colleagues, Lionel Terray, Gaston Rebuffat and Louis Lachenal, were successful climbers in their own right, and Terray’s and Lachenal’s mountaineering books are considered classics. Herzog’s book, which he dictated from his hospital bed, made him a national hero in France. The question Roberts raises in his book is whether Herzog’s account is true.
Herzog made himself into a hero with canny public relations and perhaps by not emphasizing the important role his colleagues played in the ascent. He made each of them sign contracts not to publish before they left. That he was self-aggrandizing is not in doubt. In my experience, mountaineers who write books about their feats all tend to have blinders on, completely understandable when you consider their isolation, even when in a group, as they make the climb.
David Roberts compared the individual accounts of each climbers diary with Herzogs published version and notes what Herzog changed or omitted. He intersperses his narrative with comments of his own reflections about climbing, and he then uses the other climbers' reports and diaries to dismantle Herzog's self-aggrandizing recollections. In the end, I think the author is perhaps making a mountain from a valley. He says it best himself:
Surely the discrepancies begged critics to accuse him of dishonesty. The new, more self- serving version might cast a better light on Herzog, but it was an open invitation to readers such as myself to call his rewriting bluff. The third possibility, I thought, was that this is indeed how memory works, in all its fallible reinvention of the past. After nearly fifty years, Herzog’s emotions about those dramatic days high on Annapurna had perhaps restructured his memories… These reconstructions need not be cynical, or even fully conscious, on Herzog’s part. They could be the fruit of memory’s seizing again and again on disturbing, pivotal events, reshaping them with each rehearsal, trying to find meaning where there was only happenstance.
A terrific book for anyone who likes to read about mountaineering and even, perhaps, those interested in the malleability (not to mention fallibility) of memory.
Herzog made himself into a hero with canny public relations and perhaps by not emphasizing the important role his colleagues played in the ascent. He made each of them sign contracts not to publish before they left. That he was self-aggrandizing is not in doubt. In my experience, mountaineers who write books about their feats all tend to have blinders on, completely understandable when you consider their isolation, even when in a group, as they make the climb.
David Roberts compared the individual accounts of each climbers diary with Herzogs published version and notes what Herzog changed or omitted. He intersperses his narrative with comments of his own reflections about climbing, and he then uses the other climbers' reports and diaries to dismantle Herzog's self-aggrandizing recollections. In the end, I think the author is perhaps making a mountain from a valley. He says it best himself:
Surely the discrepancies begged critics to accuse him of dishonesty. The new, more self- serving version might cast a better light on Herzog, but it was an open invitation to readers such as myself to call his rewriting bluff. The third possibility, I thought, was that this is indeed how memory works, in all its fallible reinvention of the past. After nearly fifty years, Herzog’s emotions about those dramatic days high on Annapurna had perhaps restructured his memories… These reconstructions need not be cynical, or even fully conscious, on Herzog’s part. They could be the fruit of memory’s seizing again and again on disturbing, pivotal events, reshaping them with each rehearsal, trying to find meaning where there was only happenstance.
A terrific book for anyone who likes to read about mountaineering and even, perhaps, those interested in the malleability (not to mention fallibility) of memory.
September 20, 2012
Disappointing. Basically it just proved that the climbers didn't get along, and that Herzog's "Annapurna" was an idealized version of the truth. (which you would have to realize if you've read it).
Roberts didn't uncover any significant incidents or conflicts, just a lot of bickering.
Still, the protagonists are fascinating characters, which made the book interesting and readable.
Roberts didn't uncover any significant incidents or conflicts, just a lot of bickering.
Still, the protagonists are fascinating characters, which made the book interesting and readable.
April 5, 2021
The book really does tell the rest of the story. There are lengthy background bios of each of the principal climbers, telling how they contrast with one another. Roberts uses recently-released diaries and drafts of memoirs to provide first-hand perspectives from the other Frenchmen on the expedition: on the climbing, on Herzog and his leadership, on the retreat afterward.
Roberts does, however, walk close to the edge of the cliff of revisionist history writing. It's true that the French treated their sherpas and porters in ways we would not tolerate, that they used medicines and medical techniques which we would consider barbaric, that their hubris in tackling Annapurna was amazingly stupid at time. But in the context of the late 40s, the book operates at multiple levels, telling stories and providing perspective: cultural level, nationalistic level, personal level, ...
In the end, I had to wonder about Roberts' motivation in revealing these details. The hubris and other excesses of the Expedition are evident in reading Herzog's book. Roberts only serves to provide a kind of official documentation of it all.
I will continue to recommend Herzog's Annapurna - a classic, for its time, even if flawed. Read it for what it was: a French paean to extreme adventuring.
Roberts does, however, walk close to the edge of the cliff of revisionist history writing. It's true that the French treated their sherpas and porters in ways we would not tolerate, that they used medicines and medical techniques which we would consider barbaric, that their hubris in tackling Annapurna was amazingly stupid at time. But in the context of the late 40s, the book operates at multiple levels, telling stories and providing perspective: cultural level, nationalistic level, personal level, ...
In the end, I had to wonder about Roberts' motivation in revealing these details. The hubris and other excesses of the Expedition are evident in reading Herzog's book. Roberts only serves to provide a kind of official documentation of it all.
I will continue to recommend Herzog's Annapurna - a classic, for its time, even if flawed. Read it for what it was: a French paean to extreme adventuring.
April 3, 2018
Roberts fills out the one dimensional players in the official account, humanizing them and their roles. He gives voice to a variety of stories and motives. I enjoyed this telling much more than Annapurna.
March 30, 2018
Much more well rounded and fair story than the original. The author is dedicated to giving voice to all the main actors in this story.
July 16, 2018
It's works best in the brief biographies of the less familiar names from Annapurna. Less so when it, seemingly, tries to create controversy out of very little. Surprise: sometimes the team that scaled the first 8,000-meter peak in history were unhappy, sometimes they suffered from illness, occasionally they confessed to uncharitable thoughts. Supposedly, Herzog not including all the explicit details somehow lessens his book. Rubbish.
October 24, 2016
So, Herzog had a big ego and took more glory than he deserved for the summiting of Annapurna. All that this book seems to add to the story is that the team didn't always get along, they all had huge egos, and they all resented Herzog's fame. Mountain climbers on the whole seem to be an unpleasant and egotistical lot.
December 10, 2009
This book is an eye-opening, myth-busting, hero-sullying expose of the first ascent of an 8,000 meter peak. It is not an inspirational account, but a work of rigorous research and investigation. Roberts is one of the few writers in the mountaineering genre to adopt this scholarly style.
December 22, 2009
So there was politics and nationalistic propaganda in French mountaineering in the 1950s, and the leader had a big ego. Quelle surprise. I enjoyed reading about the other members of the expedition.
January 12, 2011
If you've read Annapurna, you have to read True Summit. It only makes the story more amazing and the characters more incredible.
January 3, 2023
Che cos’è successo veramente il 3 giugno 1950? Sono mai arrivati veramente in francesi in cima all’Annapurna (perché, effettivamente, la foto di Herzog che tiene la bandierina francese, non sembra essere stata scattata dalla vetta)? Perché proprio Herzog è stato messo a capo di una spedizione che annoverava i tre alpinisti migliori non solo della Francia ma del mondo, a quei tempi: Louis Lachenal, Gaston Rébuffat e Lionel Terray? Perché dei tre, solo Lachenal è arrivato in cima e non gli altri due? Com’è possibile che siano rientrati tutti con gravi congelamenti, quando gli inglesi che hanno fatto diversi giri di ricognizione sull’Everest, non si sono mai ridotti come Herzog e Lachenal? Perché tra tutti gli 8000 a disposizione, i francesi ne hanno scelti due su cui c’era pochissimo materiale a disposizione? Come hanno fatto a riuscire a salire un 8000, ma scalato, al primo colpo, includendo anche la ricognizione (unico caso di tutta l’Himalayan Crown)?
Perché Herzog ha costretto a giurare il silenzio per cinque anni sulla spedizione (ancora prima di partire)? Perché poi lo stesso Herzog ha cercato di fare di tutto affinché gli scritti originali di Lachenal non fossero pubblicati? Cosa contenevano? Perché poi quando invece sono stati pubblicati, Herzog è stato travolto dal disprezzo? E chi erano poi questi tre grandi campioni, Lachenal, Rébuffat e Terray, che nel libro hanno solo un ruolo da comparsa?
David Roberts è un grande scrittore di montagna, nonché un appassionato alpinista e un amatore di livello. Questo suo libro è il frutto innanzi tutto di una passione particolare per un libro “Annapurna, primo 8000” che l’ha influenzato a tal punto da fargli venire la voglia di diventare un alpinista, una volta diventato grande e poi la grande ammirazione per Terray e Lachenal (insieme al suo amico, erano addirittura arrivati a chiamarsi l’uno col nome di uno e l’altro col nome dell’altro alpinista francese) e di conseguenza la curiosità che era sorta nel seguire tutte le controversie che avevano travolto il libro di Herzog a seguito della pubblicazione dei “Carnet de vertige” di Louis Lachenal. Un libro scritto meravigliosamente, come sanno fare in particolare gli americani e che è un’ottima introduzione anche all’alpinismo francese grazie agli approfondimenti sui tra grandissimi alpinisti che sono stati i capostipiti del glorioso alpinismo francese del dopoguerra e oltre.
Un must read.
Perché Herzog ha costretto a giurare il silenzio per cinque anni sulla spedizione (ancora prima di partire)? Perché poi lo stesso Herzog ha cercato di fare di tutto affinché gli scritti originali di Lachenal non fossero pubblicati? Cosa contenevano? Perché poi quando invece sono stati pubblicati, Herzog è stato travolto dal disprezzo? E chi erano poi questi tre grandi campioni, Lachenal, Rébuffat e Terray, che nel libro hanno solo un ruolo da comparsa?
David Roberts è un grande scrittore di montagna, nonché un appassionato alpinista e un amatore di livello. Questo suo libro è il frutto innanzi tutto di una passione particolare per un libro “Annapurna, primo 8000” che l’ha influenzato a tal punto da fargli venire la voglia di diventare un alpinista, una volta diventato grande e poi la grande ammirazione per Terray e Lachenal (insieme al suo amico, erano addirittura arrivati a chiamarsi l’uno col nome di uno e l’altro col nome dell’altro alpinista francese) e di conseguenza la curiosità che era sorta nel seguire tutte le controversie che avevano travolto il libro di Herzog a seguito della pubblicazione dei “Carnet de vertige” di Louis Lachenal. Un libro scritto meravigliosamente, come sanno fare in particolare gli americani e che è un’ottima introduzione anche all’alpinismo francese grazie agli approfondimenti sui tra grandissimi alpinisti che sono stati i capostipiti del glorioso alpinismo francese del dopoguerra e oltre.
Un must read.
March 25, 2021
Annapurna by Herzog was the first mountaineering book I ever read. And, of course, I loved it. I did later on find out a little bit about Lachenal's and Rebuffat's disenchantment (and even Terray's), which was a disappointment to me.. So, it's just like all the other expeditions, with contradicting memories and bickering, I thought to myself. It marred the beautiful myth! So, I started reading this book with some skepticism as to whether I would enjoy all the truth-telling. But it's a great story. The author delivers on his claim- that a more in-depth/honest exploration of the Annapurna expedition is even more rewarding than Herzog's shining novel of "Knights of the mountains".
I particularly liked the neat intersection of Robert's life with Terray- the famous alpinist dies before he can receive the news that the author's Harvard route on Denali was authentic, but then the author goes on to discover the documents that prove that Terray's Conquistadors was authentically written by Terray himself.
I think Roberts tackled the controversy around Annapurna skillfully.. He doesn't ruthlessly dismantle the myth of Annapurna so much as allow readers to see a richer tapestry, woven from the experience of each key member of the expedition. I think his treatment of Herzog is gracious, moderate and balanced. One of the most poignant moments of the book has to be when Herzog reads Lachenal's diary and realises that Lachenal truly did not desire to go to the summit but rather sacrificed his feet (and his climbing future) to save Herzog's life. The affaire de cordee! Roberts masterfully weaves his own realisations/growth with the revelations about the character of Lachenal. His idealised portrait of Lachenal is replaced with someone flawed/real, but worthy of respect and admiration. This is the first of Robert's books that I've read, and I'm keen to read some others!
I particularly liked the neat intersection of Robert's life with Terray- the famous alpinist dies before he can receive the news that the author's Harvard route on Denali was authentic, but then the author goes on to discover the documents that prove that Terray's Conquistadors was authentically written by Terray himself.
I think Roberts tackled the controversy around Annapurna skillfully.. He doesn't ruthlessly dismantle the myth of Annapurna so much as allow readers to see a richer tapestry, woven from the experience of each key member of the expedition. I think his treatment of Herzog is gracious, moderate and balanced. One of the most poignant moments of the book has to be when Herzog reads Lachenal's diary and realises that Lachenal truly did not desire to go to the summit but rather sacrificed his feet (and his climbing future) to save Herzog's life. The affaire de cordee! Roberts masterfully weaves his own realisations/growth with the revelations about the character of Lachenal. His idealised portrait of Lachenal is replaced with someone flawed/real, but worthy of respect and admiration. This is the first of Robert's books that I've read, and I'm keen to read some others!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 22, 2022
I was a bit afraid to start reading the book in the beginning. It's so widespread now to disprove the great achievements of the past. I didn't want the first 8000-er ascent to fall victim to that.
The "True Summit," however, focuses on different things. It compiles the stories of other team members into a fascinating story of relatively unknown heroes. It does not make the Annapurna story smaller for me. Being a mountaineer, I always picked up the smooth team communication in Herzog's book with a pinch of salt.
The "True Summit" is anti-"Annapurna" to some extent. It emphasizes the personalities of each climber. And it makes the result much more valuable. Reading "Annapurna," you understand that a team working as one with clockwork precision is destined to succeed. With the "True Summit," you see how completely different people bring all they have and, despite their dissimilarities, tackle the task.
The book enriched me with stories of extraordinary mountaineers going far beyond the Annapurna. I got my soul mate in Rebuffat with his way of thinking about what mountaineering is.
The "True Summit" also closes the gap for those who, like me, cannot read French. Unfortunately, not all books written by expedition members are available in the languages I know. So this book is an opportunity to at least get some digest. I would like to read books by Lachenal, Rebuffat, and Terray myself before reading David Roberts. His fascination with those people and his love for them are all over the book, which makes it a great pleasure to read. But I can't stop thinking of them as heroes. But didn't they deserve it?
The "True Summit," however, focuses on different things. It compiles the stories of other team members into a fascinating story of relatively unknown heroes. It does not make the Annapurna story smaller for me. Being a mountaineer, I always picked up the smooth team communication in Herzog's book with a pinch of salt.
The "True Summit" is anti-"Annapurna" to some extent. It emphasizes the personalities of each climber. And it makes the result much more valuable. Reading "Annapurna," you understand that a team working as one with clockwork precision is destined to succeed. With the "True Summit," you see how completely different people bring all they have and, despite their dissimilarities, tackle the task.
The book enriched me with stories of extraordinary mountaineers going far beyond the Annapurna. I got my soul mate in Rebuffat with his way of thinking about what mountaineering is.
The "True Summit" also closes the gap for those who, like me, cannot read French. Unfortunately, not all books written by expedition members are available in the languages I know. So this book is an opportunity to at least get some digest. I would like to read books by Lachenal, Rebuffat, and Terray myself before reading David Roberts. His fascination with those people and his love for them are all over the book, which makes it a great pleasure to read. But I can't stop thinking of them as heroes. But didn't they deserve it?
February 26, 2024
Would have been better as an essay.
I recently read The Lost Explorer: Finding Mallory on Mt. Everest which David Roberts co-wrote with Conrad Anker. I really enjoyed it. But after reading True Summit, I'm realizing that The Lost Explorer may have been great almost entirely because of Conrad Anker.
In True Summit, the entire premise seems to be that the first ascent of Annapurna is a mostly fictional tale. And all the junk English in the world cannot hide the fact that there isn't much of a conspiracy here.
Allow me to distill it for you. Some guys climbed a mountain. One of the guys became really famous and published an account of the climb where he claimed that everyone got along awesome and he was a hero. Later on it turns out that the other climbers didn't get the recognition they deserved and the "hero" sometimes made bad decisions.
This isn't exactly tinfoil hat type stuff.
And as to the junk English: this is not a scholarly text. I wish Roberts would have put his thesaurus away. When's the last time you heard the word "encomium" used? How about "adumbrate"? Both of those words were used NUMEROUS times. Stop it.
I've been reading almost exclusively about Everest and I felt like I was ready to learn more about the other 8000ers. I should have started with a better book.
I recently read The Lost Explorer: Finding Mallory on Mt. Everest which David Roberts co-wrote with Conrad Anker. I really enjoyed it. But after reading True Summit, I'm realizing that The Lost Explorer may have been great almost entirely because of Conrad Anker.
In True Summit, the entire premise seems to be that the first ascent of Annapurna is a mostly fictional tale. And all the junk English in the world cannot hide the fact that there isn't much of a conspiracy here.
Allow me to distill it for you. Some guys climbed a mountain. One of the guys became really famous and published an account of the climb where he claimed that everyone got along awesome and he was a hero. Later on it turns out that the other climbers didn't get the recognition they deserved and the "hero" sometimes made bad decisions.
This isn't exactly tinfoil hat type stuff.
And as to the junk English: this is not a scholarly text. I wish Roberts would have put his thesaurus away. When's the last time you heard the word "encomium" used? How about "adumbrate"? Both of those words were used NUMEROUS times. Stop it.
I've been reading almost exclusively about Everest and I felt like I was ready to learn more about the other 8000ers. I should have started with a better book.
May 9, 2020
A tell-all exposé on the legendary ascent of Annapurna.
When a French expedition put two men (Maurice Herzog and Louis Lachenal) on the summit of the deadly Annapurna on their first attempt in 1950, the world hailed the achievement as landmark.
Indeed, this was the first 8,000 meter peak ever conquered, and for a war-beaten France, a way to reassert its relevance to the world.
In this investigative account, David Roberts reexamines the expedition. Beneath the veneer of nationalist drum-beating, he uncovers troubling questions.
Did the French really makes the summit? What did Mr. Herzog leave out from his famous book, Annapurna? What secrets did Mr. Lachenal take to his early grave?
Based on thorough research, interviews with Mr. Herzog and others, Mr. Roberts challenges the status quo of France’s big moment in the mountaineering spotlight.
I first read Annapurna as a young boy in France. It inspired me, and many others. In fact, his climbing eminence Ed Viesturs credits the book with sending him down the 8000-meter path.
I found my notions of the expedition disturbingly challenged by reading this...don’t miss it!
When a French expedition put two men (Maurice Herzog and Louis Lachenal) on the summit of the deadly Annapurna on their first attempt in 1950, the world hailed the achievement as landmark.
Indeed, this was the first 8,000 meter peak ever conquered, and for a war-beaten France, a way to reassert its relevance to the world.
In this investigative account, David Roberts reexamines the expedition. Beneath the veneer of nationalist drum-beating, he uncovers troubling questions.
Did the French really makes the summit? What did Mr. Herzog leave out from his famous book, Annapurna? What secrets did Mr. Lachenal take to his early grave?
Based on thorough research, interviews with Mr. Herzog and others, Mr. Roberts challenges the status quo of France’s big moment in the mountaineering spotlight.
I first read Annapurna as a young boy in France. It inspired me, and many others. In fact, his climbing eminence Ed Viesturs credits the book with sending him down the 8000-meter path.
I found my notions of the expedition disturbingly challenged by reading this...don’t miss it!
July 18, 2020
David Roberts is one of my favorite climber-authors. I generally like his take on things and have only disliked one or two of his books. "True Summit: What really happened on the legendary ascent of Annapurna" was a bit of a misfire for me -- I felt like the revelations about the first ascent of this Himalayan 8,000 meter peak, weren't all that interesting.
To be fair, I'm apparently the only person on Earth who didn't particularly care for Maurice Herzog's account of the climb (despite his book "Annapurna" being beloved in mountaineering circles.) I've read nearly all of the other books Roberts mentions in this one and preferred them all to Herzog's enthusiastic account.
There are plenty of accounts of discord in mountaineering books -- and I've enjoyed them greatly -- but the discord Roberts mentions is seems so pat and usual that it really didn't make for very interesting reading. The story of the climb, told by Roberts is fine enough, but I definitely wouldn't consider this one of his better books.
To be fair, I'm apparently the only person on Earth who didn't particularly care for Maurice Herzog's account of the climb (despite his book "Annapurna" being beloved in mountaineering circles.) I've read nearly all of the other books Roberts mentions in this one and preferred them all to Herzog's enthusiastic account.
There are plenty of accounts of discord in mountaineering books -- and I've enjoyed them greatly -- but the discord Roberts mentions is seems so pat and usual that it really didn't make for very interesting reading. The story of the climb, told by Roberts is fine enough, but I definitely wouldn't consider this one of his better books.
November 30, 2021
Rrue Summit is an amazing book, both as a climbing book and as a work of historical scholarship. It exposes a web of dishonesty surrounding the classic account of the first ascent of Annapurna. Some scenes are provocative of outrage, as when Roberts describes the editorial notes -- "Wrong", "This must be changed" -- made by Herzog and Devies on Lachenal's diary. Throughout, Roberts intersperses scenes from his own mountaineering career, which add immediacy and human interest. One nitpick I had was that, as a writer of history, Roberts should really have given a definitive list of sources and referenced his quotes. More importantly, I felt that he never really summed up his arguments. Why was Herzog's Annapurna the whitewashed version that it apparently was? Were the reasons nationalistic, class (amateur versus guide), personal? What can these events tell us about mountaineering as a whole? These are questions which Roberts does not really address. Still, this is a fascinating book and I certainly recommend it.
December 26, 2019
The organization of the content is weak and rambling. I haven't read Herzog's book on the climb but from the excerpts included I can't imagine anyone would have not taken much of it with a grain of salt. But then this was the first peak over 8000 successfully climbed and maybe the account needed to sound like a heroic tale after all the failures and deaths.
The remarkable aspect is that these four climbers were incredibly fit and capable. What they were doing without oxygen and with constantly numb feet and hands and their commitment to doing the heavy lifting and climbing is astonishing.
The remarkable aspect is that these four climbers were incredibly fit and capable. What they were doing without oxygen and with constantly numb feet and hands and their commitment to doing the heavy lifting and climbing is astonishing.
May 10, 2022
My only disappointment with this book is that it did not go very far into the question of whether Maurice Herzog and Louis Lachenal ever reached the summit of Annapurna. I was suspicion of the account from the first time I read it more than 50 years ago. The summit photo doesn’t look like a summit and I’ve never read of a subsequent expedition that reached the summit from a camp as far down as this account states.
December 26, 2022
Having read Annapurna by Maurice Herzog, I was interested to find this book which offered differing accounts of the expedition based on the diaries of other expedition members and stories from surviving family members. Each person in any group adventure has their own view of the other participants and the successes and failures within the quest, and it helps to put as many pieces of the puzzle together that can be found. Based on this book, my next read will be Conquistadors of the Useless!
July 8, 2017
Maurice Herzog's ANNAPURNA is the best-selling mountaineering book in history, and I enjoyed it a great deal. But if one's interested in what really happened up there, and in the vicissitudes of memory, TRUE SUMMIT is a brilliant work of ... revisionism doesn't quite do the book justice, because its soul is deeper than that.
October 29, 2018
Roberts goes back and looks at the 1950 summit of Annapurna from the perspectives of the rest of the climbing team besides Herzog. There was a lot of behind the scenes business that was suppressed and hidden. Intriguing!
July 2, 2019
I couldn't understand the purpose of the book. Yes other teammates were awesome and helpful and sacrificed their own chance of summit to help their friends. "The Annapurna" is some chapters doesn't highlights the sacrifice of teammates and blurs their important. I agree. But it was the first ascent to the legendary mountain. No-one has any doubt on that. So I don't understand what this book is trying to inform us. "The Annapurna" has inspired of thousands of people to pursue their own career in mountaineering. The adventure told in the book is majestic and enchanting. The book might have twisted some plots and added/removed some but it doesn't make the book a collection of lies.
October 23, 2021
Roberts' writing was just good enough to keep me reading otherwise I would have ditched this book. Just eh, as others have said, the disagreement wasn't worth this whole book. Maybe a magazine article, yes, but an entire book, eh. Better David Roberts out there, for sure.
February 15, 2020
I like all of David Roberts' books.
April 19, 2021
Although this book is well written it saddened me as I held the original ‘Annapurna’ book by Herzog as a book of eternal and endearing truisms. This work fully shattered that impression.
August 16, 2021
Good book
April 11, 2023
excellently written and illustrative on the first ascent of Annapurna and the interpersonal dynamics/politics behind it. Great biographies about some of the finest alpinists to exist
September 27, 2023
When the climb gets tough, it's not about
Glory, but saving the other guy.
Glory, but saving the other guy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews