What do you think?
Rate this book
The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest
A member of a climbing team that tried to take the summit of Everest in May 1996 shares the gripping true story of what happened when another climbing group was overcome by snow, wind, and lack of oxygen. 25,000 first printing. Tour.
255 pages, Hardcover
First published June 28, 1997
628 people are currently reading
14095 people want to read
About the author
Anatoli Boukreev
2 books36 followersAnatoli Nikolaevich Boukreev was a mountaineer from Russia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,094 reviews
August 16, 2010
After having read Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer, I had an impression of this particular Everest expedition that, as I have found out, is completely erroneous. Mr. Krakauer unjustly and inexcusably defamed Anatoli Boukreev by painting a false picture of an event that took the lives of five individuals and left many others ravaged and haunted. This book, The Climb, presents information as gathered by the Everest team itself and Mr. Boukreev’s account of this expedition.
Not only was Anatoli Boukreev unjustly accused of wrongdoing, he was shockingly unheralded for his heroic efforts immediately following the disaster. At a time when no one else was able or willing to rescue stranded and freezing climbers, Anatoli Boukreev summoned what little strength he had left to search through a blinding and devastating storm for his fellow mountaineers. Without his aid, there would have been many more than five deaths on Everest that day.
Despite Krakauer’s efforts to convince readers otherwise, Anatoli Boukreev remains one of the most respected climbers in mountaineering history and ultimately received the David A. Sowles Memorial Award for his efforts; the highest honor awarded by the American Alpine Club. He remained, until his death in 1997, incredibly humble regarding his fantastic achievements and stoically respectful of the mountains he lived (and died) in.
This book was incredible. Well written, honest, and enthralling. Boukreev bravely explains the occurrences of the difficult expedition and thoroughly incorporated the events as recounted by his fellow climbers. As a response to Jon Krakauer’s poor evaluation and publication of the event, Boukreev and DeWalt paint an objective and detailed portrait of what really happened that day.
While detailing the expedition, Boukreev and DeWalt also examine many of the recent developments in commercial expeditions. The business is booming and, unfortunately, that has meant many climbers attempting Everest (and other harrowing peaks) with less-than-minimal experience and questionable motives. Boukreev speaks to the consequences of these developments and dives into more philosophical questions regarding high altitude mountaineering and the concept of “purchasing” a summit.
For me, this book ultimately brought honesty and closure to a highly publicized and scrutinized expedition on Everest. While Boukreev had over twenty years of high-altitude training and experience including previous Everest summits, Jon Krakauer was simply a disgruntled writer with minimal qualifications to climb a dangerous peak. Krakauer will forever be questioned in my mind as an honest and impartial journalist.
Boukreev, however, has my deepest respect.
Not only was Anatoli Boukreev unjustly accused of wrongdoing, he was shockingly unheralded for his heroic efforts immediately following the disaster. At a time when no one else was able or willing to rescue stranded and freezing climbers, Anatoli Boukreev summoned what little strength he had left to search through a blinding and devastating storm for his fellow mountaineers. Without his aid, there would have been many more than five deaths on Everest that day.
Despite Krakauer’s efforts to convince readers otherwise, Anatoli Boukreev remains one of the most respected climbers in mountaineering history and ultimately received the David A. Sowles Memorial Award for his efforts; the highest honor awarded by the American Alpine Club. He remained, until his death in 1997, incredibly humble regarding his fantastic achievements and stoically respectful of the mountains he lived (and died) in.
This book was incredible. Well written, honest, and enthralling. Boukreev bravely explains the occurrences of the difficult expedition and thoroughly incorporated the events as recounted by his fellow climbers. As a response to Jon Krakauer’s poor evaluation and publication of the event, Boukreev and DeWalt paint an objective and detailed portrait of what really happened that day.
While detailing the expedition, Boukreev and DeWalt also examine many of the recent developments in commercial expeditions. The business is booming and, unfortunately, that has meant many climbers attempting Everest (and other harrowing peaks) with less-than-minimal experience and questionable motives. Boukreev speaks to the consequences of these developments and dives into more philosophical questions regarding high altitude mountaineering and the concept of “purchasing” a summit.
For me, this book ultimately brought honesty and closure to a highly publicized and scrutinized expedition on Everest. While Boukreev had over twenty years of high-altitude training and experience including previous Everest summits, Jon Krakauer was simply a disgruntled writer with minimal qualifications to climb a dangerous peak. Krakauer will forever be questioned in my mind as an honest and impartial journalist.
Boukreev, however, has my deepest respect.
August 8, 2009
Interesting to see the counter-story, but without a doubt, Krakauer's has far more factual backing and truthfully presented research. This book was self-serving to a point of failing factually (and that is DeWalt's fault, not Boukreev's)...
Since many people reviewing this book are using the space to argue Boukreevs skill and character, incorrectly assuming that this validates his account, I wanted to address some of those ideas.
Some reviewers are failing to realize a few very important things, the first being a phenomenal climber DOES NOT necessarily make a phenomenal guide- in fact, guiding and climbing are two very different things!!!
Next, I see a lot of people giving credit (rightfully so) to Boukreev for his undeniably heroic efforts in the early morning of the May 11th. BUT, how could anyone forget!??- that the tragedy BEGAN on the 10th... As a climber- i'm calling heroics not at all too-little but definitely TOO LATE!
Yes, Hall and Scott were derelict in many ways in their leadership roles, but Boukreev made decisions early-on that directly jeopardized the safety of his entire team- and for one of those decisions (in my opinion the worst)-within this novel, he had NO meaningful rebuttal.
Look, I'm an outdoor guide, nowhere remotely near the level of guiding skills required to lead this sort of undertaking, i admit- but even I, and every other part-time guide out there knows that, what you might do on a personal trip is not always what you would do as an acting guide!!!!
***bottom line: 'Guiding' without oxygen= stupid, negligent, and in this case, disastrous!!!***
true, this disaster was compounded by the many many poorly-made decisions and actions of many many people- but those decisions were mostly made with starving, half-delusional brains!!! Boukreev, however, doesn't get that asterisk next to his error: he made the decision to guide without oxygen looooong before he was at altitude- and that decision, without a doubt, killed people. period.
I'm not going to get into the fact that lots of those people shouldn't have been up there in the first place, or who's fault that is- but whether or not he liked the role (he confessed in an interview he did not), he was a GUIDE, and despite his heroic efforts at the end, and the fact that i was really and truly emotionally moved by his attitude and actions post-disaster... while reading this, i simply could not forgive him for at least that one glaring and fatal mistake.
Since many people reviewing this book are using the space to argue Boukreevs skill and character, incorrectly assuming that this validates his account, I wanted to address some of those ideas.
Some reviewers are failing to realize a few very important things, the first being a phenomenal climber DOES NOT necessarily make a phenomenal guide- in fact, guiding and climbing are two very different things!!!
Next, I see a lot of people giving credit (rightfully so) to Boukreev for his undeniably heroic efforts in the early morning of the May 11th. BUT, how could anyone forget!??- that the tragedy BEGAN on the 10th... As a climber- i'm calling heroics not at all too-little but definitely TOO LATE!
Yes, Hall and Scott were derelict in many ways in their leadership roles, but Boukreev made decisions early-on that directly jeopardized the safety of his entire team- and for one of those decisions (in my opinion the worst)-within this novel, he had NO meaningful rebuttal.
Look, I'm an outdoor guide, nowhere remotely near the level of guiding skills required to lead this sort of undertaking, i admit- but even I, and every other part-time guide out there knows that, what you might do on a personal trip is not always what you would do as an acting guide!!!!
***bottom line: 'Guiding' without oxygen= stupid, negligent, and in this case, disastrous!!!***
true, this disaster was compounded by the many many poorly-made decisions and actions of many many people- but those decisions were mostly made with starving, half-delusional brains!!! Boukreev, however, doesn't get that asterisk next to his error: he made the decision to guide without oxygen looooong before he was at altitude- and that decision, without a doubt, killed people. period.
I'm not going to get into the fact that lots of those people shouldn't have been up there in the first place, or who's fault that is- but whether or not he liked the role (he confessed in an interview he did not), he was a GUIDE, and despite his heroic efforts at the end, and the fact that i was really and truly emotionally moved by his attitude and actions post-disaster... while reading this, i simply could not forgive him for at least that one glaring and fatal mistake.
March 17, 2020
Contrast this with Krakauer's Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mt. Everest Disaster where he slags off Boukreev as a guide who put his own ambitions first and didn't do enough to save people in the disaster that was the 1996 climbing seaon on Everest. What respect I had for Krakauer (limited because he was very unpleasant about one of the women who had climbed with him after sucking up to her enough to chat to her on the phone for hours) has plummeted, Boukreev was a hero saving 3 people from certain death, and everything he says is corroborated by fact and sometimes by photograph.
Review to come.
Review to come.
December 20, 2007
Anatoli is the man..., or was I should say.
I've read a lot of comments others have written about this book, and how many people say that Krakauer's book is so much more entertaining and blah blah blah.... I look for validity in non-fiction. I happen to believe a man who's been climbing since he was a teenager and has the resume that Bourkreev has, he also seems to be a man of more action than words. Lets not forget that Krakauer is a writer and has to sell books.
Anatoli deserves more credit than he got in "Into Thin Air."
And someone please tell Krakauer to write a story about someone other than himself. I couldn't get through Into the wild without him throwing around all his experience and drawing parallels with Christopher McCandless.
I lost a lot of respect for Krakauer after reading the climb. I'm sure he's a good climber, but he was nothing compared to Anatoli.
There is another version of this story written by the Tai camp that was on the mountain at the same time. As well as Lene Gammelgaard who was in the Mountain Madness expidition with Anatoli also wrote a book.
Note how many stars it was given. I never give 5 stars to a book.
I've read a lot of comments others have written about this book, and how many people say that Krakauer's book is so much more entertaining and blah blah blah.... I look for validity in non-fiction. I happen to believe a man who's been climbing since he was a teenager and has the resume that Bourkreev has, he also seems to be a man of more action than words. Lets not forget that Krakauer is a writer and has to sell books.
Anatoli deserves more credit than he got in "Into Thin Air."
And someone please tell Krakauer to write a story about someone other than himself. I couldn't get through Into the wild without him throwing around all his experience and drawing parallels with Christopher McCandless.
I lost a lot of respect for Krakauer after reading the climb. I'm sure he's a good climber, but he was nothing compared to Anatoli.
There is another version of this story written by the Tai camp that was on the mountain at the same time. As well as Lene Gammelgaard who was in the Mountain Madness expidition with Anatoli also wrote a book.
Note how many stars it was given. I never give 5 stars to a book.
February 3, 2013
I love reading about mountain climbing even though wanting to be the one-thousandth person to climb and having fixed ropes and ladders laid out by underpaid third-world sherpas hardly seems like a valid way to spend $70,000. Now Mallory's attempt is something else entirely. (I'm reading Into the Silence: The Great War, Mallory, and the Conquest of Everest.)I read Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mt. Everest Disaster and very much liked it.
This book was presented by some as an alternative, or rebuttal, to Krakauer's account. I have no experience climbing anything larger than small stone and so I have no way to judge the authenticity of either story, but common sense would seem to dictate that both could be right since they are both very personal stories told by the participants, all of whom were under an enormous amount of stress and whose perspective will naturally have been shaped by their very limited personal view of events. Krakauer was sent specifically to record events of that year's climb and was taking notes, so I would tend to give his account the edge. When it comes right down to it, I don't remember any substantial discrepancies between the two books and suspect that much of the controversy is manufactured for PR purposes. Much of that comes from the co-author DeWitt who tells Boukareev's story. In both versions he is portrayed as a hero; DeWitt's account just feels a bit manufactured. Of course, he wasn't there.
Boukreev's account is more measured and reasoned; Krakauer's has an underlying passion that drives it and helps to make it such a wonderful read. Read both of them.
This book was presented by some as an alternative, or rebuttal, to Krakauer's account. I have no experience climbing anything larger than small stone and so I have no way to judge the authenticity of either story, but common sense would seem to dictate that both could be right since they are both very personal stories told by the participants, all of whom were under an enormous amount of stress and whose perspective will naturally have been shaped by their very limited personal view of events. Krakauer was sent specifically to record events of that year's climb and was taking notes, so I would tend to give his account the edge. When it comes right down to it, I don't remember any substantial discrepancies between the two books and suspect that much of the controversy is manufactured for PR purposes. Much of that comes from the co-author DeWitt who tells Boukareev's story. In both versions he is portrayed as a hero; DeWitt's account just feels a bit manufactured. Of course, he wasn't there.
Boukreev's account is more measured and reasoned; Krakauer's has an underlying passion that drives it and helps to make it such a wonderful read. Read both of them.
April 28, 2024
A fascinating account of what happened on Mount Everest in May of 1996. Written in response to Jon Krakauer's "Into Thin Air" Anatoli Booukreev defends his climbing without oxygen and going on ahead of his team to reach the summit. His best reply, I thought, was his answer to Krakauer's criticism about not using oxygen. When the stragglers did not show up at base camp, Boukreev describes how he went back out into the white out and saved several people, while Krakauer simply went to sleep in his tent. True, Boukreev was a guide, and Krakauer a client, but this was a life or death situation, and Krakuer questioned Boukreev's judgement and commitment, when in fact it was Anatoli Boukreev, not Krakauer, who had the strength and skill to respond to the emergency and save others.
April 22, 2012
Apparently prosciutto without fat is like a kiss without a cuddle. I reckon reading ‘Into Thin Air’ without ‘The Climb’, would be like watching a David Attenborough documentary without the volume turned up. Sure you get the images and you can sort of figure out that something important is happening to the sleeping newt as it’s been on screen for thirty minutes. But you miss out on Attenborough’s docile tones giving rich insights into why it’s so important that the newt just flicked its tail. Is it because they're alleviating themselves of gas? Having a bad dream? Does it stem from the primordial soup? Are they sending out mating signals? I won't get sidetracked on Newts, I'm not even entirely certain if they have tails, but I will say that you won't get the full gist of what went down on Mountain Everest in 1996 unless you read both books.
In 1996 eight climbers were killed attempting to climb Mt Everest. Was it the weather conditions? Poor altitude acclimatization? Poor communication? Poor leadership? Both authors achieved submit Everest that day and through interviews, radio transcripts & experience they try to breakdown the events leading up to and during the tragedy. So if both books attempt the same thing, why read both?
Jon Krakauer is a born storyteller; ‘Into Thin Air’ is a white knuckled ride of terror. He delves into the characters of each of the climbers, their motivations of attempting this extreme feat, so when they are in peril you fret for their survival. I became utterly consumed by their attempts of survival against the sudden white out from a fast moving weather system.
Whilst the book went on to become a best seller, there was backlash amongst the climbing community against Krakauer. It was suggested that he transformed the climbers into characters and was more concerned with creating storytelling drama then recounting facts.
One climber in particular who’s their reputation was severely tainted by Krakauer’s account was Russian guide Anatoli Boukreev. Krakauer suggests that Boukreev demonstrated a lack of leadership and questionable concern for the climbers he was guiding.
Boukreev subsequently released ‘The Climb’ partly in response to ‘Into Thin Air’, but also to deal with his feelings after the tragedy. It definitely lacks the slick storytelling style of Krakauer as it did feel like I was wadding through facts and transcripts, but this adds to the authenticity and authority in Boukreev’s evaluation of the events. To be honest I thought Boukreev was a bit of a cold-hearted man prior to reading ‘The Climb’, but I think I was definitely skewed towards this option by Krakauer’s characterization of him. By reading ‘The Climb’ I learnt a great deal of Boukreev’s solo rescue attempts of some of the stranded climbers on the mountain. It made me feel somewhat cheated by ‘Into Thin Air’ as I went on to question a lot of what was present in the book. Yet I enjoyed reading it so much I would heartily recommend it to anyone – on the condition they read ‘The Climb’. I agree that it is a bit of Everest overload but it is such a fascinating topic.
For more frankly irrelevant book reviews check out http://ballpoint-arcade.blogspot.com.au
In 1996 eight climbers were killed attempting to climb Mt Everest. Was it the weather conditions? Poor altitude acclimatization? Poor communication? Poor leadership? Both authors achieved submit Everest that day and through interviews, radio transcripts & experience they try to breakdown the events leading up to and during the tragedy. So if both books attempt the same thing, why read both?
Jon Krakauer is a born storyteller; ‘Into Thin Air’ is a white knuckled ride of terror. He delves into the characters of each of the climbers, their motivations of attempting this extreme feat, so when they are in peril you fret for their survival. I became utterly consumed by their attempts of survival against the sudden white out from a fast moving weather system.
Whilst the book went on to become a best seller, there was backlash amongst the climbing community against Krakauer. It was suggested that he transformed the climbers into characters and was more concerned with creating storytelling drama then recounting facts.
One climber in particular who’s their reputation was severely tainted by Krakauer’s account was Russian guide Anatoli Boukreev. Krakauer suggests that Boukreev demonstrated a lack of leadership and questionable concern for the climbers he was guiding.
Boukreev subsequently released ‘The Climb’ partly in response to ‘Into Thin Air’, but also to deal with his feelings after the tragedy. It definitely lacks the slick storytelling style of Krakauer as it did feel like I was wadding through facts and transcripts, but this adds to the authenticity and authority in Boukreev’s evaluation of the events. To be honest I thought Boukreev was a bit of a cold-hearted man prior to reading ‘The Climb’, but I think I was definitely skewed towards this option by Krakauer’s characterization of him. By reading ‘The Climb’ I learnt a great deal of Boukreev’s solo rescue attempts of some of the stranded climbers on the mountain. It made me feel somewhat cheated by ‘Into Thin Air’ as I went on to question a lot of what was present in the book. Yet I enjoyed reading it so much I would heartily recommend it to anyone – on the condition they read ‘The Climb’. I agree that it is a bit of Everest overload but it is such a fascinating topic.
For more frankly irrelevant book reviews check out http://ballpoint-arcade.blogspot.com.au
October 27, 2022
Ricordi quel tizio, circa venti anni fa, ora mi sfugge il nome... scalò l'Everest senza usare l'ossigeno, tornò giù quasi morto. Gli chiesero... dissero, "Perché sei andato là per morire?" e lui disse "Non è cosi: sono andato là per vivere." (Il mondo perduto - Jurassic Park)
Ecco in questa frase è racchiusa la vita di Bukreev, questo non per minimizzare la sua esistenza, anzi al contrario, è per marcare ancora di più la sua attitudine per la montagna, la sua passione sconfinata per questa avventura continua sulle vette del Mondo.
L'Everest è la vetta più alta... si narra che le vette sopra gli 8000 m, siano 14, anzi sono 14 e pochi le hanno scalate e che siano arrivati in cima. Uno su tutti è Ed Viesturs, rigorosamente senza ossigeno. Ecco, il quesito principale della disputa Krakauer/Bukreev. Anatoli racconta che le bombole d'ossigeno... ma forse sto sconfinando e penso sia meglio leggere il libro!?
La differenza dei due libri: questo e Aria sottile, sta nella narrazione, se Krakauer romanza il tutto, Bukreev cerca di essere più veritiero possibile, scandendo i capitoli con suoi interventi ed analisi della storia eseguiti da parte di DeWalt con l'ausilio di testimonianze di altri partecipanti alla spedizione.
La narrazione si fa sempre più intensa man mano che si scala la montagna e si arriva a quote dove l'essere umano è messo a dura prova dall'aria rarefatta e dalla fatica nel scalarla.
Una lettura doverosa, per avere un quadro più completo del disastro avvenuto quel 10 maggio del 1996, dove la spettacolarizzazione, i soldi e la fama hanno tolto la vita ad alcuni, ad altri hanno privato l'esistenza di un parente o di un amico/a ed hanno sconvolto l'anima a chi quella tragedia ha segnato un punto indelebile.
Io non credo che nel nostro mondo lo spirito d'avventura rischi di scomparire. Se vedo attorno a me qualcosa di vitale, è proprio questo spirito d'avventura che mi sembra impossibile da sradicare, e che ha molto in comune con la curiosità. (Marie Curie)
Ecco in questa frase è racchiusa la vita di Bukreev, questo non per minimizzare la sua esistenza, anzi al contrario, è per marcare ancora di più la sua attitudine per la montagna, la sua passione sconfinata per questa avventura continua sulle vette del Mondo.
L'Everest è la vetta più alta... si narra che le vette sopra gli 8000 m, siano 14, anzi sono 14 e pochi le hanno scalate e che siano arrivati in cima. Uno su tutti è Ed Viesturs, rigorosamente senza ossigeno. Ecco, il quesito principale della disputa Krakauer/Bukreev. Anatoli racconta che le bombole d'ossigeno... ma forse sto sconfinando e penso sia meglio leggere il libro!?
La differenza dei due libri: questo e Aria sottile, sta nella narrazione, se Krakauer romanza il tutto, Bukreev cerca di essere più veritiero possibile, scandendo i capitoli con suoi interventi ed analisi della storia eseguiti da parte di DeWalt con l'ausilio di testimonianze di altri partecipanti alla spedizione.
La narrazione si fa sempre più intensa man mano che si scala la montagna e si arriva a quote dove l'essere umano è messo a dura prova dall'aria rarefatta e dalla fatica nel scalarla.
Una lettura doverosa, per avere un quadro più completo del disastro avvenuto quel 10 maggio del 1996, dove la spettacolarizzazione, i soldi e la fama hanno tolto la vita ad alcuni, ad altri hanno privato l'esistenza di un parente o di un amico/a ed hanno sconvolto l'anima a chi quella tragedia ha segnato un punto indelebile.
Io non credo che nel nostro mondo lo spirito d'avventura rischi di scomparire. Se vedo attorno a me qualcosa di vitale, è proprio questo spirito d'avventura che mi sembra impossibile da sradicare, e che ha molto in comune con la curiosità. (Marie Curie)
April 6, 2019
A study of the 1996 disaster at Mt. Everest, when climbers were stranded and several died.
In 1996, it seemed like almost anyone could climb Everest, as the guides had the whole thing down to a science. It was becoming little more than just another adventure tour. Then Mother Nature took a hand.
There was too much ambition and hubris. They forgot that Everest is a very dangerous place. They paid the price.
A very good examination of the whys and wherefores.
In 1996, it seemed like almost anyone could climb Everest, as the guides had the whole thing down to a science. It was becoming little more than just another adventure tour. Then Mother Nature took a hand.
There was too much ambition and hubris. They forgot that Everest is a very dangerous place. They paid the price.
A very good examination of the whys and wherefores.
January 3, 2019
Non-fiction about the tragedy on Mt. Everest in May, 1996. It focuses on two expeditions and the elements that led to death on the South face. I had previously read Into Thin Air, Jon Krakauer’s account of the disaster, which implicates Anatoli Boukreev’s actions as a contributing factor to the fatalities. Krakauer was a client-climber on the Adventure Consultants expedition and Boukreev was a guide on the Mountain Madness team. At the time I made a mental note to read The Climb to find out Boukreev’s side of the story.
Mountaineering seems to attract strong personalities, and each of these two believes he is correct. In the end, like many tragedies where numerous people have taken part, each person has a different experience, and each remembers what happened differently. This book clearly states Boukreev’s philosophy and cites evidence to back up his position, refuting Krakauer’s assertions.
The Climb tells a riveting story. It highlights the importance of preparedness, leadership, and communication in the extremely hazardous environment of high altitude climbing. I felt it occasionally slipped into repetition and a bit of defensiveness, but I can understand the reasons for it. There are several appendices included, and I found it very informative to read the transcript of the Mountain Madness team’s debriefing made a few days afterward.
In the end, I was glad to have read both accounts and now feel I have a more complete understanding of the tragedy. Recommended to anyone who has read Into Thin Air or is interested in extreme sports, especially mountaineering.
Mountaineering seems to attract strong personalities, and each of these two believes he is correct. In the end, like many tragedies where numerous people have taken part, each person has a different experience, and each remembers what happened differently. This book clearly states Boukreev’s philosophy and cites evidence to back up his position, refuting Krakauer’s assertions.
The Climb tells a riveting story. It highlights the importance of preparedness, leadership, and communication in the extremely hazardous environment of high altitude climbing. I felt it occasionally slipped into repetition and a bit of defensiveness, but I can understand the reasons for it. There are several appendices included, and I found it very informative to read the transcript of the Mountain Madness team’s debriefing made a few days afterward.
In the end, I was glad to have read both accounts and now feel I have a more complete understanding of the tragedy. Recommended to anyone who has read Into Thin Air or is interested in extreme sports, especially mountaineering.
October 9, 2011
"The Climb" tells the story of the 1996 Everest disaster, in which a series of bad decisions and coincidences led to the deaths of 5 climbers, among them Rob Hall and Scott Fishcer, who were among the best in their professions. The focus of the narrative is the experience of Russian guide Anatoli Boukreev. To understand "The Climb" one pretty much needs to also have read "Into Thin Air", another account of the disaster authored by Jon Krakauer, who was also among those involved. In his work, Krakauer questioned certain actions taken by Boukreev, and "The Climb" is obviously also his defence.
"Into Thin Air" is an obvious point of comparison for "The Climb". While Krakauer concentrated on his personal experience, Boukreev gives a wider and more technical account of the expedition. As a guide he has more to tell about the preparations of the trip and it is a matter of taste whether you prefer it to Krakauer's "human interest" approach. The approach is also dictated by the fact that Boukreev's English wasn't top notch and he most likely couldn't relate all the details of his experience to G. Weston De Walt who did the actual writing. I found the book as immersive as "Into Thin Air" and it gave me a better understanding of what transpired on the mountain in those two days.
Opinion seems to be sharply divided about the causes of the accident between the Krakauer and Boukreev camps. While the text makes valid points defending Boukreev's actions, there are some unnecessary jabs at Krakauer, which fail to fully appreciate that he was a less experienced client, not a expedition guide. Krakauer was obviously wrong about Boukreev's inadequate gear. As for Boukreev's decision not to use oxygen and the descent ahead of the clients, I frankly can not make up my mind as there are too many variables.
In my mind Hall and Fischer were most responsible, as they both failed to enforce turnaround times and use adequate communications gear. Both obviously paid for their oversights with their lives. Regardless of whether or not Boukreev acted correctly during the summit bid, his heroism in rescuing people during the night of 10th-11th May can not be denied. However, I do not feel that because Krakauer spent the night sleeping in his tent, he doesn't have a right to critique Boukreev. He was less experienced, he was a client, he would not have been an asset for the rescue.
I would recommed "The Climb" to anyone who was fascinated by "Into Thin Air". Maybe not quite as well written, the book is still essential reading for anyone who wants a better understanding of the 1996 disaster.
"Into Thin Air" is an obvious point of comparison for "The Climb". While Krakauer concentrated on his personal experience, Boukreev gives a wider and more technical account of the expedition. As a guide he has more to tell about the preparations of the trip and it is a matter of taste whether you prefer it to Krakauer's "human interest" approach. The approach is also dictated by the fact that Boukreev's English wasn't top notch and he most likely couldn't relate all the details of his experience to G. Weston De Walt who did the actual writing. I found the book as immersive as "Into Thin Air" and it gave me a better understanding of what transpired on the mountain in those two days.
Opinion seems to be sharply divided about the causes of the accident between the Krakauer and Boukreev camps. While the text makes valid points defending Boukreev's actions, there are some unnecessary jabs at Krakauer, which fail to fully appreciate that he was a less experienced client, not a expedition guide. Krakauer was obviously wrong about Boukreev's inadequate gear. As for Boukreev's decision not to use oxygen and the descent ahead of the clients, I frankly can not make up my mind as there are too many variables.
In my mind Hall and Fischer were most responsible, as they both failed to enforce turnaround times and use adequate communications gear. Both obviously paid for their oversights with their lives. Regardless of whether or not Boukreev acted correctly during the summit bid, his heroism in rescuing people during the night of 10th-11th May can not be denied. However, I do not feel that because Krakauer spent the night sleeping in his tent, he doesn't have a right to critique Boukreev. He was less experienced, he was a client, he would not have been an asset for the rescue.
I would recommed "The Climb" to anyone who was fascinated by "Into Thin Air". Maybe not quite as well written, the book is still essential reading for anyone who wants a better understanding of the 1996 disaster.
September 25, 2013
Ran across this book and had to pick it up. Read it in about 48 hours, despite life getting in the way here and there, I could not put this book down. Some have said Jon Kraukaur's book "Out of Thin Air" is far more interesting, possibly so as he was a professional writer and looked more to write to entertain and sell, this book was written to correct some misinformation put forward in Kraukaur's book. I didn't rate this high because its a great piece of literature -- its not, the writing is chopppy and bland, but that's ok, the story jumps out beyond the reporter style writing.
As someone who ran a business that often required difficult decisions and risk evaluation, I was riveted to the spot from the very beginning. The story starts from the very beginning when Boukreev and other characters in the book are laid out within the context of preparation for the climb. A good layout is given of the competitive nature of Everest guide tours, the tension and drive that comes with wanting to be number one combined with the desire to be successful in business. Immediately it is clear from the get-go that the expedition leaders make some crucial mistakes and cut corners in their ambition to grab the brass ring -- getting as many people to the summit as possible.
Also the book explains very clearly through simple sketches of character and quotes from survivors how privilege combined with ambition can lead to blinded ambition. Did the groups build cohesion? Did they stick together and build teamwork? Were there those who thought of themselves more than the group? Does privilege (Everest thrill seekers have to be among the very wealthy to afford the trip) lead to entitlement that overshadows judgment and proper discrimination about who should go up and who shouldn't? Is it all about the cash? The glory?
Everest is in my mind an extreme example of human hubris. People go there for the thrill, go there expecting to get back to tell the world and claim that title. And yet ironically they are guided the whole way like old ladies on a seniors bus tour, most of them not fit to make their own decisions should peril strike them. The mountain is littered with bodies to testify to human error and yet the people keep coming. Do they come to view a pristine natural wonder or to simply use the mountain as another notch for their ego? The mountain currently is loaded with trash, the mountain villages in Nepal are struggling to survive under the weight of resource sucking western amenities to satisfy the tastes of western privilege.
After reading this book one wonders; for what?
As someone who ran a business that often required difficult decisions and risk evaluation, I was riveted to the spot from the very beginning. The story starts from the very beginning when Boukreev and other characters in the book are laid out within the context of preparation for the climb. A good layout is given of the competitive nature of Everest guide tours, the tension and drive that comes with wanting to be number one combined with the desire to be successful in business. Immediately it is clear from the get-go that the expedition leaders make some crucial mistakes and cut corners in their ambition to grab the brass ring -- getting as many people to the summit as possible.
Also the book explains very clearly through simple sketches of character and quotes from survivors how privilege combined with ambition can lead to blinded ambition. Did the groups build cohesion? Did they stick together and build teamwork? Were there those who thought of themselves more than the group? Does privilege (Everest thrill seekers have to be among the very wealthy to afford the trip) lead to entitlement that overshadows judgment and proper discrimination about who should go up and who shouldn't? Is it all about the cash? The glory?
Everest is in my mind an extreme example of human hubris. People go there for the thrill, go there expecting to get back to tell the world and claim that title. And yet ironically they are guided the whole way like old ladies on a seniors bus tour, most of them not fit to make their own decisions should peril strike them. The mountain is littered with bodies to testify to human error and yet the people keep coming. Do they come to view a pristine natural wonder or to simply use the mountain as another notch for their ego? The mountain currently is loaded with trash, the mountain villages in Nepal are struggling to survive under the weight of resource sucking western amenities to satisfy the tastes of western privilege.
After reading this book one wonders; for what?
October 16, 2017
If the 1996 Everest disaster is the most famous mountaineering tragedy in history behind the death of Mallory and Irvine, it is so probably due to the efforts of one man - Jon Krakauer, with his article and book about the tragedy, Into thin air. In that book, Krakauer describes the tragedy that befell the climbers on May 10 1996 from his viewpoint as a climber in the Adventure Consultants team. During the book he has some not-so-kind things to say about Anatoli Boukreev, who was a guide for Scott Fischer's Mountain Madness expedition. The controversy that Krakauer's book sparked continues on to this day, more than 15 years after the events themselves.
The Climb is Boukreev's version of events - given his lack of command of English, the book is really written by DeWalt, with liberal dosings of Boukreev's quotes framing the story - and in many ways, gives a more complete picture of the tragedy than does Krakauer's work.
Both Scott Fischer and Anatoli Boukreev were mountain junkies - their whole life was predicated around climbing the great peaks of the World, and trying to finance their next adventure. Fischer, a charismatic American and great climber, looked to Rob Hall's successful business model with Adventure Consultants and thought that he could replicate that success himself, by creating a business guiding people up major climbs. 1996 was the first time he had tried to do it on Everest, and when he ran into Boukreev in Kathmandu, he jumped at the chance to hire him. Boukreev, who was down to his last few dollars, readily agreed. At the time it seemed like a win-win situation for both of them - Boukreev climbed and got paid for doing so, and Fischer could advertise his climb as having a head guide who was a true veteran of 8000 metre peaks.
What rapidly becomes clear as the pages of The Climb roll on, is that while Fischer may have been a great climber, he was not a great leader. It seems that at no stage did he sit down with Boukreev or his other guides and go into any real detail on how they would tackle the peak - and he ignored Boukreev's advice on acclimatization to altitude for the clients. It also seems that he disliked confrontation, and hated to say no, so that several of the climbers who were at the South Col on May 9 shouldn't have really been there, owing to their lack of fitness.
The logistics of the expedition were also far from optimal - they only had barely enough oxygen for all the people on the mountain, and the plan to fix lines to the summit was never acted upon. From the armchair point-of-view, the whole Mountain Madness setup seems to have been a disaster waiting to happen. Boukreev was worried about the fitness of the clients from the start, and having never guided before, was unsure of what was actually required of him, something that Fischer never seemed to explain.
Fischer himself was not in peak form for the climb, he was exhausted, a fact that he covered up as much as he could. On the day of the summit attempt, he sent Boukreev and his other guide Neal Beidleman up the Mountain at the head of their team, while Fischer himself would sweep at the rear. The idea was, apparently, that anyone Fischer passed on his sweep would be turned around and sent back down, as if he passed them it meant it would take them too long to keep going and get back safely (before their oxygen ran out). This was a good idea in theory - in practice it was a disaster, as Fischer was so weak and slow that he didn't catch up to even the slowest Mountain Madness climbers. The other massive oversight was that neither Boukreev or Beidleman had radios, so Fischer could not communicate with them at all. The result was that most climbers summited far too late for safety. Boukreev was first to summit, but even he didn't reach the top until about 1.30pm, as he had been delayed because the ropes to the top weren't fixed beforehand as organised, so he and Beidleman had to do most of it.
In 1996 the generally accepted idea was that the latest time for summiting was 2pm. Most Mountain Madness clients summited well after that, and Fischer didn't leave the summit until after 4. By that time Boukreev was on the way down. He'd spoken to Fischer when they finally crossed paths, and they agreed that Boukreev should head down to Camp IV, as many climbers would run out of oxygen before they got down, and he might need to bring up some cylinders and generally help out.
Then the storm hit. Very soon whiteout conditions hit the top of the mountain, with clients and guides spread from the South Summit to the Balcony, and to the South Col itself. There were many heroic actions that night, with Boukreev's continued sorties from Camp IV to bring back climbers not the least of them. In fact his actions won him (along with Pete Athans and Todd Burleson) the David A. Sowles Memorial Award for valour. In all Boukreev personally rescued 3 people that night. The next day he climbed to the South Summit to try to rescue Scott Fischer, who had spent the night there, but found him beyond help. Tragically Boukreev was killed on Annapurna in 1997.
With all the controversy that has surrounded the 1996 Everest season, a few things are made clear by Boukreev's book. Scott Fischer did not give good leadership to either his clients or his guides. Boukreev did not understand how he fitted in to the expedition - how much initiative he could take on behalf of Fischer or the clients, and whether he could order clients or Sherpas to do as he asked - which is perhaps a criticism of both Boukreev and Fischer. The logistics of the Mountain Madness activities above Camp IV were not well organised.
All Mountain Madness expedition members, with the exception of Fischer, survived and got down the mountain without serious injury.
The edition I read (see above) has over 100 pages of extra material, mostly rebuttals of Krakauer, and a transcript of the taped "debriefing" of the Mountain Madness team which took place at Base Camp on 15 May 1996. This is fascinating reading, and gives quite an insight into the inner characters of some of the team.
If you have read Krakauer, you must read this book.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/
The Climb is Boukreev's version of events - given his lack of command of English, the book is really written by DeWalt, with liberal dosings of Boukreev's quotes framing the story - and in many ways, gives a more complete picture of the tragedy than does Krakauer's work.
Both Scott Fischer and Anatoli Boukreev were mountain junkies - their whole life was predicated around climbing the great peaks of the World, and trying to finance their next adventure. Fischer, a charismatic American and great climber, looked to Rob Hall's successful business model with Adventure Consultants and thought that he could replicate that success himself, by creating a business guiding people up major climbs. 1996 was the first time he had tried to do it on Everest, and when he ran into Boukreev in Kathmandu, he jumped at the chance to hire him. Boukreev, who was down to his last few dollars, readily agreed. At the time it seemed like a win-win situation for both of them - Boukreev climbed and got paid for doing so, and Fischer could advertise his climb as having a head guide who was a true veteran of 8000 metre peaks.
What rapidly becomes clear as the pages of The Climb roll on, is that while Fischer may have been a great climber, he was not a great leader. It seems that at no stage did he sit down with Boukreev or his other guides and go into any real detail on how they would tackle the peak - and he ignored Boukreev's advice on acclimatization to altitude for the clients. It also seems that he disliked confrontation, and hated to say no, so that several of the climbers who were at the South Col on May 9 shouldn't have really been there, owing to their lack of fitness.
The logistics of the expedition were also far from optimal - they only had barely enough oxygen for all the people on the mountain, and the plan to fix lines to the summit was never acted upon. From the armchair point-of-view, the whole Mountain Madness setup seems to have been a disaster waiting to happen. Boukreev was worried about the fitness of the clients from the start, and having never guided before, was unsure of what was actually required of him, something that Fischer never seemed to explain.
Fischer himself was not in peak form for the climb, he was exhausted, a fact that he covered up as much as he could. On the day of the summit attempt, he sent Boukreev and his other guide Neal Beidleman up the Mountain at the head of their team, while Fischer himself would sweep at the rear. The idea was, apparently, that anyone Fischer passed on his sweep would be turned around and sent back down, as if he passed them it meant it would take them too long to keep going and get back safely (before their oxygen ran out). This was a good idea in theory - in practice it was a disaster, as Fischer was so weak and slow that he didn't catch up to even the slowest Mountain Madness climbers. The other massive oversight was that neither Boukreev or Beidleman had radios, so Fischer could not communicate with them at all. The result was that most climbers summited far too late for safety. Boukreev was first to summit, but even he didn't reach the top until about 1.30pm, as he had been delayed because the ropes to the top weren't fixed beforehand as organised, so he and Beidleman had to do most of it.
In 1996 the generally accepted idea was that the latest time for summiting was 2pm. Most Mountain Madness clients summited well after that, and Fischer didn't leave the summit until after 4. By that time Boukreev was on the way down. He'd spoken to Fischer when they finally crossed paths, and they agreed that Boukreev should head down to Camp IV, as many climbers would run out of oxygen before they got down, and he might need to bring up some cylinders and generally help out.
Then the storm hit. Very soon whiteout conditions hit the top of the mountain, with clients and guides spread from the South Summit to the Balcony, and to the South Col itself. There were many heroic actions that night, with Boukreev's continued sorties from Camp IV to bring back climbers not the least of them. In fact his actions won him (along with Pete Athans and Todd Burleson) the David A. Sowles Memorial Award for valour. In all Boukreev personally rescued 3 people that night. The next day he climbed to the South Summit to try to rescue Scott Fischer, who had spent the night there, but found him beyond help. Tragically Boukreev was killed on Annapurna in 1997.
With all the controversy that has surrounded the 1996 Everest season, a few things are made clear by Boukreev's book. Scott Fischer did not give good leadership to either his clients or his guides. Boukreev did not understand how he fitted in to the expedition - how much initiative he could take on behalf of Fischer or the clients, and whether he could order clients or Sherpas to do as he asked - which is perhaps a criticism of both Boukreev and Fischer. The logistics of the Mountain Madness activities above Camp IV were not well organised.
All Mountain Madness expedition members, with the exception of Fischer, survived and got down the mountain without serious injury.
The edition I read (see above) has over 100 pages of extra material, mostly rebuttals of Krakauer, and a transcript of the taped "debriefing" of the Mountain Madness team which took place at Base Camp on 15 May 1996. This is fascinating reading, and gives quite an insight into the inner characters of some of the team.
If you have read Krakauer, you must read this book.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/
August 31, 2012
To some degree I felt like this book was just a medium for Boukreev to defend his actions to Jon Krakauer (Into Thin Air) who did mention some things he felt were odd about some of Boukreev's actions.
After reading Krakauer's book, I had the sense that Boukreev was slacking big time, being a snob, and not a team player. After reading Boukreev's book, I think Krakauer did take some cheap, uninformed shots.
It's a case of he-said he-said.
For the record, I thought it was EXTREMELY distasteful for Boukreev to include a photo of two climbers by a torso (though it looks like a body from the waist down, not a torso) he "discovered". This just adds to what I think is his feeling of superiority, as in "this fool wasn't a good enough climber to not get killed and cut in half". Imagine the man's family seeing this photo and recognizing the boots or pants and seeing that he wasn't being respected in death. And yet, when Boukreev went and buried Scott Fischer, wasn't it for that very reason, so Fischer wouldn't be disrespected?
What an ass.
After reading Krakauer's book, I had the sense that Boukreev was slacking big time, being a snob, and not a team player. After reading Boukreev's book, I think Krakauer did take some cheap, uninformed shots.
It's a case of he-said he-said.
For the record, I thought it was EXTREMELY distasteful for Boukreev to include a photo of two climbers by a torso (though it looks like a body from the waist down, not a torso) he "discovered". This just adds to what I think is his feeling of superiority, as in "this fool wasn't a good enough climber to not get killed and cut in half". Imagine the man's family seeing this photo and recognizing the boots or pants and seeing that he wasn't being respected in death. And yet, when Boukreev went and buried Scott Fischer, wasn't it for that very reason, so Fischer wouldn't be disrespected?
What an ass.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 4, 2014
I was told to read this book after I finished "Into Thin Air"-and I am glad I did. It has been said by some reviewers that Boukreev was written as a sort of villain by Krakauer. A man who was supposed to be guiding a group of amateur climbers to the summit of Everest. According to Krakauer, he decided to leave his climbers at or near the summit and descend toward camp-thereby not giving his charges the particular guidance they may have needed to avoid disaster. This book tells Boukreev's side of the story-and to be honest it isn't that different from Krakauer's version. I liked this book because it told the story from the guides point of view. Boukreev was doing what he thought was right in leaving the clients with the other 2 guides. And in the end he went out into the major storm to rescue 4 of his clients from imminent death. So, in many minds (including Krakauers), Boukreev is considered a hero. Coordinating a rescue of the proportion has earned him some important awards. I found this book to be a great accompaniment to "Into Thin Air". The only criticism I would have is towards his co-author, De Walt, who it seems from the writing-was there. In fact, he wasn't at all. So I found his parts to be a bit presumptuous-and it was hard to take him at face value. I did really enjoy reading Boukreevs journal entries, and his perspective of what happened on that deadly day on Everest.
July 26, 2020
It's been years since I read this book, but I distinctly remember being immediately drawn into this real-life account of the tragic events of the 1996 climbing expeditions on Mt. Everest, told by Anatoli Boukreev, a guide responsible for leading some of those climbers to safety. It's a great companion book to Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mount Everest Disaster, by Jon Krakauer, to get a different perspective on the same events.
★★★★ ½ Stars
★★★★ ½ Stars
July 22, 2021
Although the writing in Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer is much better than the writing in this book, if you’re interested in the story I think it’s a good idea to read both. Mountaineering must be full of big personalities and big egos. It’s a pity Boukreev died about a year after the events of this book, because he can no longer defend his side of the story.
March 5, 2017
I read John Krakauer's Into Thin Air a couple of years ago and although the actual climbing sequences were gripping, I was really annoyed at the judgemental descriptions specifically of Anatoli Boukreev. I've put off reading this book because I expected this to be part two of a mudslinging contest. I was pleasantly surprised that for most of the book the conflict with Krakauer was not a topic.
The book recounts events based on information available from many other sources and adds Boukreev's comments and insights. The audiobook I listened to was very well done and gave a good impression of the issues cultural differences and a diversity of languages raised for the expeditions. Not until after the expeditions were off the mountains did the conflict actually get room in the book. Though I get the need for justification (not much mudslinging here thankfully), these passages nonetheless were rather tedious.
One of the most interesting aspect of the book was the insight into the logistics and financing of a guided expedition to the top of the world. Most books on climbing focus on the technical difficulties of climbing, the motivation, the mental state. Here we learn of the difficulties of making a living off an athletic skill and the difficult it is to balance this with the pursuit of personal achievements. Evidently a skilled mountaineer does not necessarily have the skills needed to guide successfully or to ensure the complex logistics work as needed. The book highlights the need for all these skill to be included for a commercial expedition to be successful. The margin of error is very small on top of the world and poor communications can quickly turn deadly.
The last part of the book recounts another expedition to Everest with a group of Indonesian climbers Boukreev supported, giving him room to explain his view on the role the expert climber should have. Rather than acting as a guide, Boukreev called his role as lead consultant. He provided his experience in climbing Everest to the group and supported their successful bid for the summit with expertise in preparation for the expedition: how to train and prepare, what equipment to use, what support staff to hire. He very strongly believes that guiding - implying taking on the responsibility for the other climbers - is not an option when climbing under such conditions. Ultimately each climber remains responsible for his own decisions on the mountain.
The book recounts events based on information available from many other sources and adds Boukreev's comments and insights. The audiobook I listened to was very well done and gave a good impression of the issues cultural differences and a diversity of languages raised for the expeditions. Not until after the expeditions were off the mountains did the conflict actually get room in the book. Though I get the need for justification (not much mudslinging here thankfully), these passages nonetheless were rather tedious.
One of the most interesting aspect of the book was the insight into the logistics and financing of a guided expedition to the top of the world. Most books on climbing focus on the technical difficulties of climbing, the motivation, the mental state. Here we learn of the difficulties of making a living off an athletic skill and the difficult it is to balance this with the pursuit of personal achievements. Evidently a skilled mountaineer does not necessarily have the skills needed to guide successfully or to ensure the complex logistics work as needed. The book highlights the need for all these skill to be included for a commercial expedition to be successful. The margin of error is very small on top of the world and poor communications can quickly turn deadly.
The last part of the book recounts another expedition to Everest with a group of Indonesian climbers Boukreev supported, giving him room to explain his view on the role the expert climber should have. Rather than acting as a guide, Boukreev called his role as lead consultant. He provided his experience in climbing Everest to the group and supported their successful bid for the summit with expertise in preparation for the expedition: how to train and prepare, what equipment to use, what support staff to hire. He very strongly believes that guiding - implying taking on the responsibility for the other climbers - is not an option when climbing under such conditions. Ultimately each climber remains responsible for his own decisions on the mountain.
Read
July 3, 2010The other side of a well-known story: Every story has two sides. In this book, readers of Jon Krakauer's best selling Into Thin Air can hear the other side of that particular tale. It's my opinion that no one ought to read one without also reading the other.
On May 10, 1996, a winter storm decided to attack the world's highest mountain in spring. Caught in the well-named Death Zone, so high above sea level that the bodies of climbers who linger there literally start to die, the members of two commercial expeditions fought desperately for survival. The leaders of both teams - New Zealander Rob Hall, and American Scott Fischer - died despite being world-class mountaineers and Everest veterans. So did three members of Hall's team, while a fourth barely got off the mountain alive. All of the Fischer guides and clients survived, though, and none suffered the kind of horrific frostbite that left Hall client Beck Weathers both maimed and disfigured. Why did things turn out so differently for the two teams, after both lost their leaders? Krakauer's book offers one answer. This book, co-authored by Scott Fischer's head guide, offers quite another.
Neither Anatoli Boukreev nor his co-author possesses Krakauer's well-honed journalistic skills. This is a much plainer work, in many ways; and it's definitely less readable. I found it just as compelling, though, and it's rich in source material. Thank goodness Boukreev completed it before his death, because his side of the story is well worth hearing.
On May 10, 1996, a winter storm decided to attack the world's highest mountain in spring. Caught in the well-named Death Zone, so high above sea level that the bodies of climbers who linger there literally start to die, the members of two commercial expeditions fought desperately for survival. The leaders of both teams - New Zealander Rob Hall, and American Scott Fischer - died despite being world-class mountaineers and Everest veterans. So did three members of Hall's team, while a fourth barely got off the mountain alive. All of the Fischer guides and clients survived, though, and none suffered the kind of horrific frostbite that left Hall client Beck Weathers both maimed and disfigured. Why did things turn out so differently for the two teams, after both lost their leaders? Krakauer's book offers one answer. This book, co-authored by Scott Fischer's head guide, offers quite another.
Neither Anatoli Boukreev nor his co-author possesses Krakauer's well-honed journalistic skills. This is a much plainer work, in many ways; and it's definitely less readable. I found it just as compelling, though, and it's rich in source material. Thank goodness Boukreev completed it before his death, because his side of the story is well worth hearing.
October 31, 2023
I came to this book after reading the much more famous Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mount Everest Disaster by Jon Krakauer.
Let's just say that Krakauer is a fame-seeking journalist and Boukreev is an actual mountaineer - and this makes all the difference in these two accounts. Not only does Boukreev explain much better what actually happened, but also how Everest actually "works", as a commercial business.
I loved this book! Really recommended to people who are interested in Everest and why people not equipped to climb difficult mountains, never mind the high altitude, would want to risk their lives there.
------
I keep coming back to these Everest memoirs.
What is it about Everest that lures these selfish, rich dum-dums to sacrifice their comfort and their well-being? If you asked a moth why they fly into flames, would they call themselves pioneers?
Let's just say that Krakauer is a fame-seeking journalist and Boukreev is an actual mountaineer - and this makes all the difference in these two accounts. Not only does Boukreev explain much better what actually happened, but also how Everest actually "works", as a commercial business.
I loved this book! Really recommended to people who are interested in Everest and why people not equipped to climb difficult mountains, never mind the high altitude, would want to risk their lives there.
------
I keep coming back to these Everest memoirs.
What is it about Everest that lures these selfish, rich dum-dums to sacrifice their comfort and their well-being? If you asked a moth why they fly into flames, would they call themselves pioneers?
March 3, 2025
The Climb gives a different perspective on what went down during the 1996 Everest disaster.
Unlike the guided clients, Boukreev wasn’t there to chase a personal dream - he was working. In Into Thin Air Jon Krakauer painted him as reckless for climbing without supplemental oxygen, but Boukreev’s version makes it clear: he was strong, he was fast, and when things hit the fan, he was the one actually saving lives. The writing is straightforward, more focused on logistics and decision-making than dramatic flair, but it’s gripping nonetheless.
I appreciated its level-headedness. Boukreev doesn’t whine, doesn’t point fingers - he just lays out the facts and lets you decide. If you’ve read Into Thin Air, this is essential reading for balance. If you haven’t, well, expect to come away questioning why people ever attempt Everest in the first place :)
Unlike the guided clients, Boukreev wasn’t there to chase a personal dream - he was working. In Into Thin Air Jon Krakauer painted him as reckless for climbing without supplemental oxygen, but Boukreev’s version makes it clear: he was strong, he was fast, and when things hit the fan, he was the one actually saving lives. The writing is straightforward, more focused on logistics and decision-making than dramatic flair, but it’s gripping nonetheless.
I appreciated its level-headedness. Boukreev doesn’t whine, doesn’t point fingers - he just lays out the facts and lets you decide. If you’ve read Into Thin Air, this is essential reading for balance. If you haven’t, well, expect to come away questioning why people ever attempt Everest in the first place :)
March 14, 2016
Fearful, I am, that this book neither meets the expectations I set for it and that instead of telling the tale of a harrowing tragedy, it sets out to sell itself as a prolonged press release, elevating Anatoli Boukreev and his "friends" as "mountain extraordinaires"!
While I don't like to speak ill of the deceased, I do, however expect for a certain level of honesty be present when authoring a nonfiction book based on a true story, of which many accounts exist. From the beginning, the author sets the scene for the entrance of mountain guru/highly accomplished guide, Anatoli Boukreev. All of this is true, but in the context of the book he's writing, about a disaster that killed 8 people in 1996, it's a bit inappropriate and leaves one thinking about whether or not this is an attempt to clear his name of the claims made by Jon Krakauer in "Into Thin Air", or a memoir about a man's life and his experiences.
"Right from chapter one, the author is opening the scene for a play in which he alone is the star act and his co-author, the cheering one-man audience egging him on."
He does the same when describing his friends. For example on page eight, he makes one of his first mentions of Scott Fischer, his boss and leader of the Mountain Madness commercial expedition company; he sets about to make a note to extend the reader's knowledge of who Scott Fischer is. However, the note reads more like a post-mortem expertise resume than a note. It's almost as if he's trying to do damage control regarding mistakes Fischer may have made back in 1996, which may have contributed to the disaster. Right from chapter one, the author is opening the scene for a play in which he alone is the star act and his co-author, the cheering one-man audience egging him on.
Analysis of The Climb by Anatoli Boukreev
It appears that Boukreev's whole reason for being in Nepal was to revitalize his prowess as a mountaineer, as his native Kazakhstan had all but abandoned the efforts of sponsoring summit bids for home-town mountaineers. He in fact was broke, looking to find work and found it in Scott Fischer, but not before overbidding his wage price by almost double what anyone else would pay, effectively taking advantage of a newcomer to the mountain who was desperately trying make a dent in the industry and needed expert climber.
Boukreev was to be a guide for Fischer, however he neither acted like one nor did he even attempt to aide his clients in getting to the top. He climbed alone, without oxygen and descended alone, without clients. His defense for this is that he was from the "old school", a person who believed that those willing to climb a mountain, should be able to do so without assistance or coddling. Which would be fine by normal standards, but when you're taking on a PAID job as a guide for paying clients, whom you know have limited experience of high altitude climbing, you are almost obligated to act as an assisting guide. Otherwise, you shouldn't take the money or the job - you know what type of clients you're getting and the extra help they'll need.
In my opinion, Boukreev was looking for fast money to hold him over and "sponsor" to get him another Everest summit notch on his belt. Unfortunately, his refusal to help Fischer with much of the tasks contributed to his death, exhausting Fischer to the point he could not withstand the summit and descent.
He makes a defense that he descended quickly because he was climbing without oxygen, and was not supposed to expose himself for long without it at such altitudes - that it'd be better if he went to high camp and was refreshed in case he was needed in the event of a disaster. Well he was needed, and possibly, his decision to do this allowed him to have a lot of strength to later help his clients. But then again, if he had been a responsible guide an summited with oxygen, even a tank in reserve, he may have been able to assist his team in descending much faster, avoiding the brunt of the storm.
Later on, more descriptive and less "all about me" writing takes place, however when compared to other books about the same experience, this one lacks in descriptive merit, creative wording and sheer authoring talent. There is no eloquence here, there is no satisfaction of expectation. This book is simply one man's "I might as well, since everyone else will" attempt at telling the story of a tragic event he happened to experience as well.
I CANNOT discount Anatoli Boukreev's final acts of courage and endurance. He saved lives, he went back out into a monster storm to bring back the barely living (of his own group). I am not saying he wasn't a damn good mountaineer; I'm saying he's not a good author, and neither was the partnership between him and his co-author.
There are a few books out there that recount the events of May 10, 1996 with honest writing and descriptive, respectful text. Those authors who made the inner evaluation of whether or not they should write their accounts, and proceeded in the name of honesty and bearing their soul, did so in a way that can only classify the retelling as ART, especially Beck Weather's Left for Dead.
If you'd like to take a crack at understanding the 1996 Everest Disaster, I highly recommend the following books:
-"Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mt. Everest Disaster" by Jon Krakauer
-"Left for Dead by Beck Weathers"
While I don't like to speak ill of the deceased, I do, however expect for a certain level of honesty be present when authoring a nonfiction book based on a true story, of which many accounts exist. From the beginning, the author sets the scene for the entrance of mountain guru/highly accomplished guide, Anatoli Boukreev. All of this is true, but in the context of the book he's writing, about a disaster that killed 8 people in 1996, it's a bit inappropriate and leaves one thinking about whether or not this is an attempt to clear his name of the claims made by Jon Krakauer in "Into Thin Air", or a memoir about a man's life and his experiences.
"Right from chapter one, the author is opening the scene for a play in which he alone is the star act and his co-author, the cheering one-man audience egging him on."
He does the same when describing his friends. For example on page eight, he makes one of his first mentions of Scott Fischer, his boss and leader of the Mountain Madness commercial expedition company; he sets about to make a note to extend the reader's knowledge of who Scott Fischer is. However, the note reads more like a post-mortem expertise resume than a note. It's almost as if he's trying to do damage control regarding mistakes Fischer may have made back in 1996, which may have contributed to the disaster. Right from chapter one, the author is opening the scene for a play in which he alone is the star act and his co-author, the cheering one-man audience egging him on.
Analysis of The Climb by Anatoli Boukreev
It appears that Boukreev's whole reason for being in Nepal was to revitalize his prowess as a mountaineer, as his native Kazakhstan had all but abandoned the efforts of sponsoring summit bids for home-town mountaineers. He in fact was broke, looking to find work and found it in Scott Fischer, but not before overbidding his wage price by almost double what anyone else would pay, effectively taking advantage of a newcomer to the mountain who was desperately trying make a dent in the industry and needed expert climber.
Boukreev was to be a guide for Fischer, however he neither acted like one nor did he even attempt to aide his clients in getting to the top. He climbed alone, without oxygen and descended alone, without clients. His defense for this is that he was from the "old school", a person who believed that those willing to climb a mountain, should be able to do so without assistance or coddling. Which would be fine by normal standards, but when you're taking on a PAID job as a guide for paying clients, whom you know have limited experience of high altitude climbing, you are almost obligated to act as an assisting guide. Otherwise, you shouldn't take the money or the job - you know what type of clients you're getting and the extra help they'll need.
In my opinion, Boukreev was looking for fast money to hold him over and "sponsor" to get him another Everest summit notch on his belt. Unfortunately, his refusal to help Fischer with much of the tasks contributed to his death, exhausting Fischer to the point he could not withstand the summit and descent.
He makes a defense that he descended quickly because he was climbing without oxygen, and was not supposed to expose himself for long without it at such altitudes - that it'd be better if he went to high camp and was refreshed in case he was needed in the event of a disaster. Well he was needed, and possibly, his decision to do this allowed him to have a lot of strength to later help his clients. But then again, if he had been a responsible guide an summited with oxygen, even a tank in reserve, he may have been able to assist his team in descending much faster, avoiding the brunt of the storm.
Later on, more descriptive and less "all about me" writing takes place, however when compared to other books about the same experience, this one lacks in descriptive merit, creative wording and sheer authoring talent. There is no eloquence here, there is no satisfaction of expectation. This book is simply one man's "I might as well, since everyone else will" attempt at telling the story of a tragic event he happened to experience as well.
I CANNOT discount Anatoli Boukreev's final acts of courage and endurance. He saved lives, he went back out into a monster storm to bring back the barely living (of his own group). I am not saying he wasn't a damn good mountaineer; I'm saying he's not a good author, and neither was the partnership between him and his co-author.
There are a few books out there that recount the events of May 10, 1996 with honest writing and descriptive, respectful text. Those authors who made the inner evaluation of whether or not they should write their accounts, and proceeded in the name of honesty and bearing their soul, did so in a way that can only classify the retelling as ART, especially Beck Weather's Left for Dead.
If you'd like to take a crack at understanding the 1996 Everest Disaster, I highly recommend the following books:
-"Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mt. Everest Disaster" by Jon Krakauer
-"Left for Dead by Beck Weathers"
November 8, 2022
Non entro nel merito della diatriba Krakauer/Brukeev, non sono in grado di giudicare.
Non so se davvero si possa dare la colpa a qualcuno per quel che è successo quel 10 Maggio 1996, so solo che una volta che si decide di andare in vetta ad un 8000 bisogna mettere in preventivo l'alta probabilità di non riuscire e la non così tanto bassa probabilità di pagare con la propria vita.
Credo che l'errore più grande fatto in questi ultimi 30 anni sia stato quello di dare la possibilità a tutti (tutti quelli muniti di quattrini...) di scalare l'Everest o montagne simili senza avere una preparazione adeguata e senza aver fatto un percorso di scalata che parta da vette più basse e tecniche fino ad arrivare solo in fine a fare un 8000.
Probabilmente tanta gente rinuncerebbe molto prima e molte vittime oggi ce le saremmo risparmiate, però anche qui non mi sento di criticare niente e nessuno perché mi rendo conto che per molti (probabilmente succederebbe anche a me) queste montagne generano passioni morbose e incontrollabili che li trascinano ineluttabilmente verso il loro destino, sia esso di gloria o di morte.
Per quanto riguarda il libro risposta di Bukreev in sé, è meno romanzato rispetto a quello di Krakauer ma allo stesso tempo molto interessante e con un ritmo serrato nel finale.
"la fine di una strada è solo l'inizio di una nuova, ancora più lunga e più difficile."
Scalare sopra gli ottomila metri, dove ogni errore viene ingigantito dall'aria rarefatta, dove un sorso di tè caldo può fare la differenza tra la vita e la morte, nessuna cifra al mondo che si possa pagare può garantire la riuscita.
È stata un'esperienza che non avevo mai avuto prima, essere così vicini all'addormentarsi per non svegliarsi più. Ogni tanto sentivo il mio corpo percorso da ondate di calore, non so se fosse ipotermia o ipossia, forse una combinazione di entrambe. Mi ricordo solo che gridavo nel vento, tutti noi urlavamo, ci muovevamo, battevamo i piedi, cercavamo di restare vivi. Continuavo a guardare l'orologio, sperando che il tempo migliorasse.
Quando tornai in Kazakistan ero pronto a guardare di nuovo le montagne. Sentii che non ero adatto a vivere in nessun altro posto. Mi ero impegnato a scalare gli Ottomila che non avevo ancora salito, e dovevo continuare. La mia è una vita strana e solitaria, incomprensibile a molti, ma è la mia vera casa, il mio lavoro.
Il metodo più sicuro di andare in alta quota è senza ossigeno, perché se vai senza ossigeno torni a casa. Senti che sei stanco, senti che sei freddo, senti che sei lento. Se hai l'ossigeno non te ne accorgi se non nel momento in cui finisce e può essere troppo tardi...
Non so se davvero si possa dare la colpa a qualcuno per quel che è successo quel 10 Maggio 1996, so solo che una volta che si decide di andare in vetta ad un 8000 bisogna mettere in preventivo l'alta probabilità di non riuscire e la non così tanto bassa probabilità di pagare con la propria vita.
Credo che l'errore più grande fatto in questi ultimi 30 anni sia stato quello di dare la possibilità a tutti (tutti quelli muniti di quattrini...) di scalare l'Everest o montagne simili senza avere una preparazione adeguata e senza aver fatto un percorso di scalata che parta da vette più basse e tecniche fino ad arrivare solo in fine a fare un 8000.
Probabilmente tanta gente rinuncerebbe molto prima e molte vittime oggi ce le saremmo risparmiate, però anche qui non mi sento di criticare niente e nessuno perché mi rendo conto che per molti (probabilmente succederebbe anche a me) queste montagne generano passioni morbose e incontrollabili che li trascinano ineluttabilmente verso il loro destino, sia esso di gloria o di morte.
Per quanto riguarda il libro risposta di Bukreev in sé, è meno romanzato rispetto a quello di Krakauer ma allo stesso tempo molto interessante e con un ritmo serrato nel finale.
"la fine di una strada è solo l'inizio di una nuova, ancora più lunga e più difficile."
Scalare sopra gli ottomila metri, dove ogni errore viene ingigantito dall'aria rarefatta, dove un sorso di tè caldo può fare la differenza tra la vita e la morte, nessuna cifra al mondo che si possa pagare può garantire la riuscita.
È stata un'esperienza che non avevo mai avuto prima, essere così vicini all'addormentarsi per non svegliarsi più. Ogni tanto sentivo il mio corpo percorso da ondate di calore, non so se fosse ipotermia o ipossia, forse una combinazione di entrambe. Mi ricordo solo che gridavo nel vento, tutti noi urlavamo, ci muovevamo, battevamo i piedi, cercavamo di restare vivi. Continuavo a guardare l'orologio, sperando che il tempo migliorasse.
Quando tornai in Kazakistan ero pronto a guardare di nuovo le montagne. Sentii che non ero adatto a vivere in nessun altro posto. Mi ero impegnato a scalare gli Ottomila che non avevo ancora salito, e dovevo continuare. La mia è una vita strana e solitaria, incomprensibile a molti, ma è la mia vera casa, il mio lavoro.
Il metodo più sicuro di andare in alta quota è senza ossigeno, perché se vai senza ossigeno torni a casa. Senti che sei stanco, senti che sei freddo, senti che sei lento. Se hai l'ossigeno non te ne accorgi se non nel momento in cui finisce e può essere troppo tardi...
September 5, 2011
This book by G. Weston DeWalt and Anatoly Boukreev is an excellent description of the facts surrounding the Fischer and Hall expeditions to Everest in May 1996. De Walt does an excellent job of chronicling events and clearing up discrepancies caused by other authors.
Anatoly Boukreev is a hero who saved several people's lives that day. He was unfairly and unjustly criticized by other authors seeking to find a villian that day.
The villians were the weather, consisting of a storm that blew up from the Indian Ocean, which nobody knew was coming, and the unfortunate bad luck of the two expedition leaders, Scott Fischer and Rob Hall, who both stayed on the mountain too late in the day and thus pressed their luck, and who would both still be alive today had either one turned around earlier. Anatoly is not the villian. Anyone who tries to tell you Anatoly was the villian is lying to you.
If anyone should have seen the storm coming, it should have been the basecamp teams, who would normally have been charged with watching the incoming weather. They both failed to do so however, for whatever reason. The two teams had two-way radios and the weather information should have been conveyed to the guides and leaders on the mountain, thus warning them to turn around.
Certain people who were clients did not belong on the mountain that day either. Two of those who died should not have been there. Mother Nature is unforgiving of anyone who bites off more than they can chew.
The Climb is a really great book. And it tells the truth flawlessly. A great job of writing by Mr. Dewalt.
Anatoly Boukreev is a hero who saved several people's lives that day. He was unfairly and unjustly criticized by other authors seeking to find a villian that day.
The villians were the weather, consisting of a storm that blew up from the Indian Ocean, which nobody knew was coming, and the unfortunate bad luck of the two expedition leaders, Scott Fischer and Rob Hall, who both stayed on the mountain too late in the day and thus pressed their luck, and who would both still be alive today had either one turned around earlier. Anatoly is not the villian. Anyone who tries to tell you Anatoly was the villian is lying to you.
If anyone should have seen the storm coming, it should have been the basecamp teams, who would normally have been charged with watching the incoming weather. They both failed to do so however, for whatever reason. The two teams had two-way radios and the weather information should have been conveyed to the guides and leaders on the mountain, thus warning them to turn around.
Certain people who were clients did not belong on the mountain that day either. Two of those who died should not have been there. Mother Nature is unforgiving of anyone who bites off more than they can chew.
The Climb is a really great book. And it tells the truth flawlessly. A great job of writing by Mr. Dewalt.
November 1, 2010
Probably a 3 1/2 star book if that were an option.
I found the account fascinating. I have just read Krakauer's account "Into Thin Air" and liked reading both sides of the story and having some gaps filled in by reading both accounts.
Krakauer's account is easier to read and more entertaining. I also felt that Boukreev's account is more defensive (which maybe it ought to be in response to Krakauer's).
However, I respect Boukreev as a client but don't feel he made the best guide. Some of his "heroics" may not have been necessary if more "guiding" had been done along the way.
Still, I find the fault lies mainly with the leaders. I can't believe they didn't stick with their turn-around times. Those turn-around time decisions were made when they were thinking clearly and are there for a reason. They didn't just push a little past those times but HOURS past. There were contributing factors of inexperienced clients, weather, etc but I believe everyone would have lived if they had stuck with even a 2 pm turn-around time.
I found the account fascinating. I have just read Krakauer's account "Into Thin Air" and liked reading both sides of the story and having some gaps filled in by reading both accounts.
Krakauer's account is easier to read and more entertaining. I also felt that Boukreev's account is more defensive (which maybe it ought to be in response to Krakauer's).
However, I respect Boukreev as a client but don't feel he made the best guide. Some of his "heroics" may not have been necessary if more "guiding" had been done along the way.
Still, I find the fault lies mainly with the leaders. I can't believe they didn't stick with their turn-around times. Those turn-around time decisions were made when they were thinking clearly and are there for a reason. They didn't just push a little past those times but HOURS past. There were contributing factors of inexperienced clients, weather, etc but I believe everyone would have lived if they had stuck with even a 2 pm turn-around time.
April 20, 2017
I read this book a bit less than a year after finishing Into Thin Air (Jon Krakauer). It was a little hard to read about these tragic events again but I think it's important to read this book as well as Into Thin Air. You get a very different perspective - Anatoli was a guide, Krakauer was a client with nothing close to the experience Anatoli had (in high altitude mountaineering).
In Into thin Air Anatoli is painted as the "bad guy" but in fact he was a hero who saved three lives while seriously risking his own. Krakauer's relentless attempts at discrediting Anatoli's character really baffles me.
As you read this book you get to know Anatoli's character more and you come to understand him a lot better. What an amazing guy.
In Into thin Air Anatoli is painted as the "bad guy" but in fact he was a hero who saved three lives while seriously risking his own. Krakauer's relentless attempts at discrediting Anatoli's character really baffles me.
As you read this book you get to know Anatoli's character more and you come to understand him a lot better. What an amazing guy.
June 7, 2023
this book felt really personal for me, since it included memoirs about anatoli from his friends and publishers of the russian version were his friends.
Boukreev described only his own story during this incident, without judging the behavior of other members of the expedition. And, of course, i don't think i have a right to judge them, as i have no climbing experience and I DEFINETELY don't want to experience the conditions of that dreadful accident in my own skin. I felt enough horror and cold from one description of events. I'm sure everyone did what they considered necessary for surviving the blizzard.
i liked that the book included a dispute between Boukreev and Jon Krakauer in more details, that answered Krakauer's claims against Anatoli. To be honest, here I am on the side of Anatoli. He's decisions to climb without oxygen and to get down before the clients were based on his experience and justified themselves. All of his clients survived without serious injuries. And his professionalism showed himself in his next climbing along the same route with an expedition from Indonesia. I also respect Anatoli that he did last honors to Scott Fisher and Yasuko Namba during this climbing.
Boukreev described only his own story during this incident, without judging the behavior of other members of the expedition. And, of course, i don't think i have a right to judge them, as i have no climbing experience and I DEFINETELY don't want to experience the conditions of that dreadful accident in my own skin. I felt enough horror and cold from one description of events. I'm sure everyone did what they considered necessary for surviving the blizzard.
i liked that the book included a dispute between Boukreev and Jon Krakauer in more details, that answered Krakauer's claims against Anatoli. To be honest, here I am on the side of Anatoli. He's decisions to climb without oxygen and to get down before the clients were based on his experience and justified themselves. All of his clients survived without serious injuries. And his professionalism showed himself in his next climbing along the same route with an expedition from Indonesia. I also respect Anatoli that he did last honors to Scott Fisher and Yasuko Namba during this climbing.
September 20, 2022
Every story needs a villain, and it's human nature to look for someone to blame when a tragedy occurs.
Sadly, Jon Krakauer chose mountaineer Anatoli Boukreev as his villain, and I--along with thousands, if not millions, of others--believed his portrayal of this incredibly courageous, talented Russian. After all, why would Krakauer lie?
Why, indeed.
After reading The Climb, which is Boukreev's side of the story, but no where near as defensive and biased as some reviews had led me to believe, I have a completely different impression of Into Thin Air and Krakauer's account of what happened that terrible night in May.
First of all, Krakauer was NOT in Boukreev's group, so he had no idea what their plan was, and no reason to disbelieve Boukreev's explanation that his boss had TOLD him to descend to Camp IV and rest, in case he was needed later for a rescue effort. After reading Into Thin Air, I had the impression that Boukreev was lazy and having a good old time eating and drinking tea at camp while people died on the mountain. When, in reality, Boukreev waited a long time at the summit (over an hour) for others to arrive. When he descended, all of his group appeared to be fine. And far from being lazy, Boukreev was the ONLY person willing to go into the storm and save three people. No one else would help him, despite repeated attempts on his part.
Boukreev also went back later to bury his boss and friend, Scott Fischer, along with a woman who had been part of another expedition--a woman he'd desperately tried to save. He even retrieved the woman's belongings for her husband. This says loads about his character.
After all the mistakes that were made that day/evening that led to so much tragedy--late starts, crowding on the mountain, Sherpas not fixing the ropes as planned, not enough radios, not enough oxygen--why would Krakauer turn on Boukreev, one of the only people who acted selflessly and saved lives, of all people? It's a mystery to me, but Boukreev was Russian. His reserve, seriousness, and insecurity about his English gave people the impression he was cold or uncaring. His difficulty speaking in a language that was not his own made it challenging for him to defend himself or compete with an American journalist who could talk rings around him.
It's very telling to me that all of Boukreev's clients survived, and that most of the casualties were in Krakauer's group. So if Boukreev did so many things wrong, according to a guy with far less experience on the mountains than the man he was criticizing, why did those on his expedition survive? Boukreev was a hero, and if he were an American, he would have had feature films made about him. It's a shame he had to deal with this slander in the last year of his life.
Sadly, Jon Krakauer chose mountaineer Anatoli Boukreev as his villain, and I--along with thousands, if not millions, of others--believed his portrayal of this incredibly courageous, talented Russian. After all, why would Krakauer lie?
Why, indeed.
After reading The Climb, which is Boukreev's side of the story, but no where near as defensive and biased as some reviews had led me to believe, I have a completely different impression of Into Thin Air and Krakauer's account of what happened that terrible night in May.
First of all, Krakauer was NOT in Boukreev's group, so he had no idea what their plan was, and no reason to disbelieve Boukreev's explanation that his boss had TOLD him to descend to Camp IV and rest, in case he was needed later for a rescue effort. After reading Into Thin Air, I had the impression that Boukreev was lazy and having a good old time eating and drinking tea at camp while people died on the mountain. When, in reality, Boukreev waited a long time at the summit (over an hour) for others to arrive. When he descended, all of his group appeared to be fine. And far from being lazy, Boukreev was the ONLY person willing to go into the storm and save three people. No one else would help him, despite repeated attempts on his part.
Boukreev also went back later to bury his boss and friend, Scott Fischer, along with a woman who had been part of another expedition--a woman he'd desperately tried to save. He even retrieved the woman's belongings for her husband. This says loads about his character.
After all the mistakes that were made that day/evening that led to so much tragedy--late starts, crowding on the mountain, Sherpas not fixing the ropes as planned, not enough radios, not enough oxygen--why would Krakauer turn on Boukreev, one of the only people who acted selflessly and saved lives, of all people? It's a mystery to me, but Boukreev was Russian. His reserve, seriousness, and insecurity about his English gave people the impression he was cold or uncaring. His difficulty speaking in a language that was not his own made it challenging for him to defend himself or compete with an American journalist who could talk rings around him.
It's very telling to me that all of Boukreev's clients survived, and that most of the casualties were in Krakauer's group. So if Boukreev did so many things wrong, according to a guy with far less experience on the mountains than the man he was criticizing, why did those on his expedition survive? Boukreev was a hero, and if he were an American, he would have had feature films made about him. It's a shame he had to deal with this slander in the last year of his life.
September 29, 2015
I read this one after Into Thin Air because I knew there was some controversy created by Krakauer's version of events. This book was definitely interesting as a way to fill in the gaps, and also as an example of a different approach to telling the story of the 1996 Everest disaster.
This book is often described as more "technical," but really it's just a lot more focused on describing the sequence of events. Where Krakauer's book inhabits a middle ground between talking about a transformative personal experience and reporting on a news event, The Climb tends more towards documentary or news reporting style. Although told from Anton Boukreev's perspective, there are few details of his personal or inner life; the text concentrates on what happened during April and May of 1996, interspersing text from interviews with Boukreev and other expedition members.
I thought it was very worthwhile to get another account of the events of 1996, and I thought Boukreev had a valid reason to want to refute Krakauer's assertion that he has been derelict in his guiding duties. Unfortunately, I must admit that the lack of the personal angle - feelings, the big picture, whatever - does make the book drier and slightly less compelling. Also, the way in which Boukreev's co-author chooses to intersperse the recitation of events with long interview quotes makes for an uneven and sometimes confusing narrative. The transitions between quotes from Boukreev and quotes from other expedition members are very awkward.
This book is often described as more "technical," but really it's just a lot more focused on describing the sequence of events. Where Krakauer's book inhabits a middle ground between talking about a transformative personal experience and reporting on a news event, The Climb tends more towards documentary or news reporting style. Although told from Anton Boukreev's perspective, there are few details of his personal or inner life; the text concentrates on what happened during April and May of 1996, interspersing text from interviews with Boukreev and other expedition members.
I thought it was very worthwhile to get another account of the events of 1996, and I thought Boukreev had a valid reason to want to refute Krakauer's assertion that he has been derelict in his guiding duties. Unfortunately, I must admit that the lack of the personal angle - feelings, the big picture, whatever - does make the book drier and slightly less compelling. Also, the way in which Boukreev's co-author chooses to intersperse the recitation of events with long interview quotes makes for an uneven and sometimes confusing narrative. The transitions between quotes from Boukreev and quotes from other expedition members are very awkward.
January 3, 2011
This is another account of the 1996 Everest expedition and ensuing disaster. The writer, Anatoli Boukreev was one of the guides on the Mountain Madness expedition without Jon Krakauer, and it gives more detailed information about this other group of very interesting people. Another way that it differs from Jon Krak's book is that it gives detailed stories about the months before the Everest climb when the guides had to go early and set things up with the Sherpas. It gives an account of the climb from a guide's perspective and there are many interesting techincal descriptions of how they actually climbed the mountain, including setting up ropes, ice climbing, analysis of logistics like the oxygen supply. It was interesting to hear his rebuttal of Krakauer's account which described Boukreev as being incompetent and selfish. I know that Boukreev was writing this book, but I think he was right in saying that more climbers would have died if he had stayed with them during the descent and had gotten caught in the storm with them. The fact that he went down early allowed him to be the only person in good enough condition to rescue the 3 people that he did off the South Col.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,094 reviews