| The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest | 
 enlarge | Authors: Anatoli Boukreev, G. Weston Dewalt
Publisher: St. Martin's Paperbacks
Category: Book
List Price: $7.99
Buy New: $0.01
You Save: $7.98 (100%)
Buy New/Used/Collectible from $0.01
Avg. Customer Rating:   (260 reviews)
Sales Rank: 463819
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Unknown), English (Published)
Media: Mass Market Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 297
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 6.6 x 4.2 x 1
ISBN: 0312965338
Dewey Decimal Number: 796.522095496
EAN: 9780312965334
ASIN: 0312965338
Publication Date: July 15, 1998
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Accessories:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
As the climbers of the 1996 Mt. Everest disaster vanished into thin air, one man had the courage to bring them down alive...
On May 10, 1996, two commercial expeditions headed by expert leaders attempted to scale the world's largest peak. But things went terribly wrong. Crowded conditions, bad judgement, and a bitter storm stopped many climbers in their tracks. Others were left for dead, or stranded on the frigid mountain. Anatoli Boukreev, head climbing guide for the Mountain Madness expedition, stepped into the heart of the storm and brought three of his clients down alive. Here is his amazing story-of an expedition fated for disaster, of the blind ambition that drives people to attempt such dangerous ventures, and of a modern-day hero, who risked his own life to save others..
Amazon.com Review
The Climb is Russian mountaineer Anatoli Boukreev's account of the harrowing May 1996 Mount Everest attempt, a tragedy that resulted in the deaths of eight people. The book is also Boukreev's rebuttal to accusations from fellow climber and author Jon Krakauer, who, in his bestselling memoir, Into Thin Air, suggests that Boukreev forfeited the safety of his clients to achieve his own climbing goals. Investigative writer and Climb coauthor G. Weston DeWalt uses taped statements from the surviving climbers and translated interviews from Boukreev to piece together the events and prove to the reader that Boukreev's role was heroic, not opportunistic. Boukreev refers to the actions of expedition leader Scott Fischer throughout the ascent, implying that factors other than the fierce snowstorm may have caused this disaster. This new account sparks debate among both mountaineers and those who have followed the story through the media and Krakauer's book. Readers can decide for themselves whether Boukreev presents a laudable defense or merely assuages his own bruised ego.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 255 more reviews...
 Bottom Line: The reader ultimately makes the 1996 Everest tragedy call! November 19, 2008
I'll attempt to be succinct in this one: It's not just the proverbial "who do you believe" with regard to Jon Krakauer ["Into Thin Air"] and Anatoli Boukreev ["The Climb"] but it also encompasses the whole 1996 Everest tragedy because depending on who you ask or listen to, everyone has their own opinion or, indeed, pro-Krakauer/anti-Boukreev versus anti-Krakauer/pro Boukreev mind-set. And, true enough, all in-between!
Ultimately, and I render public kudos here to Amazon reviewer Tan Kheng Eng who perhaps put it best when he suggested, "read both books [...] Jon's book is by no means the official account of what happened [...] [and read] [...] Toli's account to get a balanced view." Well said! In effect, and bottom line, the 'reader' makes the ultimate call from what hopefully varied and multiple sources the reader has pursued and how much in-depth reading they have given to it.
I don't suggest for one second that there are any 'easy answers' nor any 'one' source that can be termed definitive. Let's also consider this: there are folks out there who will take the view that if they can't find 'your' name among the list of so-termed "8,000ers" [** Those who have climbed and summited the world's 14 highest mountains over 8,000 meters], then you "haven't the climbing credentials to say anything about it" [!] and I consider that to be pure bosh! Nor do I believe that one must be able to demonstrate that they've been on the Everest or K2 summit to render a point of view! On the other hand, I also find far too many "this is what they should have done" [!] remarks coming from folks totally non acquainted with the existing data [** fast forward to 2006 Everest and the David Sharp matter!] and who wouldn't know a belay from a ballet or perhaps hear the word "crampons" and quite possibly believe this is the first symptoms [!] of HAPE/HACE! That happens too! I'm not talking about so-termed "armchair mountaineers" as much as those who can allegedly pinpoint what went wrong and muse on what 'should' have been done had 'they' been asked or listened to, ahhh, all would have been well. Right. Or the classic, "Well, with our technology today, weather can be fully predicted!" [!]. Right. And serac falls too, yes? Or their belief that bottled oxygen brings the user to 'sea level' [! -- most of the authorities on this one suggest a 'climbing' difference of no more than 3,000 feet] as they comment using their commercial jet experiences [!] and how wonderful they felt within the pressurized cabin at 35,000 feet! Right.
Having said that, I do have one general view but I preface this by saying it's simply my own opinion and therefore no more right or indeed wrong than anyone else's opinion: I believe when the "role" of the climber 'switches' from that of a solo climber to that of a compensated "guide", then the "client" or "clients" plural de facto enter the equation and therefore what one may do 'individually' [climbing without bottled oxygen [where it is normally prudent to do so] as but one example] should, IMO and so stated, factor in the clients and their needs or indeed their mountaineering shortcomings or lack of high altitude climbing experience and not to mention the ability of the guide, and in 'that' particular compensated role, to remain clear-headed. It's not a matter of getting the 'guide' to yet another summit in his/her particular style or method, but getting the 'client' there! And, of particular cogence, back down again!
Let's face it, there 'are' folks who show up at places like Everest or K2 or Annapurna [et al] BC who simply shouldn't be there! Some have very deep pockets and wish to experience "the ultimate thrill" but their climbing experience may be woefully negligible. Further, and this isn't news either, there has been a proliferation of commercial entities offering to take folks to you-name-it but when that happens, the so-termed "guide" takes on the direct responsibility for the welfare of the client and thus 'personal' habits or 'styles' of the 'guide' doesn't necessarilly translate that this should then be the habit or style of the client!
Again, read everything you can get your hands on with regard to the Everest 1996 climbing season but note well the highly differing views or indeed the use of the oft cited colloquialism, to wit, "who do you believe?", well, in the end, the reader has to make the call. They may be right in their call but, and this is cogent, they also may be wrong. I suppose my essential grouse comes into play when it gets down to folks who proclaim that they are 'right' ... and by default, at least in their mind-set, 'all' others holding a contrary view are supposedly wrong.
Doc Tony
 Would've Been Great if It Focused Solely On Boukreev's Description November 12, 2008
Parts of book by Anatoli Boukreev or related by Boukreev: 5 stars
*Any point of the story where DeWalt offers his opinion: 1 1/2 stars
*Post Script by DeWalt: 0 stars
The story of Anatoli Boukreev is truly an amazing one, and he rightly deserved any bit of honor placed on him after behaving heroically during the Everest disaster of 1996. His tale is inspirational and a true example of a man who lived to take on the elements of nature, and conquer them. Ultimately, nature may have won, but Boukreev's spirit will live on forever. Yes, it is written in broken english, and he has trouble in some of his descriptions, but it is one that needed to be heard.
His story, alone, earns 5 stars.
Jon Krakauer may be an impulsive and self-rightious human being. He also may be judgemental, and yes, he probably could've been more forgiving in Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mount Everest Disaster towards Anatoli Boukreev, the brilliant and heroic mountaineer who rescued the lives of at least 3 individuals in May of 1996.
With that being said, there is absolutely no excuse for G. Weston DeWalt's misleading, and downright dishonest post script. It is the main reason that I give this book only three stars. After reading this book years ago, along with Krakauer's, I picked up the revised and updated copy this week, and I have to say that DeWalt leaves me with a terrible taste in my mouth.
Within his postscript, DeWalt does the exact thing that he is accusing Krakauer of, which would be leaving out facts and printing misleading quotes. He also relies way to heavily on sections that are basically "this is what person A said in their statement, but she told me something differently behind everyone's back." He accuses Krakauer of leaving out important facts that he claims mislead the reader, but then does the exact same thing himself, on numerous occasions.
Example A: In his postscript, DeWalt repeatedly refers to an article in written by Steve Weinberg in the August 1998 edition of the Columbia Journalism Review, which argued that the facts Krakauer used were in dispute, when it had been advertised as non-fiction.
What Mr. DeWalt conveniently leaves out is that Weinberg is on the record as saying that he had not factchecked his own article with Krakauer, and was basing his entire thesis on what DeWalt had written because Krakauer HAD NOT written a postscript in the paperback edition of Into Thin Air. He later admitted, ON THE RECORD, that since he relied only on the evidence presented by DeWalt/Boukreev and had not confronted Krakauer with them, he had no way of knowing who was telling the truth. In fact, the only reason that Krakauer wrote his postscript was because DeWalt was running his mouth in the press, advertising this article.
While accusing Krakauer of using misleading information, DeWalt has the nerve to repeatedly quote an article as though it were fact, and yet the author has disowned the article, years before DeWalt's revisions!
EXAMPLE B: In both the Climb's postscript and in the much publicized debate that took place on Salon's website in 1998, DeWalt seems to find some sort of glee in reminding people that "No clients died on Scott Fischer's expedition (whom Boukreev was employed by)." Of course, he uses this as though Boukreev and Fischer's brilliant "plan" worked out much better than that of Rob Hall's expedition (of which Krakauer was a client).
Let's look at the facts of this statement- Fischer's expedition was NOT without casualties. In fact, there were two. A sherpa and Fischer, himself. Rob Hall's expedition had four casualties. However, only one of them does the fault rest solely on the mistakes made by Adventure Consultants. If one were to cast blame for the death of Doug Hansen, then yes, it was Rob Hall's responsibility to turn his struggling client around, instead of letting him finish his trek to the summit.
However, it is misleading and quite disgusting for DeWalt to act as though the other deaths would've been prevented in Fischer's group. Two of the deaths happened during rescue attempts. Scott Hall may have survived, had he left Hanson behind to save himself, and Andy Harris died attempting to rescue Hall and Hanson.
This leaves the death of Yasuko Namba. Boukreev, Beidleman, and Mike Groom (the only surviving guide on Hall's team) left Namba and Weathers behind because they didn't think they would survive. With no other guides left on their expedition, there was no one left who had the experience or the energy required to make an attempt. As everyone knows, Weathers survived, but Namba perished. Her death was a tragedy, and neither team could've done anymore than had been done that evening. The reason no one perished on Boukreev's team was because those were the clients, Sandy Hill, Charlotte Fox, etc... that were still showing some signs of life.
Finally, Mr. DeWalt likes to bring up the fact that maybe some of the fault lies on the fact that a member of the press, ie Jon Krakauer, was present on Hall's expedition. Ironically, Krakauer openly admits that he feels guilty and has never shied away from questions over whether his own presence helped contribute to the disaster of that day. What Mr. DeWalt leaves out is that his team also had media reports being broadcast across the world from their team as well. Not to mention that this particular person had sherpas hauling over one hundred pounds of equipment around in the Death Zone.
There are a lot more points that I could spend time rebutting, but I feel that I have used far more space here in this review than I am supposed to.
In the end, everyone who was witness to the 1996 disaster has a their own perspective on what took place. Boukreev's contributions, before his tragic death, is a welcome addition to the records. Jon Krakauer sees the events through his point of view, and Boukreev sees them through his. Neither is the definitive answer, and it may be that we will never have those answers.
I will leave you with a quote from Beck Weathers, from an interview he gave to CNN online on May 9, 2000:
"I think Jon Krakauer got it right. Ultimately, Anatole redeemed himself, and that's the way I prefer to remember him."
The debate goes on October 5, 2008
Anyone who needs to place blame about the 1996 Everest disaster can pick one of many problems that happened on that climb -from manmade to "acts of God". Into Thin Air gives one climber's view, the documentary, Storm Over Everest, by David Breashears gives more views by those who climbed, and Boukreev's The Climb gives his account. Each persons' experiences and memories are different so few of them will ever match each others, and blame will never be able to be fully placed.
This is a more tedious book to read than Into Thin Air, but what a gift to read about this incredible man who appeared a bit of a villain in Krakauer's book. Boukreev seems like he was a unique, caring man, a poet in his love of the mountains, and of great physical and mental strength. He knew he belonged on the mountains, lived his life embracing them and eventually died there. Why? Because no one can be in control of nature, certainly not in extreme circumstances like high-altitude climbing. Those that feel they can keep themselves safe with the addition of "guiding" a group of climbers is acting with an even increased amount of hubrus. Even the brilliant Boukreev, as a consultant, could barely keep his expedition to Everest in 1997 together.
Those of you with dreams - I wish you luck in your endeavors but let the Everest disaster be a warning - know your field, know what is expected and don't count on others to push you through.
Read this book to understand the heart of those who push past limits to do what they love.
Makes Into Thin Air seem very questionable June 7, 2008
3 out of 4 found this review helpful
Having read Krakauer's book, seen the movie and watched the PBS doc, I read this, purported to be the closest to the ten sides of the truth in this adventure/disaster.
In a nutshell, Krakauer looks bad from this perspective, Sandy Hill Pittman still looks like a phony new money weasel, and Fischer looks much better than anywhere else; he is unfairly slammed in the tv movie if this book is at all true, and it does ring truer than the other projects (though the PBS doc Storm Over Everest is a must-see).
Worth reading for anyone into climbing and/or this incident, which says so much about our massive egos and small brains.
 What a waste of time this book was May 24, 2008
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
This book appears to be written primarily to rebut certain incidents mentioned in Jon Krakauer's book, Into Thin Air. I have no doubt that Boukreev was an experienced and dedicated climber but this book is presented as if he did nothing wrong up on Everest in 1996.
I have read almost every book published about the deaths on Everest in 1996 and the concensus of opinion is that everybody did something that contributed to the disaster. Boukreev made his share of mistakes and I would have been more impressed with this book if that concession had been made.
|
|
|
