When I first read Into Thin Air, I walked away thinking "what a tragedy" and "how sad". I didn't walk away thinking that specific people were to blame for the tragedy that happened that day. For days after finishing the book, I thought about the MANY INCIDENCES Jon Krakauer pointed out that led up to deaths of eight people on Mt. Everest that May, 1996. Jon Krakauer seemed to write objectively -- stating his interpretations of mistakes made by many, including Scott Fischer, Rob Hall, Anatoli Boukreev -- and himself. Never did I get the feeling that Jon Krakauer blamed Anatoli Boukreev for the events that occured that day. Actions by Boukreev were just one more contributing factor -- along with actions by Fischer, Hall, Krakauer, the other guides and sherpas of Mountain Madness and Adventure Consultants, the other expeditions on the mountain, and Mother Nature.

Although very interesting and informative, The Climb is too defensive, and strikes back at Into Thin Air when there is nothing to "stike back against". Yes, Krakauer questioned some of the decisions Anatoli made, but he also noted that Anatoli was a hero, as well. He also questioned decisions made by others (will they be coming out with a book also to defend their actions!). So, why did Anatoli feel the need to be so defensive of his "actions" that day -- if he did nothing wrong?

Into Thin Air is an incredible book that raises many questions -- with regards to the commercialization of climbing Mt. Everest and the tragedy that happend May 10, 1996. I felt that Krakauer wrote the book to relay information and make people understand the dangers of high altitude climbing -- and perhaps try to release some of the demons that haunt him from his actions that day.

Into Thin Air is by far the better of the two books -- but I do agree that both books compliment each other. Everything that happens in this world is subjective. Let's just agree that what happend in May 1996 on Mt. Everest was a tragedy and should be remembered -- so it will never happen again.


Read Both, Then Decide for Yourself   February 19, 2000
 37 out of 40 found this review helpful

The debate that still rages over the relative credibility of the various books written about the 1996 Everest disaster is remarkable both for its intensity and its longevity. The fact that people are still arguing passionately about what happened nearly four years ago is kind of mind boggling. I've been following the debate from the sidelines ever since the summer of 1996, and I read both "The Climb" (TC) and "Into Thin Air" (ITA) as soon as they came out. Since then I've read almost all the other books about the tragedy as well. And recently I read the new expanded 1999 paperback editions of TC and ITA, each of which has been revised throughout, and each of which has a lengthy new postscript that answers charges made by the other book. If you have more than a passing interest in Everst 96, you will want to read both these new editions, even if, like me, you already read the first editions. The new dueling postscripts are mandatory reading if you want to have a better understanding of what happened. In my opinion, the truth lies somewhere betweeen the Krakauer account and the Boukreev/DeWalt account, although I think ITA is by far the better (and more believable) book. You, however, might feel differently. Read both new editions and decide for yourself.

All of the different Everest books offer slightly different versions of the same events. This probably shouldn't surprise anybody, considering the effects of altitude and extreme stress on memory. I generally give Krakauer the benefit of the doubt over the other books, though, because he was the only author who took detailed notes while he was on the mountain (a widely respected reporter and mountaineer, he was sent to Everest specifically to document the 1996 climbing season). Krakauer was also the only one of the Everest authors who took the time to interview virtually all the major and minor players in the tragedy, so his book has a thoroughness that is lacking in the other Everest books. The other books, including TC, will be much easier to follow if you've read ITA first. ITA provides crucial background that's missing from the other books, and seems carefully researched and relatively balanced in a way the other books do not.

Which is not to say that ITA isn't flawed. Krakauer wrote it when he was still greatly troubled by the tragedy, and the book clearly shows his raw emotional state. This gave ITA much of its stunning literary power (it is incredibly riveting to read!) but it also probably skewed Krakauer's objectivity. I think maybe he wrote more harshly about Sandy Hill Pittman and Boukreev than was necessary.

One thing that struck me is that ITA and TC are actually in agreement about most major points. ABout the only points where they diverge seriously is over the wisdom of guiding without oxygen, and whether or not Boukreev had permission from Fischer to descend ahead of his clients. On this latter point, Krakauer makes a pretty convincing argument that Boukreev didn't have permission, but I think he was wrong not to give Boukreev the benefit of the doubt. I am prepared to take Boukreev's word on this one, despite plausible evidence to the contrary. Ultimately it's not really that improtant whether Boukreev asked permission or not before he went down. It probably wasn't such a wise idea, with or without permission, but Boukreev later more than made up for it by saving the lvies of Pittman and Charlotte Fox. So I think Krakauer was wrong to make a bid deal about this.

But DeWalt makes an even bigger deal about this same issue, and thereby reveals himself to be an overly zealous advocate. TC barely even pretends to be balanced or even-handed. DeWalt writes in the style of a foaming-at-the-mouth defense attorney, less concerned with the truth than winning an acquittal for his client. He makes use of bombast and self-righteous indignation to appeal to his readers on an emotional level--the journalistic equivalent of "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!" DeWalt presents the facts very selectively, and occasionally twists them outright, in order to build the strongest case he possibly can, hoping to make Boukreev look infallible and Krakauer look like a liar. The problem is, it's not a particularly believable strategy if you stop and consider everything logically, without emotion.

Boukreev is portrayed as a hero in both books (albeit an imperfect hero in ITA). Like other reviewers here, however, I thought DeWalt's overstated advocacy in TC actually did more to hurt Boukreev than help him. Krakauer correctly points out that DeWalt was surprisingly careless with his research and fact checking. Plus, DeWalt doesn't have much natural talent as a writer (to put it charitably), which also hurts Boukreev's cause. I wholeheartedly agree with those other reviewers who wish Boukreev had chosen a more skilful and scrupulous author to tell his story for him. As I said, however, these are simply my opinions. I urge you to read both books for yourself and make up your own mind.


Good rebuttal to Krakauer's "Into Thin Air"   June 10, 1999
 35 out of 36 found this review helpful

Anatoli Boukreev, one of the guides on Scott Fischer's ill-fated 1996 Mountain Madness Everest expedition, feeling much maligned by Jon Krakauer's article, and subsequent best-seller, "Into Thin Air" (ITA), sets out to set the record straight in "The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest" (TC).

While ITA is a first-person account, TC is written from a third person POV, with long passages of Boukreev recounting the events and his impressions of the events of May 1996 (translated from Russian). What comes through most is Boukreev's wish to clear his name. Having read both books, I believe that Mr. Boukreev has accomplished his goal. He did save several clients of Fischer's expedition and assisted several of the climbers from Rob Hall's Adventure Consultants expedition. Although he was not able to rescue Scott Fischer, neither were Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa or Ed Viesturs and Todd Burleson. It seems clear that Fischer succumbed to high-altitude cerebral edema.

What is most amazing is how lucky the Mountain Madness expedition was. The early sections recounts the logistical problems the team faced, including problems obtaining adequate supplies of oxygen, and the toll they must have taken on Fischer. However, the only casualty of the Mountain Madness expedition was Fischer himself. In contrast, Adventure Consultants lost their leader, Hall, guide Andy Harris, and clients Doug Hansen and Yasuko Namba.

In terms of readability, I believe ITA's first-person view makes it a more gripping account. Boukreev's book is too obvious an attempt to refute Krakauer. (The article Krakauer initially wrote for "Outside" must have been more critical than the book because I don't recall the latter particularly assigning blame to Boukreev.) As I said earlier, I believe Boukreev did everything within his power to prevent the disaster, and to assist other climbers, but through the book he comes across as more detached; less involved than Krakauer, who makes it clear at the end of ITA that he has unanswered questions about his own role in the events of May 1996.

I did enjoy learning about Boukreev himself. He is an interesting man, and an amazingly accomplished climber. I was particularly impressed by his efforts to bury the remains of Fischer and Namba, who he felt responsible for since he was unable to save them. I would have enjoyed more biographical material about him.


Credibility Counts   February 17, 2000
 30 out of 52 found this review helpful

I read some of the reviews posted here and don't recognize the book the reviewers are talking about. Did we read the same book? What I notice most frequently is that the negative reviewers zero in on the writing style and virtually ignore the content of The Climb, especially the "Response to Jon Krakauer" which was offered in the most recent edition. OK. I accept the fact that Into Thin Air is a better written book, no contest, but is that the sole measure of a book's value and importance? What about author credibility? The Climb, by simply and clearly laying out the facts, raises some disturbing questions about the story Krakauer has told and about his professionalism. A few things to consider: (1) Krakauer has said that he "implored" Beck Weathers to come down the mountain with him. Weathers, in tape recorded comments, has said that he asked Krakauer for help, but that Krakauer declined, saying that he wasn't a guide. (2) Boukreev, well before Into Thin Air was published, told Krakauer that Scott Fischer, the expedition leader, had OK'ed his descent ahead of clients. Did Krakauer reveal this? No. Instead, he suggested that Boukreev made a personal, selfish decision to save himself. (3) Krakauer says that his tentmate, Stuart Hutchison, left the tent when Mike Groom stumbled into Camp IV, that he was nowhere around when Groom begged for help with a rescue of Beck Weathers and Yasuko Namba. Mike Groom, in his published account, says that his request for help was made in Krakauer's presence. (4) Krakauer in an interview three years ago said that he might have been wrong in assuming that Fischer, in conversation with Boukreev, did not authorize Boukreev's decsent ahead of clients, but now, after having been criticized for not revealing Boukreev's explanation for his descent, says he suspects the conversation never took place because he saw Fischer boogeying for the summit immediately after he topped the Hillary Step. Oh, yeah? Consider this: In The Climb, Boukreev says that he spent ten or more minutes conferring with Fischer above the Hillary Step after Krakauer went over the edge. Possible? Makalu Gau, from the Taiwanese expediton and Fischer topped the Hillary Step about 2:35 PM. In a published interview Gau says he arrived at the summit at 3:00PM; Fischer didn't arrive at the summit until about 3:45PM. Fischer, who by eyewitness accounts was moving faster than Gau, was forty five minutes behind him on the summit despite the fact that they topped the Hillary Step within minutes of each other. That fact raises serious questions about Krakauer's "observation" that Fischer left the Hillary Step immediately after Krakauer went over its edge and offers ample proof that there was pleeeeenty of time for Boukreev and Fischer to confer. And, the list goes on.If writing style is all that matters in considering a book's meaningfullness, then my time is wasted in making these points. But it means something to me that no substantial fact in The Climb has been proven to be untrue and that members of Krakauer's own expedition have published differing accounts of events in which Krakauer has favorably presented himself. Given that, I'll endure the style of The Climb, which does suffer with the jerky translations of Boukreev's prose, and argue that others should as well.