The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest

I am currently very interested in the Everest tragedy and as part of that, I am reading as many memoirs of the event as possible. I already knew about the existing conflict between Krakauer’s (Into Thin Air) and Anatoli’s memoir but I wanted to give them both a chance to voice their opinions.I truly loved reading Boukreev’s memoir. He provided an inside look at mountain climbing that I had not been aware of before. The main portion of the book is simply describing events as he remembers them. He doesn’t place blame on anybody for what occurred that day and he doesn’t question that actions of others (like a certain Jerkauer does in his book). It appears that he just wants to have his voice heard and to share his story about what happened. He also wanted to pay tribute to those who lost their lives that day. Scott Fischer and Rob Hall were very important people in the commercialization of mountain climbing and this tragedy affected Boukreev deeply, as well asthe loss of Namba, who Boukreev felt deep personal guilt over.In this version of the book, there are several documents after the book actually ends which are interesting to read. An In Memoriam for Boukreev who passed away in 1997 and a few responses to Krakauer’s book. Krakauer does not come off well in this part. It’s very respectfully done, but to me, Krakauer comes off as kind of like an arrogant baby. What we have to remember with these memoirs, is that it is all memories. At that altitude and given the events of the day, memories can become eschewed. It’s very likely that these men remembered the story differently, but to them, it was the truth.Overall, this was a very interesting read. I loved hearing Boukreev’s perspective on the events and about his experiences both that day and otherwise. He’s not the bad guy, and he felt he was represented in that way and this gave him an opportunity to show that he’s not. He’s responsible for having saved at least 3 people that day. That doesn’t sound like a bad guy to me. If you’re interested in the Everest disaster, this should definitely be one of the memoirs that you check out!

I'm not `into' climbing books but I do enjoy reading tales of humans striving against the odds. Having read Jon Krakauers book Into Thin Air about the unfortunate events of the 1996 climbing season on Everest it seemed appropriate to read the account of the same climb by Anatoli Boukreev (written with G. Weston DeWalt).Those in the know will understand that Krakauer was quite damning of Boukreevs decisions on the climb that saw several deaths amongst climbers and several others permanently damaged by frostbite. This book is in many ways Boukreevs right of reply. Hence it's a book you really should read if you've read Krakauers account to which I'll take the liberty of comparing it to directly for much of this review given they seem somehow intertwined.As to the book itself: The writing style is not as breezy as the Krakauer work. That books writing style is breezy and easily digested. The Climb on the other hand comes across as more stilted. Now I don't blame Boukreev for that, after all he would have been a native Russian speaker presumably and his real talent seems to have been as a great mountaineer - one of the finest of his generation in fact. So no, it is DeWalt that must bear the brunt of my criticism of pointing out how the book does not flow and demands a more indulgent reader.The Climb assists the reader with a few useful maps and a clutch of photos that tend to humanise things somewhat. And similarly to the Krakauer book there is plenty of praise for the commitment, bravery and tenacity of many of the members of the various expeditions. There is also a heck of a lot of respect for the simple fact that there is so little margin for error or ill luck in the extreme areas of the planet.On the other side of the ledger The Climb does enunciate rather well an alternate telling of the events of 1996 and does greatly allow for the reader to get a fuller understanding of some of the issues facing the expedition and the way things unravelled so tragically. The book goes into the thinking of Boukreev who was obviously one of the fittest and most important members of either the Fischer or Hall teams and certainly a man of great bravery and whatever your view of some of his decisions (after reading both books) several people must owe their lives to a quietly stoic and very self contained man who while perhaps not a `people person' took his duties seriously as a matter of personal honour.One aspect of this work I didn't like was the long epilogue discussing the ongoing feud between Krakauers and Boukreevs telling of events. Boukreev himself succumbed to an avalanche while climbing in Nepal on Christmas Day, 1997. One the one hand his passing should have caused Krakauer to `pull his head in' as we say in Australia, but despite his protestations that it was his duty to do continue to repudiate things Krakauer was saying I couldn't help feeling there was some unsavoury grandstanding going on.I would heartily recommend anyone who has an interest in climbing works but particularly anybody who has read Into Thin Air. Despite the stilted writing and the long addendum at the end I felt I had a far more rounded understanding of what was at the end of the day a tragic event that showed the power of nature but also the power of the humans contending with it.

This is a great book, but you have to be in the right headspace to enjoy it.When I first purchased this book, it was right after reading Into Thin Air. Jon Krakauer is a masterful writer who seamlessly paints vivid scenes with smooth execution and flowery soliloquy. After reading his work for awhile, I got accustomed and spoiled.Anatoli’s personal recollections in his second language and Weston DeWalt‘s explanations are *much* more literal, blunt and to the point. It does provide an excellent perspective of the events, but you should not go into it expecting Krakauer’s level of detail and smooth transitions. When I first started reading it after Into Thin Air it felt so “clunky” that I couldn’t continue. And I think this side effect has had a negative impact on the overall review of this book.Now that it’s been a few months and I’m back to reading it again, I feel that it is well written in its own way and I can appreciate it much more. It’s definitely worth the read to get Anatoli’s perspective. He was truly a hero.

After watching the 2015 Everest film I became a sponge for all things about the 1996 Everest tragedy watching 4 documentaries, reading Jon Krakauer and Lou Kasischke's books. Just finished The Climb (TC) a few hours ago and loved it.For those who do not know this book discuses the 1996 tragedy on Everest that befell two climbing teams. Krakauer's book (into thin air [ITA]) is usually regarded by the public as the main source of what happened on the mountain. In that book Krakauer was critical to Anatoli who then released this book to defend himself and his actions (by not using supplemental oxygen and for descending the mountain rapidly before the team). I felt bad that Anatoli got a bad wrap for 1996 when he risked his own life several times to save other climbers.This is a great read for any Everest junkies and is really the only main book that shows what happened on the Mountain Madness team (Krakauer and Lou's books are from the other teams POV). The book offers some really good insight into Scott Fischer and the other MM climbers. IMHO it also clearly explain why Anatoli did not use supplemental oxygen as well as why he did a rapid descent.The first 60% of the book covers 1996. The next chapter details his next expedition back up Everest and how he made make-shift graves for Scott and Yasuko Namba as well as took their small effects to give back to their families. Classy move imho.The last 30% of the book is a group transcript of the MM group discussing the tragedy shortly after it happened and is a great read.I am not going to get into who is right or wrong and will let you decide for yourself. All I will say is that this is a great read and if you read Krakauer's book you are only getting 1 side of the story. imo all three books should be read as they are all great reads but also from three distinct POVs.Notes:Worth The Money: Yes! (easily)Would I Recommend It: Yes!

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 starsThe 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 tragic expedition on Mount Everest in May 1996, which claimed the lives of eight climbers and left others permanently injured from frostbite, was captured by an IMAX camera crew and presented in the 1998 IMAX film "Everest," was documented by climber Jon Krakauer in the 1997 best-selling book "Into Thin Air," and by expert climber Anatoli Boukreev in this book, also published in 1997. Both Boukreev and Krakauer were climbing Everest with two different expedition teams as these tragic events unfolded, and their heroic actions saved the lives of climbers who would otherwise have perished in the cold above Camp IV, in the "Death Zone" on the tallest mountain on Earth.I watched the IMAX film when it was released 20 years ago, and the Hollywood treatment that came out in 2015, starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Josh Brolin. This book is consistent with the films, and provides a deeper level of understanding of the individuals who lived and perished on this journey. It also sheds light on elements that weren't clearly conveyed in either film, such as the many trips up and down the mountain that climbers had to make to acclimatize to the low oxygen levels, and the tremendous amount of work that sherpas do to help these expeditions succeed every year, and the toll it takes on them.This book is a page turner, from the traversal of the treacherous Khumbu Icefall up to the summit, the descent and the tragic circumstances that followed. According to Boukreev, commercialization of Everest climbing expeditions led to overcrowding on the mountain, as more and more people vied to reach the summit each year during the narrow 3-4 week window in May when climbing is feasible, and this led to a backlog of climbers determined to reach the summit on that day. People who spent anywhere from $40-100K for this once-in-a-lifetime experience were literally only a few hundred yards from the zenith of Mount Everest and were determined to reach it. There is a hard rule about not attempting to reach the summit after 2pm, but that rule was ignored on this day, with some climbers reaching the summit as late as 4pm, leaving no time for them to descend to the safety of Camp IV before darkness--and a winter storm--set in. Some climbers depleted their oxygen supplies, having spent hours longer on the mountain than planned, and for two of them this was fateful, as they were unable to think clearly and lacked the strength to descend to safety, and they sat down and slipped away into death.If Boukreev's story is to be believed, then his actions on that day saved many lives, and his efforts were nothing less than heroic. Multiple times he ventured out into the darkness and storm to seek out climbers still trapped on the mountain and bring them to safety. Because of his fitness and acclimatization he was able to ascend and descend between camps with little need for oxygen, and helped obtain much-needed supplies that further saved lives.I solidly recommend this book to anyone who wishes to gain a better understanding of what happened on this particular expedition, or who just wants to better visualize the dangers that await anyone wishing to scale this legendary mountain.

So glad I got to read this book, as American climbing community almost condemned Anatoli Boukreev for his guide behavior. Petty jealousy, I think after reading Into thin AIr, the Climb, Left for Ded and Dark Summit all pretty much from their own viewpoints. Krakauer and most american climbers seem to judge Anatoli by assuming the rest of the worlds guides were all like them, going to hold a clients hand and if need be drag them up the summit. Kind of the opposit of what climbing is supposed to be and without passing any blame on the huge storm or the complete lack of judgement on the leaders of the expediton. Probably because Krakauer was friendly with Scott and felt his presence influenced the leaders to throw caution out in a race to the top. But after reading these accounts I have to say how ashamed I am that Anatoli was treated so badly. He was the only one who saved anyone and his actions were not unusal at all. So glad I read his version even though it has some broken english you get the jist of what he is saying. I am reading , No Shortcuts to the Top now and E Viesturs also purports the value of high altitude climbing wo oxygen, so I am wondering why these macho types blamed toli so much. The "guides" stick together in their attitudes much like any industry. (it is a business now look at the 2019 everest lines to the top) Also they are nationalistic sticking to an American standard instead of a HUMAN one.I bought Above the Clouds, just because I feel like Toli was a "real" mountaineer, extremely talented and athletic."His heroism was not a fluke" Galen Rowen 1997

Great account from an accomplished (and awarded for his heroic, life-saving efforts in the 1996 Everest expedition) mountaineer who was there, did it and shares his experience. Unjustly maligned in Krakauer's book, "Into Thin Air" (and the mountaineering article that preceded this book) as a guide who abandoned others to seek refuge in the lower Camp, the real story is told. Krakaeur in his book, "Into Thin Air," fails to even mention the fact that Boukreev was awarded in 1997 with the prestigious David A. Sowles Memorial Award by American Alpine Club for his successful rescue efforts in the 1996 Everest expedition (while Krakaeur, during these events, was passed out in his tent at the lower Camp). The Sowles award recognizes people "who have distinguished themselves, with unselfish devotion at personal risk or sacrifice of a major objective, in going to the assistance of fellow climbers imperiled in the mountains." This highly prestigious award is not given lightly and never to guides who are derelict in their duties (as Krakaeur wrongly asserts of Boukreev). The award Boukreev received is the American Alpine Club's highest award for valor in recognition of his role in rescuing climbers in the 1996 Everest disaster. As a person who has successfully climbed both Mt. Whitney (California's highest mountain) and Mt. Shasta (a more traditional and technical mountaineering climb) I am not even remotely close to the caliber of someone like the now-deceased Anatoli Boukreev. However, his account of the technical and dynamic aspects of the Everest climb is much more detailed and believable than Krakaeur's lame post hoc assertions.

I got interested in this tragedy while watching the Everest movie. In the movie Anatoli Boukreev was depicted as the most experienced and courageous of all the guides. After reading lots of negative reviews (comparing the book from Krakauer - a journalist and an amateur who was also on the expedition but didn't help anyone even when asked directly) I was even more curious what was really behind all the criticisms. Generally, I prefer accounts of events by a professional rather than an amateur, because professionals simply have more experience and can forsee problems which escape amateurs (and also understand things better).Before addressing criticisms, I liked the book very much. I found it a very captivating read an thought it was fantastic to glimpse into how a professional mountaineer is thinking.The first criticism was the language of this book. I found this criticism really petty and unworty. I mean, seriously? This is an account of true events, not a poetry book. I found nothing much wrong with the English. So he/s a Khazahstani climber and doesn't speak English well. So what? The story is narrated for most part by a native speaker, there is just some of the original dialogue to illustrate the difficulties he had with communication on the mountains.The second criticism of Boukeerev was that he climbed withot oxygen - not true - he took one bottle, but gave it to another guide who needed it badly.The third criticism was that he rushed down the mountain. Would they rather he stayed on the mountain and died? Everyone who was rescued would die if he did that, because no one wanted to help him when he went to rescue other clients. I think his reasoning (clients were running out of oxygen, so he needed to get some) is logical and absolutely correct. He was the fastest after all. I think there are many people who could have done things differently, but not Boukeerev. He was professional througout.I think a lot of these criticisms come from American personality - everyone must speak their language, when buying services, some think they buy their guides life ect.Everest is a huge and dangerous mountain. People who are incapable to climb without fixed ropes or to take care of themselves or carry theor own gear/oxygen should never in the first place be let on the mountain. And hiring a guide doesn't mean he has to die for you. Human life cannot be bought (as a journalist on the expedition obviously thought). Why should a guide be dictated by clients to do things like his clients (with practically no clue what should be done) think it should be done? Bollocks...guides should be listened to.But last of all, I think criticism of Boukeerev is simply wicked and most likely due to him being a foreigner = non English speaking. No American seems to criticised. I find that unfair. Boukeerev was simply considered by some only a sherpa, even though he was the most experienced guide of all three expeditions on the mountain on that day.

Read this, before you read Into Thin Air. For anatoli, rob hall, and scott fishcer, you are deeply missed always.

I read Into Thin Air about twenty years before reading this. It was gripping, but I already made my mind up about Jon Krakauer (Author of Into Thin Air) and Anatoli Boukreev (Author of this book), so I didn't really think I needed to read this book.What I thought after reading Into Thin Air and before reading The Climb:Lots of holes in a cheese aligned to make the tragedyAnatoli Boukreev was a heroJon Krakauer spent the night of the disaster in a tent. He was the only client to summit and survive from his team - he must have felt guilty about that. He must have wanted someone else to blame to mitigate that guilt - he chose Aantoli. He came across rather arrogant and dismissive of people more expert than him. I wonder why many more people didn't question his motives after reading Into Thin Air? It certainly didn't seem right to me at the time.What I learned from The Climb:My reading between the lines of Into Thin Air seemed entirely correct. In fact, Anatoli Boukreev's account rings even more true, especially as the debriefing tapes confirm the consistency of his story.Jon Krakauer was even worse than I thought (what appear to be deliberate inconsistencies in his story vs others' accounts). It isn't pleasant or constructive to lay blame as he did.G Weston DeWalt has clearly spent a lot of time getting everything correct and making sure he got all his facts straight when writing the book. You can see the care and thought put into it, not to grab the readers attention with drama and lies, but to give a clear and true account.Overall, this book lays the record straight without pointing the finger of blame, but illustrating how such as disaster occurred. Questions remain unanswered, but this gives the reader enough to know what to think. I would not recommend Into Thin Air and I would definitely recommend this, as a more balanced, and better researched, and fair portrayal.

Excellent book. Good easy read.

This is the story of Everest 1996 told by Anatoli Boukreev, the man who has single handedly saved the lives of several climbers on a night nobody else, climber or guide, dared to venture out of their tents. He was one of the greatest mountaineers of all time. A must read, especially if you’ve read Jon Krakauer’s book Into thin air first. That book did Boukreev a great injustice.. I found this book to be well written; I couldn’t put it down.