Jon Krakauer

I read the book and have seen the movie. In my opinion, the pressure to get people to the summit (because of the amount of money they paid - regardless of their physical abilities or conditioning) ultimately led to the disaster. An experienced and extremely well-conditioned climber can get his or herself to the top if the weather and conditions are perfect. When the conditions are not perfect, and when climbers become responsible for others who have climbed beyond their capabilities through use of short-rope or other assistance, disaster is bound to occur.

A climber who is near death has little capacity for rescue of another climber who may be even nearer to death. Isn't that the first rule of lifesaving? If you cannot save yourself, you cannot save another.

Those who were critical of Krakauer for his lack of participation in the rescue effort after his return to camp have never been in that situation.

To me Into Thin Air, when I first read it all those years ago was such an accessible and riveting book. I think for all the criticisms people have had about his version of his events, to a large extent, it was his re-telling of the story - the drama, the excitement, the pathos - that gripped the general public and extended the reach of the story to people beyond mountain climbers and readers of Outside magazine.

Great post, annlevtex. And I agree with all your points.

Krakauer comes in for a lot of criticism for his book, especially on the internet, where people tend to have such black/white views and most attempts at explanation are treated as if they're talking about blame. In my reading of Into Thin Air, it seems clear that Krakauer wasn't blaming anyone, at all; he was, as a journalist, trying to identify the events of the day that turned a severe storm into such a disaster. But that doesn't stop people on the 'net, many of whom have never read his book, from painting him as a bad guy determined to be unfair to the hero Anatoli Bookreev.

And there's no doubt that Boukreev was a hero later in the evening when it came to rescuing people trapped in the storm. But it's also true that Boukreev's actions earlier in the day contributed significantly to those people being at the mercy of the storm without professional support in the first place. He was the guide for most of them and had a job to do, yet in addition to Krakauer many climbers who were on the mountain that day have written about how he treated the clients with disregard and left them to fend for themselves. (A comment given in the script to Scott Fischer, Jake Gyllenhaal's character, was actually said by Boukreev in real life: that anyone who couldn't make it to the summit under their own steam had no business being on the mountain. I'm not a climber, either, but I suspect he had the truth of it.) But the comment aside, the point is that he was there to do a job, and that was to look after his boss's clients. He didn't do that.

[cont.]

He was one of the first of either party to summit, but his refusal to use supplemental oxygen meant he couldn't endure at the summit waiting for his clients. And rather than do whatever it took, he simply headed back down the mountain, ignoring all the climbers still trying to get there or those trying to get back down (which is when most people actually die), went back to his tent and went to sleep. And with Scott Fischer and Rob Hall both collapsed and dying at the summit, it meant the client climbers were left to struggle on their own to reach camp through the storm and dark.

So kudos to Boukreev for going back out to rescue people, but he'd also had the benefit of several hours' sleep. And unlike Krakauer, he had a professional guide's mountaineering skills, not to mention a professional guide's responsibility.

I think it's a weakness of this film that it omits all mention of negative events that reflect on either Boukreev or Sandi Hill-Pittman, both of whom negatively impacted the outcome of the events. But people with a vested interest in how both of them were portrayed advised on the film, so it's not a surprise. It hurts the narrative, though, and makes it harder to understand what's happening in the second half of the film; why, for instance, does Boukreev just disappear as a character in the final cut after stringing the fixed ropes below the Hillary Step, and then suddenly re-appear a third of the movie later after the storm has hit?

There were reports that around half an hour was cut from the film just before its release, so maybe that previous version would have told the story more clearly. I was hoping we might get the pre-release longer cut when it came out on BD and DVD, but it was obviously not to be. And I doubt interest is strong enough for a new release now.