Jon Krakauer


I read "Into Thin Air" when it first came out, and it was an amazing book. I never thought a book about mountain climbing could be such a page-turner. It read like a thriller and character study in one.

So, it kind of bugs me the way Jon Krakauer is treated in this film. A few times when they are making the climb, reaching the decisions to keep going that would eventually lead to tragedy, characters say "Oh, what will Krakauer say if we don't get anyone to the top this year?" or "I wonder what Krakauer will write in his book?" as though they were truly worried he would slander them if they backed down or something, as opposed to simply telling it like it was. I felt all players were treated very fairly in the book, whether or not they chose to keep going. They were almost all sympathetic.

Then they sort of make him look bad because he stayed in camp on the last day instead of do the final climb. I remember how he reached that decision in the book, and it was for good reasons. There was a back-up at the one level, squabbling among the groups, one client being towed too much, etc. Things were kind of chaotic. He decided it wasn't worth the risk. He was a writer with some climbing experience, not a pro climber or a someone with a lifelong dream of reaching the top. Or a death wish.

Also, they asked him to come help look for people after the storm and he said he couldn't because he was snow-blind. OK. Snow-blindness is a thing. If he couldn't see, what the Hell good could he do anyway? He'd just get HIMSELF lost.

If they made decisions about whether or not to keep going based on what some journalist they agreed to bring might think or write? That's THEIR problem, not his. They had human lives at stake, for God's sake. Krakauer was just doing his job. They needed to do theirs.

I am not a climber and I won't judge the choices they made. That said, to even suggest that Krakauer was in any way responsible for what unfolded is ridiculous and wrong. Maybe he was kind of a *beep* Maybe he WAS there to get a story. Again, that's what writers do. Let it go and get your GD priorities straight.

That said......Anatole is a badass. So are the Sherpas. So are all of them. But as Anatole said....if you need an oxygen tank to do something, maybe you shouldn't do it? I have asthma. It's well under control now but when I was younger I had a few bad incidents where I had to go to the hospital. So I know what it's like not to be able to breath well. The idea of knowingly, willingly putting myself in a situation where I need help just to breath is kind of unthinkable.

reply

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.

reply

Well put. One thing they didn't cover much in the film was the one climber who had to be towed by a Sherpa for a long while, slowing things down. They might have showed it briefly but it was indicative of all that was wrong with the expedition. I think she was a businesswoman, but here the female journalist might have been a sort of stand-in? In which case, again, they were making a misplaced point about the role of the journalist. But I don't recall for sure who the actual person was, only that it was a woman. Not that this is important but there were only a couple of women on the trip.

I will say this for Beck Weathers, he was apparently in very good physical condition. Had it not been for the problem with his eyes he might have been one who was actually prepared to make it to the summit without much assistance. Trouble was he was nervous, but Hell, who wouldn't be?

reply

Yeah Beck Weathers was a machine. It seems like he had some eye surgery or something and the atmospheric pressure was messing with his vision. I can't recall. But anyway he managed to crawl into camp the next day.

The lady towed by the sherpa was Sandy Hill Pittman who is frequently demonized for her attitude following the tragedy and for not thanking those who dragged her arse up the mountain and then saved her life by dragging it back down. Here's an article that sums it up nicely.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/09/sandy-hill-pittman-mount-everest

reply

Hmmm.

Well, on the plus side, she apparently trained really hard for the climb and wasn't a dilettante about it as I had thought. On the down side, wow, what a spoiled attention hog. She had a piece of jewelry designed to bury at the summit? Showed up to her party in climbing gear? Ugh.

AND she left her 12-year-old kid whose parents were in the midst of a divorce to go risk her life? WOW. Of all the people on this climb, she was BY FAR the biggest narcissist. It's pretty gross.

The others all come out smelling like roses by comparison.

reply

Climbers are frequently criticized for their selfish attitudes. I think it is kind of the nature of the beast. If you are going to try to climb Everest, you have to be extremely goal-oriented, competitive, and driven to succeed. Those traits can run counter to the supportive, selfless nature that we all can afford in our worlds of comfort and safety.

Some years ago there was another (true) story that became legendary where a climber cut his friend loose to fall to his peril in what was deemed an act of utter disgraceful selfishness. If you haven't seen the film in the link below - you should watch it. I always recommend it to my friends. You'll look at climbing and life in general differently after seeing it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379557/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

reply

So WAS it an act of disgraceful selfishness, or was it the "law of the mountain", similar to the "law of the sea" where starving castaways would cast lots to see who would get eaten first? I mean, again, if he had little to no chance of saving his friend, and the other option was for BOTH of them to die, is that truly wrong? I'm conflicted.

I do remember that story though. I'll look it up again.

reply

That all-important question is answered in the film in the link above. Truly worth watching. I promise.

reply

So WAS it an act of disgraceful selfishness, or was it the "law of the mountain", similar to the "law of the sea" where starving castaways would cast lots to see who would get eaten first? I mean, again, if he had little to no chance of saving his friend, and the other option was for BOTH of them to die, is that truly wrong? I'm conflicted.


With respect to the Siula Grande incident, Simon Yates (who cut the rope on his partner, Joe Simpson) did indeed come in for some criticism for his actions, but he was stoutly defended by Joe and many others in the climbing community and eventually the controversy died down. The film, Touching the Void, is outstanding. If you can get hold of the DVD, some of the extra features provide more insight into the participants and how, looking back, they evaluate the situation. I borrowed it from the public library, which may be an option (then I bought the DVD because the film is so good I wanted it in my permanent collection).

That film provides insight into the Everest tragedy too, as it illuminates the character and drives of the people involved, who share many similar traits to the Everest adventurers. Also see David Breashears "Storm over Everest" which you can find online.

reply

Wait, JOE defended him? Did he survive....?

reply

Wait, JOE defended him? Did he survive....?


Indeed he did survive, and it's an incredible, gripping story, brilliantly re-enacted in the film, with cuts to direct speaking-to-the-camera input from Joe and Simon and the man who watched camp for them, Richard. The film is drawn from Joe's book, Touching the Void, after all. Joe not only survived, after a long and difficult recovery he lived to climb mountains again, write more books and collaborate on some films, one which I would recommend is The Beckoning Silence about Toni Kurtz and his attempt to climb the North Face of the Eiger.

I strongly recommend Joe's book, TTV in particular, but others as well. He's a very good writer.

reply

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.

reply

That book is amazing. And JK was critical of his own role in the tragedy. He discusses how the presence of journalists on the two competing commercial teams put added pressure on the guides to succeed with summiting, to the point of compromising their sensible strategies. I like this movie, but it barely scratches the surface of the story. The IMAX team that worked hard to help the victims, and the other team that refused to help. The confusion over the O2 bottles. The hierarchy of the sherpas. The radio issues. This event was a perfect storm of problems.

reply

Yes, I agree. The movie didn't cover the complexities nearly as well as the book did. And one expects that from movies I guess, but still. They made a TV movie based on JK's book, which was OK but didn't have nearly the budget etc. If they could combine the storytelling of JK's book with the talent and $$$ put into this one? I can imagine a far better product overall.

He was and is a writer, after all. His talent and skill definitely showed in telling the story.

reply

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.

reply

[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.

reply