[pct-l] Into Thin Air and The Climb

The following has little to do with the PCT but here goes anyway. I just 
finished reading The Climb by Boukreev and have also read Into Thin Air by 
Krackauer. Having led many climbs, I found both books very interesting. 
Although I can't really say what it is like to climb at very high altitude, I 
could relate to many of the problems encountered on their disastrous climb of 
Everest. I found Into Thin Air to be very credible account. While we can 
wrongly question Jon's bravery, we must also remember that he was a client, 
not a guide. Scott Fisher (whom I once met and regard with the highest 
esteem) simply bit off more than he could chew. It was his first try at 
guiding people up Everest and IMHO the sherpas and guides he hired just 
didn't do their jobs properly.  Boukreev (who is now dead from an avalanche 
on Annapurnna) was basically just a high paid sherpa instead of a GUIDE who 
didn't really relate to the clients at all. I found his book to be a large 
scale attempt to justify HIS actions. When Scott faltered near the summit due 
to exhaustion, nobody took charge. Sherpas should have been sent down to 
organize an oxygen resupply, not Boukreev who was second in command. The rest 
of the group should have just tagged the summit and started down immediately 
but apparently no one insisted upon it. Everyone from Mountain Madness would 
have made it back if they had. There was no team effort during the descent, 
it became every person for themselves. When people didn't make it back to 
camp, SOMEBODY should have organized a team rescue effort. Boukreev tried but 
in my opinion not hard enough. He should have ORDERED the people who remained 
silent in their tents to help in any way possible, especially those who were 
on oxygen, even dragging them from their tents if necessary. I find it 
inexplicable that probably about a dozen people who could possibly have 
helped out in a rescue mission chose to remain silent in their tents, sherpas 
guides and clients alike. Most of the lost people were only 10 flat minutes 
away from camp. I also found it disturbing that Boukreev was so goal oriented 
that he went ahead and climbed Lhotse. Everyone else was so sickened by the 
disaster that climbing another peak immediately afterwards was the last thing 
on their minds. He even guided a near disastrous expedition to Everest again 
the next year! His book raised one very important argument: Situationalists 
vs. legalists. The situationalists say there are no rules in the mountains 
just decisions and that rules stifle the individuality and creativeness 
sought by those who seek adventure. I agree completely when it comes to solo 
efforts or by a team of equals. The legalists say you should go by the book, 
and I agree completely when it comes to guiding those who are depending upon 
your leadership and judgment to stay alive. Everest should have been a 
Legalist style climb.The saddest part of the disaster was that the Japanese 
woman and Scott were lost when they could have been saved. From what I've 
read and know about him, the world is indeed worse off without the likes of 
Scott Fischer in it. Once again, I wasn't there and who am I to judge but 
right or wrong, I do. Somehow I must believe that the situation could have 
turned out differently and feel the need to give some logic and sense to the 
whole mess. I guess I blame the subordinate Mountain Madness guides for not 
taking charge when they saw that Scott was faltering and the team effort 
disintegrating even though they finally did arise to the occasion and help or 
single handily were responsible for the rescue of several people. Boukreev is 
both a villain and a hero in my mind sort of like a guy who causes people to 
drown and then saves some of them with CPR. And in my mind the Sherpas 
certainly must take part of the blame. The head Sherpa Lopsang (also now 
dead) was very young and inexperienced so perhaps Scott was missive in giving 
him the job. As a mountaineer, I find the entire episode very troubling and a 
cause to examine MY motives for and methods of climbing. I welcome rebuttals 
to my line of reasoning and one can certainly question my ethics in bad 
mouthing dead people who can't defend themselves (although Boukreev made a 
mighty attempt to in his book), but please don't just tell me that things 
just happen even though that's probably true. I just want to believe that 
every accident has a cause and though we all certainly make mistakes, that's 
no reason to try not to repeat them again.  I need to believe that 
mountaineering is worthwhile even though most view it as inherently unsafe. 
Many say that those people shouldn't have been there at all, but we all have 
dreams so I just can't agree with that.
* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================
To:            PCT-L@backcountry.net