Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
What I read here is a lot of second hand opinions including sour grapes that represent only one side of a heated debate between Boukreev on the one hand and Krakauer and others on the other. Krakauer's book of course savaged Boukreev for selfish and unprofessional behavior on Everest that may have cost lives. Bourkreev, understandably, fought to preserve his reputation, including by attacking Krakauer's character. Unlike Krakauer, a mere journalist, Boukreev was affirmatively responsible for the well-being of others. Really, the catastrophic results speak for themselves--the professionals like Boukreev who were in charge of the operation skrewed up. I think my comparison to the Titanic is apt--greed, hubris, and competitive pressures caused those in charge of the operation to take unacceptable risks that resulted in the deaths and/or terrible suffering of lay people who relied on their expertise.
Krakauer is an easy mark here. It's easy to understand why particularly a dirty hippie would resent him. He summited then made it down off the mountain a whole man, living to tell the tale, and thereby becoming a rich and famous man. What's most galling to some is that he went thinking the fruit of his labor (in addition to the personal satisfaction of sumitting the word's highest peak) would be merely an article in Outside Magazine. But because of this terrible tragedy--which he frankly admits he had an indirect hand in causing because the presence of journalists only jacked up the pressure on guides llike Boukreev to take unacceptable risks--he was uniquely situated to capitalize on a lucrative book deal, an opportunity that made his career as an author, and made him rich and famous.
I'm not a climber but I do know two things--1) there are undoubtedly two sides to this story; and 2) Krakaur's book is of a fine caliber as a work of literature--he tells a great story be it fact, fiction or something in between. By the strength of that alone future generations may well come to regard his rendition as the definitive version of what happened.
|
I think you hit the nail on the head. I loved "Into Thin Air" and "Into the Wild" and I have read the criticisms. I don't think either book is that far off. I suspect most of the facts in "Under the Banner of Heaven" are pretty accurate, but I do find issue with the tone and presentation in the book.
Here is a what I wrote on the book a few weeks ago:
"I read this book and had mixed emotions. I am a big Krakauer fan and have read all of his books. I found this one especially fascinating and still feel Krakauer is a gifted author. I grew up in South Utah County and knew of the Lafferty family before this happened, but did not know them really well. I followed the whole incident quite closely when it happened and since that time I have gotten to know one of the Lafferty brothers (not Ron or Dan). My brother is a close friend with him and I have met him several times. He is reluctant to discuss what happened for obvious reasons - it was and is an immensely painful part of his life. Given these connections, I read the book with great interest. As for the "errors" in the book, I am not sure how big that list is. I believe he got most of the basic facts correct. Of course, he tends to put a negative slant on many things. However, I think the biggest issue is that this is simply a horrific story. Anything told or presented in the context of this story is going to suffer from collateral damage. To a large degree, it is an indictment on religion in general, not just Mormonism. It is too bad that this will be the sole book on "LDS history" that many folks will ever read (speaking of non-Mormons, that is)."