Into Thin Air

[SeattleUte]

"Into Thin Air" tells a tale that alludes strongly to the Titanic disaster. We have hubris, reckless competition, foolhardy belief in the idnomitable power of technology in the face of nature's severest tests, a gathering of high society, mass catastrophe, nature exacting the harshest of lessons. In the end, technology will yield, it always does and always will, ultimately. The book also has echoes of Melville--the mountain, the squall, are the White Whale, all symbolizing metaphysical evil. The adversary. Whatevery you think of its "historicity" "Into Thin Air" is a great read. A modern adventure classic. Praise John Krakauer.

[Archaea]

Too bad he doesn't write as well as Melville. He's a hack. The concept is fine, but his attempt to glorify himself, plus his lack of literary ability, makes it a pile of shit.

The concept could have and should have been so much more.

And in one respect, he didn't write as an epic tale, but as a tell-all tale, whereas he would have been better off going epic, with Krackhead as Ahab. Krackhead killed people through his sloth, yet he continues to tarnish he who was a hero. Burn in hell Krackhead.

[creekster]

You guys should get a TV show. maybe point/counterpoint would be a good title.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Too bad he doesn't write as well as Melville. He's a hack. The concept is fine, but his attempt to glorify himself, plus his lack of literary ability, makes it a pile of shit.

The concept could have and should have been so much more.

And in one respect, he didn't write as an epic tale, but as a tell-all tale, whereas he would have been better off going epic, with Krackhead as Ahab. Krackhead killed people through his sloth, yet he continues to tarnish he who was a hero. Burn in hell Krackhead.

You haven't read it. It's sad your religious extremism deprives you of appreciating fine literature.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You haven't read it. It's sad your religious extremism deprives you of appreciating fine literature.

Pardon me, but your troll is showing.

[Coach McGuirk]

I read it, I enjoyed it. I also read Anatoli Boukreev's "The Climb" and found it more truthful and not as preachy and judgmental.

Both were good and had strong points.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You haven't read it. It's sad your religious extremism deprives you of appreciating fine literature.

WTF. I've both read it and seen the movie. He's awful. If you find him to be a good writer, then think again, he's no Tolstoy.

He's no Melville.

If you disagree, present some of the images that you believe are so memorable, and compare it to the Climb. Or compare it to No Shortcuts to the Top by Ed Viesturs.

Get you weak sauce out of here, and leave your religious bigotry at home. We don't need no terrorists.

Here's Salon's review, too generous in my opinion, but some valid points as well, pointing to Krackhead's narcissism. http://www.salon.com/may97/wanderlus...ges970524.html

The resulting narrative, shipped to bookstores just one year after its author returned from Nepal, feels somehow incomplete, despite meticulous research and a self-conscious struggle for objectivity. The rough authenticity of the narrative is powerful, to be sure, but "Into Thin Air" ultimately lacks the insight and persuasiveness of Krakauer's previous book, "Into the Wild," the deeply engaging and thought-provoking tale of a young adventurer who died in the Alaskan wilderness while pursuing a dream similar in many respects to the dream that draws climbers to Everest.
Reading "Into Thin Air" is like witnessing a bad traffic accident in slow motion: All the gory details are visible, but it's difficult to make sense of the carnage. "Several authors and editors I respect counseled me not to write the book as quickly as I did," Krakauer acknowledges in the introduction. "They urged me to wait two or three years and put some distance between me and the expedition in order to gain some crucial perspective. But I hoped something would be gained by spilling my soul in the calamity's immediate aftermath, in the roil and torment of the moment." True enough, but I'm already looking forward to the book Krakauer will write once he has gained the "crucial perspective" that will allow him to apply the extraordinary sensibility of "Into the Wild" to his own brush with death on Everest.

[Archaea]

A review of the Climb and some critical conversations original published in High Magazine are included here.

http://www.pauldeegan.com/expedition...imb_review.pdf

Read about the conversations between Fischer and Boukreev as established by Fischer's publicist.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A review of the Climb and some critical conversations original published in High Magazine are included here.

http://www.pauldeegan.com/expedition...imb_review.pdf

Read about the conversations between Fischer and Boukreev as established by Fischer's publicist.

Yeah, that's the most damning thing.

Indeed, Fischer’s publicist, Jane Bromet, is quoted in the book as saying: “Scott told
me... [before the summit bid] that if there were problems coming down, Anatoli
would make a rapid descent [to Camp IV at the South Col] and come back up the
mountain with oxygen...” Bromet claims to have told Krakauer about this
conversation. Yet Krakauer makes no reference to it in his book.

Krakauer didn't include it, because it didn't fit with his plan to lynch Boukreev.

I suspect K. did the same thing with the Lafferty clan. He knew the father of the Lafferty clan was CUCKOO, but he did not include any information to that effect. Why? Because it wasn't a crazy father that made crazy kids. It was a crazy religion that did it.

[Archaea]

Seattle, our friendly Visigoth, let's compare a quote from Tolstoy, you guess the book:

A Frenchman is self-assured because he regards himself personally, both in mind and body, as irresistibly attractive to men and women. An Englishman is self-assured, as being a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore as an Englishman always knows what he should do and knows that all he does as an Englishman is undoubtedly correct. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and other people. A Russian is self-assured just because he knows nothing and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe that anything can be known. The German's self-assurance is worst of all, stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows the truth--science--which he himself has invented but which is for him the absolute truth.