All you ever needed to know about Jon Krakauer

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by Archaea

He was a Kazakh, but what would you know.

Ok, Kazakh. I'll change it up above.

[MikeWaters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Krakauer

The bestseller Into the Wild was published in 1996 and secured Krakauer's reputation as an outstanding adventure writer, spending more than two years on the New York Times bestseller list. The book tells the true story of Christopher McCandless, a young man from a well-to-do East Coast family who, after graduating from college, donated all of the money in his bank account to charity, changed his name to "Alexander Supertramp," and began a journey in the American West. Nearly two years later, McCandless was found dead in the Alaska wilderness. In the book, Krakauer draws parallels between his own experiences and motivations and those of McCandless.

This fits with my assertion that Krakauer tends to write about himself, in the context of others' experiences, and in my opinion, does not always share his biases or his viewpoint. I have not read "Into the Wild", nor will I.

In his own book The Climb, the late Scott Fischer's top guide, the late Anatoli Boukreev quotes another climber from the ill-fated 1996 expedition as having witnessed an exhausted, oxygen-starved Krakauer collapse and nearly tumble off the mountain to his death in an unroped section between the Hillary Step and the South Summit. Krakauer did not mention this incident in his book, and subsequently downplayed it.[citation needed] In addition, Krakauer made a number of key observational mistakes up high, among them mistaking climber Martin Adams for Andy Harris and subsequently communicating to Base Camp that Harris had safely returned to high camp when he had not (Harris was similarly confused, and incorrectly believed his group's stashed oxygen tanks on the South Summit were empty). Some critics say Krakauer's mental confusion rendered him suspect as a credible eyewitness of history. Krakauer responded to some of these points in his book. Other critics[who?] ask why Krakauer, who during the ascent was one of the stronger climbers and who in his book was so critical of Boukreev for descending the mountain well ahead of his clients, did not himself do more to aid the weaker climbers, many of whom, including Harris, subsequently died. Krakauer later maintained that he was merely a (tired) climber, not a paid guide, and said the descent during an approaching storm was a case of every man for himself.

I don't know the attribution here, but it speaks for itself.

[MikeWaters]

Krakauer is working on a book about Pat Tillman. And himself. It will be of course, about Pat Tillman, in the context of Krakauer's own life and heroism.

No doubt, he will indict all kinds of people in his book.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Krakauer is working on a book about Pat Tillman. And himself. It will be of course, about Pat Tillman, in the context of Krakauer's own life and heroism.

No doubt, he will indict all kinds of people in his book.

So was Under the Banner of Heaven really about Krackhead and his desire to murder in the name of religion?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So was Under the Banner of Heaven really about Krackhead and his desire to murder in the name of religion?

I actually kind of agree with this last observation of Waters'. But since Krakauer actually lived through the disaster on Everest he couldn't get away reporting the events and not accounting for his own participation.

Waters notes that Krakauer admits at least two people may have died because of his inaction or action. He is also introspective of the role that peresence of media may have played in causing the hyper-competitiveness between guides (guiding clims on Everest was big business by then) that led to their stupid and tragic risk-taking and decisions. Contrast this with Boukreev who was only defensive and took no responsiblity even though he was a guide and some people in his stewardship died as did his guiding partner fischer. I think Krakauer gets ethics and credibilty points for confessing having been a potential contributing fator to deaths.

On a somewhat different note, clearly from Banner we see that Karakauer has had it in for Mormons. I understand that when he was a kid he knew Mormons in Oregon and was left with a bad impression of them. Notice how people don't write about Mormons (pro or con) unless they have had a history with them?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Waters notes that Krakauer admits at least two people may have died because of his inaction or action. He is also introspective of the role that peresence of media may have played in causing the hyper-competitiveness between guides (guiding clims on Everest was big business by then) that led to their stupid and tragic risk-taking and decisions. Contrast this with Boukreev who was only defensive and took no responsiblity even though he was a guide and some people in his stewardship died as did his guiding partner fischer. I think Krakauer gets ethics and credibilty points for confessing having been a potential contributing fator to deaths.

4 of the folks in Krakauer's group died. The two survivors included Krakauer.

Boukreev was not a guide for Krakauer's group. Does Krakauer have any criticism for his OWN guides that did not save anyone?

More gobbledygook from Krakauer:

Jon Krakauer criticised the use of bottled oxygen. Krakauer wrote that the use of bottled oxygen allowed otherwise unqualified climbers to attempt to summit, leading to dangerous situations and more deaths. He proposed banning bottled oxygen except for emergency cases, arguing that this would both decrease the growing pollution on Everest—many bottles have accumulated on its slopes—and keep marginally qualified climbers off the mountain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Everest_Disaster

Krakauer seems to be an expert when it comes to use of oxygen.

[Archaea]

And this is the problem with amateurs. We try something the experienced experts do, most often with their help, and then we believe we're experts, knowledgeable enough to be "experts" or to express opinions. I do it in cycling or triathlons, when in reality, I'm just an ignorant neophyte and in mountaineering I'm below that.

But from meeting with those who know stuff, they find Krackhead to be unbearable.

He is inconsistent and for Seattle to criticize B, however one spells his name, shows B has never been in a situation where one did all one could. It makes it sound as if Seattle has never been past the point of exhaustion. I cannot claim to have done what they have done, but I have been past the point of exhaustion in exercise, so I fault K for critiquing B in that situation. It is beyond amazing he would do that, as an amateur.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And this is the problem with amateurs. We try something the experienced experts do, most often with their help, and then we believe we're experts, knowledgeable enough to be "experts" or to express opinions. I do it in cycling or triathlons, when in reality, I'm just an ignorant neophyte and in mountaineering I'm below that.

But from meeting with those who know stuff, they find Krackhead to be unbearable.

He is inconsistent and for Seattle to criticize B, however one spells his name, shows B has never been in a situation where one did all one could. It makes it sound as if Seattle has never been past the point of exhaustion. I cannot claim to have done what they have done, but I have been past the point of exhaustion in exercise, so I fault K for critiquing B in that situation. It is beyond amazing he would do that, as an amateur.

Krakauer is an experienced climber and was at the time of the Everest disaster.

[MikeWaters]

There is a big difference between saying "I wonder if Boukreev had..." and saying "People died because of Boukreev."

Then chutzpauh and arrogance in the latter is beyond my comprehension. Krakauer thinks he is God. He can assign heaven and hell to whomever he wants.

I think I agree with the theory that Krakauer could not for a moment stand the idea that someone was a hero, that someone deserved glory. He may not have appreciated this consciously, but I believe this was the case. The idea of interviewing B. and writing about his rescue must have galled K. He needed to tear this man down.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Krakauer is an experienced climber and was at the time of the Everest disaster.

Compared to us, yes. Compared to B, not even in the same universe.