Krakauer

[SeattleUte]

I regard "Into Thin Air" as a contemporary classic. It brings to my mind "Moby-Dick," the story of the Titanic, "The Old Man and the Sea" and similar tales of man pitted against nature and all we have understood her to stand for, and nature finally rising up and striking a fatal blow just when man, in his hubris, thinks he's finally tamed her. Krakauer's specialty is describing nature, and he does it well in this book. His character sketches dramatize the tragedy as well as any novel could. One of my favorite is of the Texas surgeon who is given up for dead, gets up and wanders off in the squal, and miraculously reapears in camp like an abominable snowman, and survives (albeit missing a few digits and facial extremities). I think he tastefully and appropriately deals with his own role in the tragedy, a tall order for any writer.

So I was particularly chagrined at how poorly conceived and executed was "Under the Banner of Heaven." It contained nothing original, shamelessly digressed to ensure a book length work, didn't improve on the presentation of the old material, and its central thesis was a stretch. Some Mormons must really have been unkind to him when he was a kid.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

So I was particularly chagrined at how poorly conceived and executed was "Under the Banner of Heaven." It contained nothing original, shamelessly digressed to ensure a book length work, didn't improve on the presentation of the old material, and its central thesis was a stretch. Some Mormons must really have been unkind to him when he was a kid.

I enjoyed it simply because I wasn't very familiar with the Lafferty's before I read the book. He brought in a lot of extraneous material that detracted from the telling of that story. I suppose if Truman Capote had written the book, it would have been much better.

[Archaea]

Into Thin Air was an enjoyable read, but avid mountaineers have complained about the accuracy of it. So I wonder where I'm being misled.

Under the Banner of Heaven really was a difficult read because it digressed and just rehashed other people's works without much insight. It really was a poor work.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I enjoyed it simply because I wasn't very familiar with the Lafferty's before I read the book. He brought in a lot of extraneous material that detracted from the telling of that story. I suppose if Truman Capote had written the book, it would have been much better.

Lafferty, like Hoffman, is a very strange guy, and fascinating in an appalling sort of way, much like watching rats going about their business. He certainly is a product of his background, as is Hoffman, freaks though they may be.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I regard "Into Thin Air" as a contemporary classic... I think he tastefully and appropriately deals with his own role in the tragedy, a tall order for any writer...

Unfortunately, Krakauer is mostly full of crap. All of his books "Into the Wild," "Under The Banner of Heaven," have been entertaining but do not hold up to any sort of challenge when brought before those who have any real knowledge of the situation.

"Into Thin Air" should be regarded as a novel based loosely on actual events.

Krakauer was stumbling down a mountain so stupid from lack of oxygen that he couldn't even remember who he was standing next to and who he watched walk off a cliff.

Many parts of the story are true but they are told from a VERY dramatized and biased point of view. Krakauer wanted to sell books not tell the story.

Fortunately for Krakauer, most of the people who actually knew what was going on (the ones he blames for most of the problems) are now dead. Anatoli Burkiev (sp?) did manage to get a book out before he died on Anapurna II a year later. His side of the story is much different.

At the time of the tragedy on Everest I was fairly involved in the climbing world. The season after there was a horrible backlash toward Krakauer. The great majority of the climbing community looked at the decisions made by the guides and felt that they made the right calls under the circumstances.

Krakauer was a tourist being dragged up the mountain like all the rest but because of his one or two "noteworthy" mountaineering experiences, he tried to put himself on the level of the guides. His observations are those of a self absorbed, chest thumping, ego-maniac.

After reading the complaints about the innacuracy of "Into The Wild" and "Into Thin Air" I was not at all surprised to hear that Krakauer missed the mark with his latest book...

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

Unfortunately, Krakauer is mostly full of crap. All of his books "Into the Wild," "Under The Banner of Heaven," have been entertaining but do not hold up to any sort of challenge when brought before those who have any real knowledge of the situation.

"Into Thin Air" should be regarded as a novel based loosely on actual events.

Krakauer was stumbling down a mountain so stupid from lack of oxygen that he couldn't even remember who he was standing next to and who he watched walk off a cliff.

Many parts of the story are true but they are told from a VERY dramatized and biased point of view. Krakauer wanted to sell books not tell the story.

Fortunately for Krakauer, most of the people who actually knew what was going on (the ones he blames for most of the problems) are now dead. Anatoli Burkiev (sp?) did manage to get a book out before he died on Anapurna II a year later. His side of the story is much different.

At the time of the tragedy on Everest I was fairly involved in the climbing world. The season after there was a horrible backlash toward Krakauer. The great majority of the climbing community looked at the decisions made by the guides and felt that they made the right calls under the circumstances.

Krakauer was a tourist being dragged up the mountain like all the rest but because of his one or two "noteworthy" mountaineering experiences, he tried to put himself on the level of the guides. His observations are those of a self absorbed, chest thumping, ego-maniac.

After reading the complaints about the innacuracy of "Into The Wild" and "Into Thin Air" I was not at all surprised to hear that Krakauer missed the mark with his latest book...

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.

[Archaea]

[quote="SeattleUte"][quote="DirtyHippieUTE"]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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 fear you are correct, but members of the climbing community with which I am loosely familiar, universally condemn Krakauer. I too was captivated by the book, but the critiques of my friends caused to look at it more closely.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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)."

[DirtyHippieUTE]

I don't argue that Krakauer is a guifted author. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a liar, but I do feel that he spends way too much time telling stories the way he wants and not enough time checking his facts.

I loved "Into Thin Air" until I met friends and family of the deceased. Krakaauer is entitled to his opinion and he can draw whatever conclusion he wants but he manipulates the "facts" to support his conclusions.

This is fine if you're a lawyer or a politician, but Krakauer claims to be a journalist. That's my main (probably only) problem with him... He has become a novelist but still claims the integrity of a journalist.

I liken Krakauer's experience on Everest to a man who walks into a dark room with several other people. Suddently there is gunfire, people scatter, the lights come on and there are some people dead, some people holding guns and some standing by the doors. The man may draw some conclusions and may be correct, but for the man to say "This is how it happened" isn't exactly truthful.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

I liken Krakauer's experience on Everest to a man who walks into a dark room with several other people. Suddently there is gunfire, people scatter, the lights come on and there are some people dead, some people holding guns and some standing by the doors. The man may draw some conclusions and may be correct, but for the man to say "This is how it happened" isn't exactly truthful.

dirty, krakauer at the time of his ascension to the top of everest was an absolutely great climber. although he lacked the high elevation climbing experience that boukreev, and others had, his opinions, feelings on the tragedy that happened are quite valid. i loved the climb, and think it brings up many valid points and in actuality we will never know what truly happened up there....

as far as the climbing community being outraged, which community are you talking about? i have had personal face to face conversations with, doug scott, chris bonington, simon yates, among others who are actually quite neutral about what happened...

did jon mess up some of the facts? yes. does he have his own opinion? yes. does he make the valid point that inexperienced people have no business climbing high altitude mountains? he makes a solid argument. if you look at 'into thin air' as a knock on guided tours one must appreciate the book for not only a super well written piece of mountaineering literature, but a commentary on the changes that have taken place in high altitude climbing over the past 20 years....