Everest : Mountain Without Mercy by Broughton Coburn, Tim Cahill, 4 stars

[Jen]

I have settled on 4 stars for this book because the photography is beautiful, the writing is very good and the background information on the Himalaya, history of Everest and Sherpa history and culture provides something other books do not.

I couldn’t give 5 stars because I do not have Alzheimer’s yet and was disappointed with obvious and implied contradictions in the telling of the 1996 disaster.

The first contradiction is the same one that cropped up between “The Climb” and “Into Thin Air” the debate over bottled oxygen. In this particular book there are multiple contradictory statements. They again berate Anatoli Boukreev for not using bottled oxygen when guiding. On page 154 Ed Viesturs states “When I’m guiding, however I always use oxygen. You’re there for the clients, and oxygen does enable you to function better, both physically and mentally.” He also states on the same page “Once climbers are on oxygen, they become stronger. It’s a bit of a crutch. Without it, I don’t have a mechanical apparatus that can fail on me and thereby endanger me.” This second statement was exactly Boukreev’s argument for climbing without oxygen so he was always in control and not reliant on mechanical apparatus. On page 226 the book also states that “Araceli became lethargic and eventually sat down, unaware that her oxygen had run out”. Again exactly supporting Boukreev’s choice to never put himself in that position. Ed justifies his choice to climb without oxygen and because he was not guiding, but he was there to do a job. He is praised on page 229 “Ed did a great job of breaking trail, and it’s amazing that he did it without oxygen”. Did Boukreev get praise for the same thing and fixing ropes without oxygen? No! In fact they totally neglect to mention that Boukreev did in fact set out with a canister of oxygen in case he needed it to do his job, but because the fixed ropes were not in place Boukreev and Biedleman both helped the Sherpas fix ropes meaning that, due to the extra time and exertion, Biedleman was running low on oxygen and Boukreev gave the other guide his canister. On page 166 they state that “Groom, Biedleman, and the others barely made it to their tents” after being on the South Col with the group of lost climbers. If Biedleman had not had the extra oxygen he may not have made it back to alert anyone to the plight of the group on the South Col. He did not have the strength to help the group himself as his extra oxygen had also run out. Also on page 166 they state “Boukreev, who had returned from climbing to the summit without oxygen, was exhausted, but he went out for the stranded climbers. Unable to find them, he returned for better instructions from Biedleman and Groom. On the next trip he found three clients…”. He saved 3 people by being back in time to do so and enabling Biedleman to be able to alert him. Then on page 173 they state that “No one had been strong enough to assist anyone else”…..really what did you say just 7 pages ago? 2 pages later on page 175 they state “Anatoli Boukreev began to gather oxygen bottles, aware that he was the only one with the strength to make another try at rescuing Fischer”. How does the fact he had been to the summit, been out twice and rescued 3 people and still had the strength to attempt another rescue support the claim that he did the wrong thing? Others were heroic for sure but some hadn’t even been to the summit, and most had been on oxygen, and yet none had the strength to help Boukreev. Perhaps it is time to admit he knew his body and limitations better than other people do?

The next contradiction is the claim Boukreev came down ahead of most of his clients. As I’ve said above he stated, when someone bothered to ask him and not make assumptions, that this was a safety plan agreed with Fischer so that he would be in camp IV to assist anyone who got into trouble on the return……and who went and retrieved lost climbers off the South Col as intended? They also complained he left the summit without waiting for the others (page 196). How was he to know if they would make it or not? Why should he wait in the freezing winds when on page 225 Viesturs also left ahead of everyone else when they had a job to do?

The final slap in the face is the statement on page 193 that “the only true rescue was made by the Sherpas who retrieved Makalu Gau”. So going out and retrieving 3 people from the South Col who would otherwise have died in the storm does not count? Going to the same spot on the Southeast Ridge to try to save Fischer doesn’t count because he was already dead?

Then there is the contradiction between page 138 and page 210. On page 138 they claim that the fault line on Everest must be above the yellow band due to geological evidence. On page 210 they claim that the Chomolungma detachment (Yellow Band) is the world’s highest fault.

It is a good read, but the contradictions mean that anyone with a memory span greater than that of a gnat will get frustrated. Yes, I may be overly defensive of Boukreev but why should credit be due to 1 person for doing something amazing and not another who did the same thing or more?

[Joanne]

I have read both the books you first mention, but not this one. I doubt I will. I think it might drive me mad. With The Climb” and “Into Thin Air” I was looking for 2 opinions on what really happened and was satisfied afterward.

Does the author of this book mention the inexperience of some of the clients? That was one bit of information that struck me. Money should play no part on accepting someone to climb, we are not talking a stroll in the park here!

I am currently reading The World Beneath Their Feet: Mountaineering, Madness, and the Deadly Race to Summit the Himalayas and thinking I will put in down until the new tag. It tells the story of the early climbers from 1932-1958, and not only on Everest. I think you would like it if you enjoyed these three.

[Jen]

Joanne wrote: "I have read both the books you first mention, but not this one. I doubt I will. I think it might drive me mad. With The Climb” and “Into Thin Air” I was looking for 2 opinions on what really happen..."

Thanks for the suggestion I have added it to my TBR.

I wanted to read this one because I was hoping that someone who was not on the summit that day might provide a more balanced perspective. But since the main contributors didn't even go to Camp IV everything is hearsay from the people they knew best (ie not Boukreev since he was reserved and not a native English speaker) it was worse than "Into Thin Air". At least Krakauer was there and wasn't boasting about his team members climbing without oxygen while slating Boukreev, he was anti anyone not using oxygen, and he was a client not a professional climber.

I think Beck Weathers was probably the least judgemental and attributed least blame even though he was the only survivor who had any reason to be upset with anyone (The miscommunication between him and Hall which meant he waited when he could have descended earlier, not being seen and being left on the South Col when Boukreev rescued the others, being falsely declared dead by the doctor and left again and being left in a tent mostly alone after getting himself to camp). His book Left for Dead: My Journey Home from Everest is worth a read.

[Joanne]

Thanks for the tip on Weathers book, that one I think I
might add.